| OCR Text |
Show by Lois Collins Chronicle staff The United States has completed negotiations for the release of the52 American hostages held in Iran, according to a State Department spokesman and the Pars news agency. The holdup in the release of official details is a delay in paperwork, the unidentified spokesman for the State Department said The details of the agreement were being translated into French. English and Parsi and sent to Algiers where Deputy Secretary of State Warren Christopher will initial them before they are sent to Iran for initialing by officials there. The arrangements were expected to be finalized early Monday mornin- g- Although declining to elaborate on the details of the agreement, the spokesman did say that Iranian assets would be unfrozen at noon Monday and the Iranians would also receive $2.5 billion $1 billion in gold and the remainder in cashwhich has been held as security in a London bank. "We are not submitting to blackmail." Vice President Walter Mondale said. "No American money is being used to meet Iranian demands. We froze Iranian assets in the United Slates until an agreement could be reached. That time is now here." Earlier Sunday a group was flown to West The Germany. group, comprised of medical experts and State Department personnel, was appointed early in the er crisis to "stand by" to examine the hostages and debrief them once they reached neutral ground. President Carter returned to the White House Sunday "to pray for guidance and a speedy end" to the crisis. It is not yet known whether he will fly to West Germany to meet the hostages when they are released. The hostages are expected to fly first to Algiers before proceeding to Wiesbaden. West Germany. "Planes are ready to go now. although we expect it the release sometime Monday afternoon or night." Christopher said. Families of the hostages, who have been in captivity sinte November i, 1979. are reportedly ' happy, hopeful, and very, very excited." daily utahl CHRQW1CLE MONDAY. JANUARY 19. 1981 THZ UNfYIHtlTY OF UTAH "vS VOL 90 NO. 81 Drmctiann in mttnnr.ntt?.ntmouirm!rrng i7 by John Osburn Chronicle staff Transplanting the United States Film and Video from Salt Lake City to Park City, a decision which for a time placed me among the grumblers ("Why do we have to drive all the way up there"), was actually what made the festival such a huge success this year. For it became truly a festival. In Salt Lake City, the festivalgoer would drop in as if to any other movie, go for dinner afterwards and go home. In Park City, that same festivalgoer might take in two or three films in a day, mill about with all the others ELboira ttaDEss atooati ffSDmnis msSi OTfia service for coffee. The presence ol the microphone brings out his affably deep broadcasting voice. 'There are two other correct order. Any real commercial potential for independent films? Some. But Ebert isn't sure the filmmakers themselves are looking for anything big. Sneak Previews again. The most interesting thing about the program? "You have two movie critics talking to each other " Room service interrupts with the correct order. The waiter isn't a PBS fan. "Are you involved with the film festival?" he asks. He takes off, leaving us without cream and sugar. Siskel and he are competitors off the screen, Ebert functions I think we can perform, and one is to draw a little more serious critical attention to films that deserve such discussion, such as Apocalypse Now, which we disagreed about and fought about on three different shows. Also, I think we can provide a showcase for movies that would really benefit from having attention drawn to them, movies like The Great Santini, Resurrection, The Stunt Man, Best Boy." failure." What sort of influence does a critic have? "The blockbuster movies are immune to criticism. . . . The success of Star Wars, Jaws or The Godfather is apart from whatever the critics write. The critics can help to draw attention to films that might be overlooked and they can help build careers." The success of MmASH and Jack Nicholson, for example. Ebert reads lots of other critics. "It doesn't make a critic good that I agree with him and bad that I disagree with him. What is important is the quality of the observation and the quality of the prose how well they see and how well they write and how much they're really there." Ebert is deeply concerned about the influence of television on movies. "If you can package something with a director and stars and something that looks attractive, you can sell it to cable television and to videodisc. . . It's possible for a movie to be into profit before it's made. That eliminates the element of risk but it assures the movies of being quite boring. trapped in the mountains, listen to the filmmakers talk, the critics critique and, perhaps, stay the night and do it again the next day. There was a real and continuing sense of interchange this past week, a group involvement in the appreciation of an exciting art form. One was able to actually believe that independent film (produced outside of the major studios) was becoming a significant force. The discussions, the hobnobbing, the healthy crowds converged to create a cautious but hopeful aura of anticipation. I talked about this burgeoning movement-an- d more with some of the festival's special guests: one critic and two filmmakers, all of whom, I think, ultimately shared in my optimism over the independent movement. Roger Ebert, who as film critic for the has written the most Chicago I have seen film criticism intelligent a in daily newspaper, has become a published household face through the ubiquitous television screen. With Gene Siskel, his on PBS's Sneak Previews, he is one of the nation's two most popularly recognized and listened to film critics. For the weekly the two spar and tangle, space of a half-houthe current movies, over concur and agree Gene with his glib intimations of studio conspiracies, Roger with his jocular critical wit (Ebert, overheard before film seminar: "Being jocular goes with being rotund!"). They snow clips, vote YES or NO on the week's movies, and on comes Spot the Wonder Dog to single out the "Dogs of the Week," a final gesture so judgemental that I should be up in arms over d it were it not performed with such such aplomb and directed against manifestly egregious targets. The show is so relaxed and entertaining that some of us have entertained a sneaking uneasiness over its slickness: Isn't this format too brief and glib to really be fair to a picture? Shouldn't one be just a little wary of television's power to mold opinion? All doubts dispelled now. Or at least made inconsequential. The Ebert half of the show, at least, is in very good hands. He is, for one thing, fully aware of the show's potential shortcomings. "Sneak Previews is produced by public television in Chicago," he explains. "They bill it as a consumer guide toI the movies. I don't know if Gene Siskel and would describe it with such a limiting term. "But, that's certainly the bottom line," he adds. We are sitting in his motel room, a tape Sun-Tim- es co-ho- st "The other insidious thing that's I r, ly good-humore- recorder propped precariously on the called room cushions of a couch. He has four stars.' They can remember that. When got to television, the producer said, 'We're going to have you vote YES or NO on these movies' and we both were up in arms. That's so simplistic. Why can't we both give stars? By this point stars seemed subtle to us." And, as Ebert points out. "When you get right down to it, a critic really is voting YES or NO, with reservations. . . . We try to give our reasons." The device is very tricky, nonetheless, he notes. There are lots of reasons to go to a movie. "As a moviegoer, I would go and see the new Robert Altman we i "V was a major figure at the United States Roger Ebert, film critic for the "Chicago Film and Video Festival in Park City last week. Ebert is known for the popular PBS series, "Sneak Previews." which he with Gene Siskel. Sun-Times- co-hos- ," ts How about the independent movement? I wonder aloud. Best Boy was independent, he reminds me, and they'll be taping a special program on the independent feature film Jan. 29. He whips out his appointment book to confirm the taping. The show will mention the Utah festival and should air locally by Feb. 1. Any trends in independent film? "No. You never do in independent film. An independent filmmaker does not make a film because another film just like it was a success last year. They're making heir movies because they want to make this movie." He goes on about the independent movement, about the growing cooperation between these "anarchic" individuals and the genuine value of a festival devoted to them. Room service shows up with two club sodas but no coffee. The fellow is sent jovially off for the goes on. "That sense of competition and yet being able to talk to each other is interesting, and when we talk to each other on the show it is not scripted." I start voicing my reservations. Isn't the YESNO stuff at the end a little too pat? "Any kind of scale like that is frustrating. When I I found out went to work for the Sun-Timthe paper gave stars: Four stars is the best you can get; three stars means good; one star means the movie is terrible. I thought that was very limiting, but the paper feels it is a useful shorthand for the reader. 'Ebert gave it es happening is that people are blurring the distinction in their own minds between watching television and watching a movie. To watch a movie, the picture has to be bigger than you are. It has to be in a large dark room. You have to have other people there. The communal experience is important and the sound has to be good and so forth. A movie, ideally, can overwhelm your senses and give you total escapist experience. Television is a medium that's smaller than you and you can envelope it. . . People will say things like 'Well, I've got my new video recorder and I've got Gone With the Wind at home.' They do not have Gone With the Wind at home; they have television film of Gone With the Wind at home. If you're going to see a movie, you've got to see a movie. If you want to watch television, just know that that's what you're doing." Isn't there also an insidious effect of widespread television criticism, Time magazine reviews, and so on? Are people going into films purely anymore, or is there too much critical chatter in the backs of their heads? continued on pagt two Non-Prof- it Org. U.S. Postage Paid Ptrmlt No. 1529 Salt Lakt City, Utah |
