Bit behind the times -Peter Pan 2003 Version.

So I watched a film from all the way back in 2003 -Peter Pan, the latest one.

I have to say, I realize I’m not exactly the film’s target audience but I was bored and had to watch something.
The story as a whole seems to be fairly faithful -as much as you’d expect it to be –to the actual story. It, at times, holds visual similarities to the Disney cartoon version –replicating certain shots in a few places. I refer to the scene in which Pan imitates Hook’s own voice.
The film, however, is full of rather noticeable and distracting faults –at least to an adult viewer. The first thing that comes to mind is the strange cartoon-like appearance of the exterior scenes, In Victorian city and Never Never Land. This has obviously been a conscious decision by the film makers to give the film its own style. Yet, I can’t help but feeling it just looks rather tacky.
On the subject of style , I was most disappointed when Pan takes the children into a ridiculously over-cartooned/graphic space to get to the second star to the right. Now we all know that stars are out in space, but when we think of “the second star to the right and straight on till morning” I don’t believe many of us picture Peter Pan, Wendy and the Boys actually flying in outer space to get there. Yet, that’s what they do in this film –and a very warped and strange version of space they travel in too. This I was not a fan of, simpler is better in my opinion.
The character of Peter Pan also happens to be the only one with an American accent in the entire film, despite claiming to have been originally from Victorian England in the film. Got to make Pan American no matter what I guess.
Having said this, I’m not against an American Peter Pan, after all, He was American in ‘Hook’ and I consider that film to be top quality entertainment -for children and Adults. In the case of ‘Hook’, however, the filmmakers have managed to explain his accent in a completely reasonable explanation. In this new version of Peter Pan….He is just American and that’s that -Unexplained.
Dialogue as a whole is also rather poor, vague and just not very good. It seems to try too hard to sound poetic and lyrical and so sometimes winds up leaving a rather vague and uncertain expression of what the character are actually wanting, asking etc. Just keep it simple stupid! A perfect example of this is when Wendy questions Peter about how he feels about love. Pan ultimately falls out with Wendy and flies off in a mood with her. But the dialogue in the scene is so disjointed, strange and ‘lyrical’ that I found myself sitting unsure as to why exactly Pan had strangely and suddenly flown away, angry at Wendy. I think they should have revaluated how they wrote their dialogue.
The film opens and gets into it pretty quickly. There is not much setting up of Pan’s character or Wendy’s, very little on her brothers but quite a bit on their father and the Dog ‘Nanny’. Perhaps they assumed that everyone is already familiar with the character of Peter Pan, but they should still set him up/introduce him in a fitting way. All the characters in the film, I found extremely hard to get involved with. I just didn’t seem to care what happened to them in the story –which is a shame, considering the quality and reputation of the original story.

Yet another thing I took issue with in this version of Peter Pan was the believability of it. It may seem like a strange thing to be concerned about in a children’s’ film but it all add to the quality of the picture. For instance, there occurs the moment when Wendy meets Peter for the first time in her room. She appears to think nothing of a flying stranger in her bedroom, and simply accepts it after a few seconds. Then there’s the scene in which Hook is ‘eaten’ by the giant crock,…..and appears well and healthy a few scenes later. A completely baffling and unexplained moment is one in which every single person in the film begins to proclaim that they “ do believe in fairies!” , presumably to save Tinkerbell. But why the characters back in the Victorian world begin to chant and proclaim this unexplained statement is a complete mystery to me. Perhaps it was intended to be a motivational moment.

The only good points I found in the film were at best minimal and trivial in the grand scheme of the movie. The image of the Pirate ship stuck in an Ice sheet was an extremely fascinating visual –although, one that does not survive very long. The performances of Jason Isaacs as Hook and Richard Briers as Smee are the most entertaining aspect of the entire feature. Yet, even this is in reality just good actors doing what they can with a bad script.

If I look at the film as a whole, I do not believe that this film flows well at all. You don’t get a good sense of much narrative clarity at all.
Just a children’s film maybe –but it was all I had in the house to watch and it should’ve delivered at least an average level of quality entertainment. Perhaps just watching Pirates and lost boys prancing about for a few hours is enough to keep the children target audience entertained –but surely not their parents. And in my opinion there are far better children’s’ films that are enjoyable for adults also……For example Steven Spielberg’s ‘Hook’.

P.S. Don’t make Captain James Hook fly!!

The New Michael Bay

The buzz stirred up by the new short film 'Panic attack' has apparently shown what a film maker with talent can do in only a few minutes. Federico Alvarez has been praised for making an outstanding short film.

However, after checking the film out for myself I confess myself somewhat disappointed. I thought it resembled more of a special effects show reel rather than an actual quality short film. In my mind, a good short film is what we have been taught at the academy. 'Panic Attack' showed no character development (indeed no character whatsoever) and I couldn't see any hint of a theme in the so called "story".

Instead, all I saw was a series of CG action shots followed by many, many, many explosions -ended by a super explosion. To me that is not the definition of a good short film, it is the definition of a short Michael Bay film.

Panic Attack shows that Alverez can tell a very simplistic story (with not a lot of depth) but has not shown he can direct actors or show character development. Don't get me wrong, I enjoyed watching things explode for 4 minutes but attention would start to drift in a feature length film.

If one thing is for certain, Federico Alvarez has shown he can show things blow up quite well in 4 minutes. However, I am not entirely swept away with his short film -as an example of story telling.

Rome, Open City

Friday's screening was the post war Italian film 'Rome, Open City'.

I can't say that I loved it but it definitely had some nice points. I think Andy described it best "It's a film to appreciate rather than to enjoy." .

The films we are watching at the moment seem to fall into that category. They seem to sound more entertaining than they actually are. 'The Battle for Algiers' and ' Rome, open city' bring up images of a rather different cinematic experience than they actually deliver. Of course, I certainly appreciated certain aspects of the films. I agree with Andy that the character of the French Para commander was really fascinating, his sense of respect and duty were really quite interesting. However, apart from the odd moment or character popping up in the films I found myself to be immensely un-entertained. Neither Open City or Algiers had enough entertainment value to sustain their run-times. As I recall Richard Attenborough saying "If it's not entertaining, it's not worth making".

Clash of the Titans

It will come as no surprise to most people that I am rather looking forward to the new Clash of the Titans picture. They have recently just released the first teaser trailer for the film and I have a few things I'd like to mention -just a quick blog today.

The trailer, to my surprise, came across very much in the same tone as '300'. It seems as though they have opted for the more 'kick-ass' popcorn approach for the re-make -not that this is necessarily a tragedy. I enjoyed '300' very much and it's a very entertaining film but it's audience appeal was limited by its over testosterone filled style. The choice of contemporary soundtrack I fear will also result in '300' becoming a dated film down the line.

Now I realise it is a bit much to be making criticism of a film based on its first teaser but it just seems to portray a very shallow, action crammed movie. All this being said, I'm still looking forward to the film. And there is nothing particularly wrong with a film that's just an action adventure and nothing more -it's good fun but that's all it is.

"You ARE the First Brigade!!"

Gods and Generals

Having finally received the HMV vouchers for the Drama Works weekend, I decided to use at least one of the cards on myself. So I purchased a couple of DVDs that I had never seen before. Two of the films had, before, taken my interest -but not enough to spend currency on. 'Gods and Generals' and 'Gettysburg', directed by Ronald F. Maxwell are two historical epics based innand around the American Civil War.

Gods and Generals stars Robert Duvall as legendary Confederate leader Robert E. Lee, Stephen Lang and Jeff Daniels. This being set before 'Gettysburg' but made afterwards is in my opinion the stronger and more enjoyable of the two films. It appears to follow mainly the Southern perspective of the war and only occasionally dipping over into the Federals' point of view.

On a historical not, I confess my self rather ignorant of the conflict as a whole and knew only the basics. I remember being surprised when Andy mentioned that the South had more of a romantic reputation -when talking about 'The Searchers'. I always thought the Northerners were more romantic -as I ignorantly thought they were trying to free the slaves.

My point being that these two films (apart from entertaining) also greatly educate their audience.

A note of warning, however, these are very long films.

Although, I believe the prequel to be the better of the two films, it certainly has a less definable story focus. Where as Gettysburg is clearly about the story of that particular battle, 'Generals' covers several and follows s scattering of characters. If I had to identify an overall story I would say it would be predominantly the story of General Thomas 'Stonewall' Jackson -played by Stephen Lang.

Lang's performance throughout the film is the nearest thing to the emotional and personal core of the film. He is who we invest most of our emotion and support in through the film. Having said this, when we flip over to a character of the opposite side we do not see them as the enemy.

With Lang's character championing the side of the Confederacy, it falls to Jeff Daniels to take us through the side of the Union. Although Daniels' character doesn't have nearly as much screen or story time as Lang, he gives a very good an sincere performance that humanises the common soldier.

The battle sequences in Gettysburg, at times, tend to get a bit repetitive. For instance, there is about a three minute sequence of cannons firing -I find myself thinking to myself "I get the point". 'Generals' on the other hand does not over expose the point to the same degree.

To give it its due, the battle sequences are fantastically well done, exhilarating and with a lot of realism -or so it looks.

There occurs a brilliantly emotional moment in which two opposing Irish regiments are pitched against one another, the result is quite moving -helped tremendously by the score. I would hazard a guess that near 80 percent of the film is musically scored.

I really enjoyed Gods and Generals and would recommend it to those interested in the history of the conflict. My main criticism of it is that it does not devote an equal share of the story to all character story lines. As a result the film has a somewhat uneven feel in terms of structure.

A perfect film, it is not, but one that I enjoyed and one that has many enjoyable features.

Mitchell Library visit.

And so we all trooped round for this long anticipated field trip to the Archives. I was fairly looking forward to the visit -although perhaps not the trek to get there.

I knew that we would be seeing some fairly old documents and be given a quick briefing on the Archives. However, it seemed to me slightly removed from our course subject -even with our section on research.

None the less I found myself completely fascinated at the presence of such a wealth of historic documentation. One document in particular I found to be quite mesmerising, that of the Papal correspondence. I'm not entirely sure I remembered exactly but I think it was from 1188 A.D. -the Twelfth century anyway.

On a completely non Film related note, I couldn't help my eyes from drifting back to that specific item. To think of the time and world that that letter was written was crazy. To think that a year prior to the Ink touching that letter's surface Saladin Recaptured Jerusalem from Christian hands -and almost 100 years of the Latin Kingdom of Jerusalem came to an end. Also, the fact that the letter was from the most powerful person in the Christian world -a major world player.

Ok, I may be self indulging in my very 'Un-Filmy' interests, but I was really amazed to see a document from one of my favourite periods of history. Incidentally, just to put the letter into a cinematic frame, it was written a year after Ridley Scott's 'Kingdom of Heaven' is set.

Perhaps I'm being a tad bit obsessive though. The other documents were also extremely fascinating. I particularly found the Luftwaffe reconnaissance picture of the Clyde interesting.

I would say, however, that I enjoyed the trip to the Archives on a far more historical level than that of a research one.

I thought I would put in a short blog on the Friday shoot of Phil's 'Golden Rule'.

Although only involved in the one day of the shoot, I'm glad I had the chance to contribute to the project.

From what I saw around me during the shoot I realised just how professional our class can operate when organised or motivated well -compared with that of first year's performance. Everyone seemed very comfortable in carrying out their own respective jobs.

One thing that the shoot did bring in to my mind was the fact that we don't get many chances to shoot stuff. It can get slightly frustrating at times when we don't get to shoot outside projects to fill in the time between Academy films. But such is life.

All in all, Phil did a very fine job of directing from what I could see and I'm sure the film will work out ok.

Factual Film Making

Taking into consideration that we now have a module on Factual Film Making, I thought I should devote at least one blog to the subject. So far in our classes we have covered such aspects as interviewing techniques and the ethics of film making -and these classes have been fairly interesting and informative on the subject. However, a thought has occurred to me that concerns certain things we have been taught.

Although Andy and Adam have (on occasion) joked that we all admitted to watching documentaries regularly at our interviews and that we probably do not -for myself, I do.

It would not be an exaggeration to say that the only channels I watch on Television are those of a factual nature. On turning on my television (which admittedly is not too often) I go straight for the factual section of channels, simply bypassing the other channels. If there isn't a good documentary on then there isn't anything on.

Yet, as most who know me will be able to guess, the documentaries that I watch are not of the 'Panorama' or 'undercover Reporter' variety but rather the that of the Historical content. Pretty much anything presented by Bettany Hughes is bound to excite me really -and not simply because she is attractive.

I love documentaries such as "In the footsteps of Alexander the Great' (with Michael Wood) or 'Helen of Troy' and 'Athens-the Truth about Democracy' (With Bettany Hughes). Documentaries like this are what really inform the viewer and do so in (what I find as) a very entertaining way.

If I bring the subject back round to our classes with Andy, I have some points that I am unclear of. I have found some difficulty applying some of the things we have been taught to this kind of documentary. For instance, we were taught that the interviewer should effectively know the answer (or have a vague idea) to the question he is asking the interviewee. Otherwise the interviewee may loose respect for the interviewer. But does this apply when interviewing professors and lecturers on Classical studies (or any subject for that matter). Surely we can't expect the person conducting the interview to know the answers to his/her list of questions -that would require him/her to be an authority on the subject him their own right.

So my question if effectively this; when conducting an interview such as this, how do you maintain the control and respect of the interviewee when they will quite probably know more than yourself on the matter?

I would ideally like to hear more in class on such aspects as Historical Factual Film making -even if just touched on.

Editing -Avid

So we had a full day of editing with Gavin on Thursday and we were introduced to new editing software. Our class was centred around the operation of the editing software 'Avid'.

I had heard, previously, that Avid was the superior software in the film industry -used for more high budget productions. That was the rumour anyway. And yet, I found the operation of Avid rather constricting (so far) compared with Final Cut.

Although we have only had one lesson on Avid (and I'm sure it will become more clear as the course rolls on) I still prefer Final Cut. This is mainly because it seems easier to 'tweek' the edit than it is in Avid.

Technical preferences aside, our first editing class went very well -and without too much confusion. I was previously on the fence as to what I should take as a specialism, the choices being between camera and editing. Although I enjoy camera more than editing, I really want to direct and so was considering the editing option instead -because editing concerns more story elements. However, I am now fairly certain that I would in fact make a terrible editor and wouldn't enjoy it much either. Therefor I think I'll be opting for Camera.

Over the summer I watched a large number of DVDs that I had vowed to blog about once the term started again. One of these was 'The Mission'.

I've recently become aware that the times in which I best enjoy watching films is not necessarily at the cinema with new releases. My real excitement and enjoyment comes from discovering (or rediscovering) films that I have either already seen in the past or old films that I never knew existed.

Certainly, 'The Mission' ranks as one of the high points in my library of rediscovery. Directed by Roland Joffe it stars Robert De Niro, Jeremy Irons and Liam Neeson in a tale of redemption.

It is set in 18th century South America and follows the story of De Niro's character Rodrigo Mendoza as he tries to repent for committing a terrible crime. Mendoza is taken to a Jesuit mission by Father Gabriel (Irons). As well as having a powerful emotional and personal story at it's heart the film's characters are also drawn into circumstances of a much more epic and grand nature -the survival of the Jesuit order in the Spanish territory of South America.

The first time I ever saw the Mission was when my parents strongly recommended that I watch it if I was serious about studying film. Reluctantly I did so, and I wasn't too impressed at the time -this was perhaps three years ago. I couldn't see its merit at all as I was in a very narrow minded stage at that time -if there wasn't a good battle or 'Michael Bay style' fight I usually wasn't interested (Very Immature I know).

So after condemning the film to the forgettable section of my memory I never watched it again. That is, until, last summer. I came across the old, dusty and neglected DVD and thought to myself "It's been a while, I'm pretty bored, I can give it another chance"

And that was that, I was quite simply blown away by the film. I had the complete polar opposite reaction to that my first viewing. I was amazed at how brilliant and touching the story was. The score fitted each scene's emotion perfectly -which just raised the effect of the excellent performances of De Niro and Irons. I 'm aware that it is widely believed by many that The Godfather part II is One of De Niro's best performances -along with Taxi Driver. However, I would put it to you that The Mission ranks as high as any other of De Niro's films for performance. One scene that really made me tear up is when De Niro's character finally reaches the Mission after a very brutal hike. I won't go in to detail but the performances and scene in general really is something special.

The cinematographers amongst us would surely appreciate the beauty and composition of the shots and camera movements. I Generally believe that Ridley Scott is the best at painting a beautiful frame and The Mission is definitely up on a Ridley standard for me.

But as Andy and Adam are always pointing out, a pretty film doesn't equal a good film. It is the emotional impact of the story that really struck me speechless when the credits rolled up before me. The story, the performance, the direction, the cinematography, the Score all made The Mission a very emotional and rewarding film experience for me -all be it the second time round.

The conversation

What can I say about 'the conversation? The sound design was I admit worth a mention and I'm sure it would have been something really special when first released. Yet, when I have grown up in an age where sound design is used to great effect in pretty much all films it did not make the film any more bearable.

I found the entire film depressingly slow and quite frankly never-ending. The story was interesting but unfortunately not interesting enough to warrant the actual run time of the film. I cannot stress enough how slow and sluggish the film was. Scenes and shot that just seemed to go on without much interesting happening. It just made me lose interest in the story completely. And when the twist was finally revealed at the end I didn't care for it much.

Perhaps I'm just too much of an 'MTV generation' kind of guy to appreciate it's pace -but I couldn't wait for it to end.

The sound design was really good. However, I just didn't care for it that much. Yes, I'm sure it was fantastic for it's time. But just as good CG doesn't make a good film today -good sound design doesn't make a good film for back then.

All in all, not my cup of tea.

SOUND

Well, it was our first full day of sound today and I'm not afraid to say that I was not looking forward to it at all. I'm not particularly fond of sound (as a technical responsibility) and I generally shudder at the thought of an entire day of sound. I also had the problem that I had never fully grasped how to correctly operate the sound equipment -and what I did know I had largely forgotten over the summer.

With this in mind I wasn't looking forward to it. However, I was happy to find that our new visiting Sound lecturer was to take us back to the very basic principles of Sound. After the first two and a half hours of the lecture I was surprised to find that I was not only reminded of that information that I had forgotten but had learnt some new aspects. Certain things that I was unsure of last year were now a lot clearer -such as the connections and settings of the mixer.

I of course don't wish to suggest that Simon's teaching methods were substandard to Cammy's but I did seem to learn more today than most of the classes last year.

JOHN ADAMS

At the start of the summer holidays I was flicking through Virgin 'T.V on demand' wondering if I would ever come across anything worthwhile watching. Eventually I stumbled across the HBO series 'John Adams'. At first glance I didn't think much of it (it did sound rather dull). Until, that is, I remembered seeing an advert for it on Television a while back. I recalled thinking "that looks damn good! I must watch that!" -which of course I never did. So there was my chance.

For those of you who aren't familiar with the show, it follows the life of U.S founding father John Adams throughout the American war of Independence and beyond. It was a HBO/Playtone production so Naturally I expected pretty good quality television.

As a history fanatic there are several periods I am particularly interested in, Ancient Greece, The 2nd crusade and the golden ages of His Majesty's British Empire. The latter centred specifically around the 1770s -when America was but a British colony (Ah the good old days.). As this programme was obviously set in this time period I automatically had to watch it.

However, although I expected a high level of drama and production value from HBO, it was after all an American tale, told by americans. And so I expected it to be extremely 'gun-ho' 'god bless america!' sort of vibe -along the same lines as 'The Patriot'.

Yet, to my surprise, the first episode made absolutely clear that this treated the subject matter in a totally different way than the Patriot. The first thing that struck me as pretty brave on the part of the show makers was the fact that no one (not one character) in the entire show had any hint of a modern American accent. This I thought was rather unusual, seeing as the patriot took the view that Americans always had their accent and we had ours. Instead, what I found was that the Colonial accent was a rather strange variant of the English accent -the English too being rather unusual. It seemed they had gone out of their way to get as realistic a fell as they could get to history.

Apart from being a refreshing surprise, the accent similarities helped set up the world of the show. For example, many of the very early 'Revolutionaries' did not want independence at all, the in fact wished to be taxed fairly and have their rights as "natural born Englishmen" restored. This would have been a bit harder to sell if they were demanding these things in a broad american accent. I don't know, maybe it's just me, but these small additions just help me believe the world more -unlike The Patriot (Which I do still like).

Anyway, off the historical babbling and back to the show. The show's principle character (John Adams) is played to perfection by Paul Giamatti and features many a big name in the cast, including Tom Hollander and Tom Wilkinson. The show ropes you into the world with a fantastically effective but simple title sequence. If you don't watch the show I highly recommend that you watch the title sequence on youtube. It is fantastically simple, being just a sequence of shots of flags flying, and yet, with the brilliantly placed music it sets you up for the fell and tone of not only the show but the time in which it s set. All that with some flags and a bit of music -impressive.

Paul Giamatti is absolutely perfect for the role of John Adams and after a while even begins to look like him. The show is centred around his experience in the war and his life after. Because John Adams was lawyer turned congressman there are naturally not any sweeping battle scenes. Instead you're drawn into the political, human and personal side of the war and Adams' struggle for independence. Although there is no epic battle scene they certainly do not shy away from showing wide establishing CGI shots when necessary.

There is a huge amount of passion and drive that comes out of Giamatti's performance -especially when giving speeches (Which there are quite a few of).

I also like how the show is all about the somewhat 'forgotten' founding father of America. A point which the show repeatedly weaves throughout the series.

But another very important point the show conveys is that the American revolution was not the fairy tale legend that it seems to have become. It shows that it wasn't just an oppressed people rising up and defeating an evil empire. It shows that it was a harsh, ugly and brutal affair -with extremists on both sides.

The series as a whole gives the audience a really intriguing, dramatic and entertaining panorama of the life of John Adams. The show is by far the best piece of television I have seen. Now, I just need to wait for the dvd price to come down.

METROPOLIS

Metropolis. I was really quite excited when Andy surprised us with 'Metropolis' being our film screening on Friday -not that I don't get excited about Russian cinema. I had heard so much about this film being a 'must-see' classic silent film. In most film-making books I have read there is usually always a mention to 'Metropolis', yet, I never got around to watching it. Needless to say I had high expectations of this highly pumped up German film.

I suspected that it may not be as good as I thought it would be when Andy made a subtle excuse for the acting standard before hand. Instead Andy noted the film's brilliant use of production design. I have to say I was well and truly impressed with the size and scale the film managed to achieve with it's fairly 'primitive' special effects arsenal. The set design and special effect were fantastic for the time it was made (and still very much worth it's praise even today). All in all the design and feel of the film was brilliant.

But as always there is always a 'However'. Production design, sets and cityscapes aside, I felt Metropolis was a bit of a disappointment. I recognise that the missing reels and scenes must take away from the story's rhythm, pace and quality but I couldn't find much enjoyment in the overall story itself. It had its moments I'll admit, the rescuing of the workers children from the flood was particularly thrilling for me, but I found myself hovering above the boredom line for quite a large part of the film. Who knows, perhaps the missing scenes, when inserted, will improve it for me.

The acting standard left much to be desired also. The actor who played the character of Joh Fredersen was (In my opinion) the best actor in the production. His (often subtle) display of emotions such as concern for his son and fear of the workers was a great relief from the extravagant and exaggerated ejaculations of the actor who played his son in the title role. Perhaps I'm being too hard on them though.

The music I thought was very powerful in conveying the emotions, pace and drama of the scenes. I also thought it had a rather modern feel to it. I was not, however, so keen on the slightly awkward take on the French national anthem that appeared towards the end of the picture.

All in all, I believe Metropolis to be a perfectly adequate film (for the sort of film it is) in much the same context as STAR WARS is today. Not exactly a Citizen Kane but an entertaining film none the less.

For myself, however, for all the glitz and glam of Metropolis' sets and design, I would much rather sit down and watch a film like 'Sunrise'.

The EIFF was a great experience, the only problem was that we were only there for three days. I saw a selection of very different and interesting films which I probably would not have seen otherwise. On the whole I have to say I enjoyed most of the films I saw, such as 'Adventureland' and the 'Girlfriend experience'.
I also attended the screening of 'Anti Christ'. This film was undoubtedly the most shocking cinematic experience of my life so far. What can I say...hm. Well, it was definitely different and it did leave me with a somewhat disturbing feeling afterwards. Having said that, however, I was and remain somewhat fascinated by it. It did manage to grip my interest and create a strong unatural and disturbing atmosphere. I was still thinking about it a couple of days after I viewed it, so in some respect I guess it's done its job.
I also went to see a foreign language documentary in black and white. This screening screening was in fact so boring not only Luke nodded off but most of the audience. Some actually walked out before the end. The name escapes me (no surprise there) but it was about the malnutrition crisis in Mexico. A seriouse subject I think we'd all agree, but they way in which it was presented was just torture. No music, no naration and very lengthy, repetative filming. There's only so many times you can be shown the same thing before you stop caring about it.
The Darren Aronofsky interview was really great -I enjoyed this a lot.

Running In Traffic.
I have to be honest and say I could not really follow what was going on plot wise . My initiall reaction for the first day or so was that I really did not like the film. However, on later reflection I decided that it did infact have its moments but that it was just too long. I feel that thye film would have been a lot easier to take in if it hadn't been so lengthy. It did, however, strike some cords with me but It didn't desreve to be as long as it was in my opinion.

All in all, the EIFF was pretty great!

Brokeback Frontier.

Well as it turns out, I’ve accidentally remade ‘Brokeback Mountain’.

The short ‘cowboy’ film I had shot was planned to be more of a technical exercise than an actual structured film. My primary aim was simply to see if I was able to capture some, fairly, nice-looking footage.
The reason for this came after Michael and I had assembled the first cut of Love, Mugs and Stickmen. Although, it had a fairly structured story, characters etc. I was (admittedly) a little disappointed with the actual style of the footage. It just didn’t look as nice as I had wanted. This is not to say that I wasn’t happy with the film –as everyone had done a great job on the project and put in so much of their efforts into the film.
I simply wanted to see if I even could get some nice looking footage. So many student films are small, personal and claustrophobic; it would just be nice to see something that opened itself up a bit. Not that all student films are any less impressive because of this, it often makes them better.

So I assembled a loose form of story in which to base this (plot-less) tech-practice. The story was essentially as follows;
A couple of outlaws in the American West (Frontier) have been on the run from the law for a long time. They are stretched to breaking point and begin to argue about something (which was always meant to be unknown to the viewer). During this argument one of the two shoots and kills the other. We then jump to the not-so-distant-future, where the killer of his friend regrets his actions so much he contemplates suicide.
It was later decided to add a letter from the law enforcers, giving the character more incentive to kill his friend –with promise of a pardon.

Now, for myself, I was extremely pleased with the footage and the way it cut together, and I loved the music score that Graeme composed (it was really great man).
The back focus was off in parts, as was the aperture, but on the whole I was really pleased with the cut film. I had a fantastic time filming it, although at times very difficult as I had nobody to aid me with the camera. This was something that I really kicked myself for; I was constantly thinking “This would be so much simpler if somebody was with me from the course”. My own fault.

Critical reception
I had not actually realised the similarities to Brokeback Mountain until I was on set with the ‘actors’. Then it became pretty much the joke of the day, as you can hardly make a film about two male cowboys up in the mountains together seem anything but a bit Brokeback-like. But it wasn’t enough to ruin it for me.
Andy, on seeing the film, naturally picked up on this ‘Brokeback Mountain Vibe’ and for this reason, amongst others, I don’t believe he liked it. His opinion was that without sound (which we couldn’t record anyway, as we had no mic) it was simply just Brokeback Mountain. This, I think anyone, with a single brain cell, can understand but I have to admit that my confidence was a bit shaken by this.
Granted, I had never intended this to have much of a story (in fact it ended up with more of a plot than intended), however, I felt and still feel that what story (if any) that comes across is decent enough for its purpose.
I had shown the unfinished film to somebody I know, and unfortunately it was received by them with laughter at points. He hadn’t actually seen Brokeback Mountain and so did not get the ‘gay cowboy’ parallel. Yet, the apparent homosexual connotations that seem to come across in the film were literally laughable to him, and the person in question is by no means an immature man. This, apart from depressing me slightly, got me thinking. Even without the Brokeback reference some people can’t actually get past a heterosexual love between men, without thinking it to be homosexual.
There is nothing in this short film that actually confirms that the two characters are gay men, but because they seem care for each other deeply people automatically think they are. I’m not saying that there is anything wrong with homosexuality, far from it, but the characters were never scripted as homosexual just very close male friends.
But the cowboy thing doesn’t really help the situation.
I realize I’ve gone slightly off subject here so I’ll attempt to return to the point.

The film is anyhting but a masterpiece, story-wise or technically, but I am still happy with the way it is shaping up. People may not like it at all, and some may very well detest it (as much as you can detest a 5 minute film) and their perfectly entitled to.
However, I put effort and work into this short film, as did others. It was not necessarily planned or executed with complete ease. But for myself I’m happy with it.

If anyone would like to see it, just ask Graeme or myself.
Alternatively, you can check it out from the library under ‘B’ for Brokeback Mountain.

Showlight

When we were first informed that we would be attending Showlight over the weekend I must admit it took the edge off the excitement for me -not being a big fan of missing out onmy weekly break. However, I was still looking forward to the experience.
Gavin, Paul and myself were stationed on camera for the first two days of the event. On arriving at the BBC I'm not confident that many people at the BBC were aware of the specifics of the Showlight Event -and indeed our involvement in it. However, after we were acquainted with our two camera 'mentors' everything started to fall into place.
I was fairly intimidated, at first, by the look of some of the (more advanced) equipment but on closer inspection it quickly became apparent that the basic operation of the kit was the same to that we had already used. And for the kit that we hadn't encounter at all before, we picked up their operation pretty quickly.
I really enjoyed the event on the Saturday, when the real work kicked in. It was a really useful thing to get to experience a different kind of shooting. In contrast to our usuall single camera short films there was far more pressure and immediacy to the production. That little bit of extra pressure to get framed and focused up before the director cut to your cam was quite a nice change in pace.
Although I still prefer the (slightly) more relaxed pace of single camera film shooting I found that I enjoyed the Studio system a lot more than I thought I would.
I was slightly dissapointed that when I circulated round to 'Vision' that all I could do was sit in a chair and wathc the event unfold -But it was nice to get a rest after camera.

Paradise Now.

I thought it was really quite interesting how the two characters were portrayed as fairly average and normal people. It turned out, for me, as a real surprise when the film revealed them to be, essentially, terrorists.
I think if we had been told who these men were at the very beginning most people would assume that they were ultra extremist monsters. However, the film really showed the human side of how the two main characters thought, felt and justified their beliefs. They were also portrayed as very likable at times.
It was interesting to see an almost role reversal between the two friends. As Said starts out unsure whether or not to go through with his friend is convinced they are doing the right thing. Yet, at the end of the film the two men have completely switched opinions.

I think the film showed a realistic and empathetic portrayal of how some perfectly normal people are lead into terrorism.

Love, Mugs and Stickmen

Love, Mugs and Stickmen...What a sickeningly sweet film.

The ‘Stickman’ team have just finished our first days shooting on the film and all indications are that it’s going great –for now.
First of all, I thought I’d just blog a bit on the actual script itself. I really find it quite hard to believe that we are actually now filming the script; after all I didn’t really expect mine to be chosen for production at all. I’m also incredibly excited that I am allowed to direc- (I mean) author the script I have written.In fact, I might just mention my thoughts on this whole ‘Authoring’ business whilst I’m here.
I know that Adam would like us to avoid using the title ‘director’ during this production and replace it with (the incredibly vague) role of ‘Author’ -but I don’t think I entirely agree with the idea.
Don’t get me wrong, I can surely see that there is a point to this alternate title. It encourages more of a team effort whilst simultaneously keeping any delusions of grandeur, which might occur, at bay.
However, when in a film production like this I think it’s necessary to have someone to co-ordinate and oversee the film in its making, and this job is the ‘director’s’. And to be perfectly honest that is what I believe Gavin and I are thought of as in these shoots –directors. Surely the term ‘author’ implies the same duties but holds just a different spelling. So similar are the two titles of ‘author’ and ‘director’ that Adam himself has slipped in and out of the use of director.
I’m of the opinion that we shouldn’t need to use the title of ‘author’ in place of ‘director’, as it means the same thing. If we have a separate name for director we may as well rename all the roles of Director of Photography, Producer, 1st AD, Camera Operator etc. But we won’t, because that’s just silly.
Anyway, I’ve ranted on about this far longer than I should have, back to the film.

Today’s shoot was pretty fantastic to be honest. I loved every minute of it, surprisingly; I still loved it when the stress factor kicked in. Everyone worked really well together and did each of their job to the best of their abilities. The end result was a day’s worth of pretty good decent footage if you ask me. Sure, there will probably be a good few continuity errors etc. But on the whole, I think our team did a really good job today.

I was really quite nervous at the very start of the day, as I wasn’t sure if I could handle my job as good as I had to. However, within the first hour I realised that, when you have a crew who know their jobs everything becomes a little smoother. Shots that looked good in my head had to be reworked to an extent but we managed to keep to our set-up schedule pretty well, thanks mainly to Phil's hard work.
There was one track shot that I was particularly pleased with, I won’t say which one exactly but; I told you it would work great Phil, I can’t believe you wanted to do it without the track.

For myself at least, I really enjoyed the whole experience of the shoot for the day’s first half...Then came Ray.
It hadn’t quite registered with me when we were told Ray would be checking up on the shoots, and it kind of slipped my mind –until of course he was on his way up. Well it sort of added a little bit of stress to the atmosphere of the shoot, at least on my part. I started checking to see if we had set all the kit up in a safe and proper fashion. It added a bit of extra worry, that Ray would pick us up for having a light that was dangerously rigged or something of that nature. But I think we were ok…I think.
We shot the bulk of the closing scene last thing in the schedule today. I was really happy with the footage we got and I think it will cut together well. Yet, when we were filming the final actor shots, I was watching the monitor and thought to myself; “This is soo damned cheesy, it’s unreal!

Cast-wise I think we were also fairly lucky. All three principle characters performed as desired. I just felt a bit sorry for the two female actresses, who spent most of the shoot sitting in a chair doing nothing. But other than apologising there wasn’t anything we could do to change that. I think we were all fairly happy with our actor cast in the role of ‘Stan’. I, at least, was really happy with the performance he gave. On the whole it was a really good shoot, we kept on schedule, everyone performed well together and we got some really good takes. I’ve not enjoyed myself that much in years (I’m not too sure if that’s sad or not).

Now I just hope we can finish the film tomorrow so we at least have a complete story to cut together. I’m sure we’ll all do fine though.

I recently purchased and watched the Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy and was hit with a sudden realization -on which I felt compelled to blog about.
It had been some time since I had give the Pirates films any thought and so over time I began to regard it as simple Hollywood tosh. And I have now identified that that is exactly what they are.... and it's great!
With the exception of 'the Curse of the Black Pearl', the pirates films are in fact mindless, action driven, sword swinging, theme less 'Movies' in which story and plot are suspiciously dodgy. They seem to hold no underlying message or theme and the story gets so out of control and ridiculous in can seem fairly laughable. And in my opinion that's EXACTLY what makes it fantastic entertainment.
The pirates of the Caribbean films are movies that you can just put on, sit back and enjoy the ride -pure entertainment.
I'll note a comparison to make my point clear. After watching 'Big Things' in production class this week I felt so drained of life and happiness I can't really convey. I won't go into too much but the film was what I would describe as pure NON entertainment.....But I'm sure it had a message or theme somewhere. After the soul crushing experience of watching this film I REALLY felt the need to watch a good entertaining film (to remind me of the quality of films). And my first thought was (you guessed it) Pirates of the Caribbean.
Sure, it may not have the depth of Citizen Kane or the classic artistic direction of Nosferatu, but it's a damn entertaining movie. I enjoy films that make you think of course but sometimes there's nothing better than sitting down and enjoying a kick-ass swashbuckling, epic, hysterical Pirate movie.
I can see it's flaws but I think it's power to entertain outshines them all.

Initially, when I first saw the poster and teaser trailer for Valkyrie, I didn’t think much of it. And to be perfectly honest, it was the fact that Tom Cruise was not only in the principle role but had kept his American accent. I realise this may be quite a prejudice reason to make an assumption on the film’s quality. However, it just seemed a bit odd seeing Cruise in a 1940’s Wehrmarcht uniform speaking in his own accent.

However, I was extremely shocked by my reaction to the film. My main worry about the accent issue was completely swept aside within the first 5 minutes. It opens with Cruise actually speaking German, which then fades seamlessly into English. I found this a really effective way of setting up the world of the film, and the way in which they were choosing to tell the story.

Once the movie started getting into the story I really enjoyed it. I was expecting the usual Hollywood ‘Pish’ –in which they’d turn it into Tom Cruise single handedly bringing down the Nazis. But the film’s realism and portrayal of 1940s Third Reich was scarily well done, I thought. You really feel the possibility of the principle characters being discovered.

The performances from the superb cast made for such an enguaging experience. The point in which the film really proves itself, however, is in the surprisingly emotional climax.

Criticisms I do have of the film are pretty much the obvious ones. Firstly, as the film is based on very famous and well known events, I couldn’t help feeling disappointed slightly at points. If you know your history, which I’m pretty sure most do, then it might strike some as a bit pointless watching the film –knowing the outcome of the plot.

Also, I think there were a few problems concerning characters. For instance, Kenneth Branagh’s character is set up as quite a major player at the front of the film. However, he disappears very quickly and does not reappear until the very end of the film. This I was fairly disappointed by as I thought his performance was great.

All in all, I was extremely surprised by how good a film Valkyrie was –turning out to be a far more intelligent piece of cinema than I believe it looks.

Coronation Street double episode

Most people in the street have heard about Maria's accusations and don't believe her. Carla wants to go to the police about it but Tony is reluctant, for obvious reasons. Carla eventually calls the police about the situation -Tony however is not happy about this and wants it to blow over.
Maria goes to the police station and claims that Tony has killed again -her accusations, however, are dismissed by the CID officer who recieves her. In desperate rsponse to this lack of support from the police, Maria takes matters into her own hands and attempts to run down Tony with her car. She crashes and is taken to hospital, where she fears for the safety of her unborn child.
Meenwhile, Carla is telling the police that Maria intentionally tried to kill Tony and that she's not right in the head. The police take this into consideration and pay Maria a visit hinting at the possibility of charging her with attempted murder.
In other story lines, Ken's dog is saved from drowning by Martha -with whom he continues to flirt with. He also does not correct her when she assumes he is not married.
Ken's son, Peter, has alson been put into a rehabilitation clinic for alcoholics.
Gary and his uncle believe that they have gotten away with their theft of the pipes.

First Hook: Police have been called.
Second Hook: Maria attempts to run down Tony in the street.
Third Hook: Ken's dog is saved by Martha.
Fourth Hook: CID officer hints at possible charges against Maria

The Wrestler

The Wrestler is, for me, one fantastic film. Mickey Rourke's portrayal of an over-the-hill wrestler is superb. Although I must confess had it not been for Rourke's performance and the high quality of the story, I don't think I would have liked it.
The visuall style of the film, I suppose made sense for the kind of story being told, but I did not really like it. It all seems rather plain and white washed -lighting wise. Also, Aronofsky tends to make use of the same shot again and again. I refer ofcourse to the hand held shot that follows a character from behind. Although, knowing Aronofsky, this probably has some deeper conceled meaning and motive behind it.
The story I found kept my attention at all times with really humourous (cleverly done) jokes. I also found the ending a fitting and emotional climax that leaves you thinking on what you've just seen.

Coronation Street episode.

The episdoe opens with Steve's girlfriend heading out to her pub band practise, at the end of this her band leader, JD, attemps to kiss her. Shocked and surprised she pulls away stating that she is very happy with Steve. However, JD questions this by informing her that he only made a move on her at Steve's suggestion. Angered by this she confronts Steve, who initially denies the accusation, and finds out that it is true. An emotional arguement then continues as it is revealed that Steve has been planning to break up with ehr for a long time. However, he denies that there is someone else involved.
Yet at the end of the episode it is revealed to her by Lloyd that he was infact having an affair.

I have just finished watching Pan's Laberinth for the first time an I felt compelled to blog on it. I must confess I find myself asking "what was the point in that?" now that it's finished. For those who don't know, Pan's Laberinth is set in 1944 Franco Spain. The story follows a young girl called Ofelia, who discovers an ancient laberinth where she lives. She meets a Faun who tasks her with several challenges in order to discover who she really is.
The (apparently) much celebrated spanish fantasy film had been strongly recomended to me by several people in the past. Eash recomendation seemed to follow the same line;

"It's fantastic!" "It's something you've never seen before!" "You forget that it's even subtitled!" and ofcourse "The story blew me away!".

Well I can safely say that none of the above can apply to my experience of the film. The way the film is made to appear -by the DVD cover, posters, trailer etc- gives the impression of a quite different film. I was under the impression that it was at least 50% fantasy, where as in actuall fact the amount of screen time taken up by fantasy s outweighed by the realworld elements. Not that this alone makes it a bad film or anything, but it is known now as a fantasy film and the Fantasy element seems to only pop up now and again. As well as this, I couldn't really make much sense of the fantastical plot. The real world parralell plot I understood well enough but the Former I found wasn't explained well enough.
This ultimatetly resulted in me, as an audience member, not really caring about the climax of the story -as I felt I was not provided enough information.
Aside from the (in my opinion) faulty Fantasy story, the technical aspects of the film I found very well achieved. Good lighting, subtle but effective camera shots and good dialogue. However all of this seems lessened in relevance when the story is faulted.
Well that's only my opinion.