Not just a film about Belgium - FACT

Why do the trailers for some of the best films completely missrepresent what they are all about?

I remember the most amusing example of this being 'Swimming With Sharks', starring Kevin Spacey. It is basically an extremely funny black comendy about working in the film industry. Instead the trailer made it out to be a thriller/crime drama.

'In Bruges' seems to have suffered from a similar thing, although the thriller/crime portion and the comedy portion of this film were conveyed in the trailer, after watching the film I couldn't help feeling that they had again missed the point.

In Bruges is the perfect mix of heartbreak, realism, humour and hope. It has all the elements of the ridiculous to it (racist dwarves and 'alcoves' being just a couple of examples) yet its message of remorse and redemption hits home with a punch, especially thanks to Brendan Gleeson's outstanding performance of a man dealing with the choices he has made in his life.

Colin Farrell gets the showier role in this film, and his character is fabulously annoying and immature throughout the first half, but he fills it admirably. The scene of the two of them in the park is pure class: hard-hitting honesty and humour, without a sugar coating or scrap of schmultz in sight.

Because of the trailer, I found watching the film a strange experience, not least because of the massive co-incidence that I was writing a theology essay, on the themes of violence and redemption in film at the time (see Scorcese's back catalogue for reference). I guess because religious themes just don't sell to the masses, this whole side of the film wasn't included in the trailers so it came as a complete (though very pleasant) surprise.

The Bruges/hell metaphor, although amusing enough on its own, is particularly funny for anyone who has either been, or knows someone who has been to Bruges. My parents have, and its portrayal in this film as a place where people look at medieval stuff, go on canal rides and buy chocolate it so accurate its uncanny, despite coming across as too cliche'd to be true.

If that still doesn't amuse you, Ken's phone call to Harry is one of the finest comedic scenes in recent years, followed immediately by one of the most heartbreaking. It's storytelling genius like this that makes you proud of the British film industry again.

Well, they got it half right....

...and this film certainly isn't gold!

I appreciate that this film was never intended to be serious or groundbreaking, but they could at least have made it good. My main criticism of Fools Gold is that it seems to be in two minds about whether it wants to be a romantic comedy or an action-adventure film, without ever deciding or committing to either.

Everyone knows what's going to happen in a rom-com. They lead guy and the lead girl are going to get together. Hell, it's why we go to see them. The key to making it good is in the suspence, the build up. However the filmmakers have decided to do away with that altogether and Kate Hudson and Matthew McConaughey get it on just over half way through the film - killing the sexual tension and that subplot off at the same time.

So if creating a successfull rom-com wasn't top of the agend, you would think that making a great adventure film would be.

Apparantly not. The feeble plot (weaker than even 'Sahara') just seems to give up any attempt at credibility towards the end. It almost looks like the writers finished the story and realised they didnt have enough material to fill 90 minutes, so they just kept moving the goalposts (or treasure in this case) in order that the leads had to keep looking. Instead of creating more obstacles on the path to the treasure, they simply made the path longer - filling the time with distance, not substance.

To top it off, Hudson and McConaughey barely keep things afloat in the chemist department either. They sizzled in 'How To Lose A Guy In 10 Days' but here they seem so accutely aware that what they are making is bad that they just haven't bothered to make the effort.

For the everage 12 year old girl, I'm sure they sunny climate and silly action is enough to keep them entertained for the duration, but I doubt even they will remember it in a weeks time.

The Celluloid Ceiling

I found an article in The Sunday Times culture supplement called 'The Celluloid Ceiling' and I wanted to write about it, not only because of my interest in the subject but also because of the glaring hypocrisy that the article seems to create, along with it's apparent obliviousness to it.

The article, written to coincide with this year Oscars, is about women in the film industry.

As more female writers than ever were nominated in the screenplay categories this year (4 out of the 10 nominated) and Diablo Cody wins for Juno, the article begins by drawing links on the subject matter that the women writers have chosen to cover. They are all realistic, socially relevant, character pieces that reach a level of intimacy not obtained in the scripts written by men. So how is it, with such an abundance of talent, that the same does not apply to nominations for female directors?

Only three women have ever been nominated in the Best Director category at the Oscars; Sofia Coppola (who has the massive advantage of being the daughter of Frances Ford Coppola), Jane Campion and Lina Wertmuller. No woman has ever won.

After quoting some statistics it is easy to see why the article thinks it is hard for women to be nominated: they just don't direct enough films (6% of films made in 2007 had a female director). And its not just the numbers that are blighting them. Just as with the screenplays, women only seem to direct character driven, female centric films, romantic comedies or documentaries. Is this because that's all that women WANT to direct? Speaking to female director Callie Khouri we find out that she believes the blame lies with the studios.

Because the majority of a cinema audience is male, studios just don't trust women with the big budget or themes when they feel a male director will better understand its audience. It then becomes clear that there is a direct correlation between this and the films women direct. They may be more closely linked to issues relevant to women but they are also much cheaper to produce.

OK, so where does the article's hypocrisy come in? Well, the article was written by a man. You only have to take a scan of the staff list inside any film magazine to notice just how many men are writing about films, and just how few women. Can you name a female film critic? chances are you stopped at Janet Street-Porter, and even she only ever does it occasionally.

Is this because women don't care about movies enough to get there? Are we really all far more concerned with fashion and gossip? Or could it be that because the readership of film publications is mostly male, the editors just don't trust female writers to be able to write for a male audience as proficiently as a man can. Do women only want write about chick flicks and famous film stars? I know I don't, but I'm starting to wonder if that might be the ceiling I'm going to hit.

Something tells me this is going to be harder than I thought.


Coxy


See http://moviesbywomen.com/stats_celluloid_ceiling_2005.php for more statistical information.

Article:
Christopher Goodwin, 'The Celluloid Ceiling', The Sunday Times. 24th February 2008.

The Oscars 2008 - Results and Opinion

I'd like to start this post with something of a disclaimer: just because I picked someone as being the person who I thought should win an award does not mean that I think the person who DID win didn't deserve to do so. I think that this year that there wasn't a single nominee in any category, actor or film, who didn't deserve to be there. I'm just telling you how I would have voted had the Academy put a form in front of me and asked me to do so (a girl can dream!).

My choices were picked partly on a sort of justice system. Kind of like the Academy giving Scorcese an Oscar for The Departed when he has made better films in the past, and handing the The Return of the King 11 of them as a way to make up for the previous two winning precious little. But I also picked them on their own individual merits and how much I enjoyed them.

Best Film: my choice - Atonement; Academy's choice - No Country For Old Men.
I chose Atonement for two main reasons, 1: its British, and 2: Joe Wright. British films do notoriously poorly at the Oscars in the best film category and I think Atonement is a fantastic film, adapted from a fantastic book. Its play on the heritage genre, and its sharp, cold, and stark portrayal of the character's lives, along with THAT tracking shot on the beach, make it one of the most memorable and moving films of the year. I also picked it because I felt that Joe Wright, a brilliant British talent and excellent director, was snubbed in the Best Director category, so I wanted this to win Best Film as recompense for that.

Lead Actor: my choice - Viggo Mortensen; Academy's choice - Daniel Day-Lewis.
I picked Mortenson for Eastern Promises just because he excites me so much as an actor. In this very physical role, his ability to act with every muscle of his body is shown off to its full effect, and his ability to convey so much through performance means that even if he was mute for the entire film, a huge essence of the character would come through. Each of his roles seem to posses him in some way, so that like a true chameleon he seems to be a perfect fit for any roll he chooses. In my opinion one of the finest and under appreciated actors of his generation. However if he had to lose out on an Oscar to anyone, I couldn't be happier with British actor Daniel Day-Lewis taking the statue. Another extremely fine actor, and an outstanding performance in There Will Be Blood.

Lead Actress: my choice - Julie Christie; Academy's choice - Marion Cotillard
I went British again for this one (I sound like a broken record) but Julie Christie's performance in Away From Her is up there, for me, with her Oscar winning performance in Darling. And after all, if she was good enough then, I figured she was good enough now. But that doesn't do credit to her fellow nominees and Marion Cotillard was equally superb as Edith Piaf, so I can't really complain!

Best Director: my choice - Joel and Ethan Coen; Academy's choice - Joel and Ethan Coen!
To be honest I picked them because there's two of them and they're great and I am a huge fan. Even if they had made Norbit I would have wanted them to win (not that they would have, of course, but you get my drift). For once the Academy agreed!

There are 4 more of the 12 categories that I made choices for that the Academy also agreed with me on. I am extremely happy that Ratatouille, Sweeney Todd, The Bourne Ultimatum and Juno all won. I think they were the right choice in each of their categories and, for those nominated at least, on the night, the Academy got it more or less right.

Coxy

The Oscars 2008

Since when has "Who are you wearing?" been an acceptable thing to ask someone?

Because, aside from the fact that I can't help but think of Jeepers Creepers every time I hear Joan Rivers screech it at someone, quite frankly, who cares?

Although its easy to see that the whole event is descending into little more than a beauty pageant, there is still a morsel of dignity and value to winning an Oscar and you would think they could at least pretend to care about the films.

Right, rant over. Down to business. I'm going to keep this post simple and just give you two lists. The first one is going to be who I would like to win in the top categories (having not seen some in the documentary/ short/ foreign categories I really can't form an opinion, however I will guess for my prediction list!), and the second one is who I think actually will win, just for the record. I'll leave my choices hanging in cyberspace to provoke thought and I'll post again tomorrow to justify my choices in the big categories and talk about those that actually did win. And who knows, the Academy has surprised us before, this year those two might even be the same thing!

Coxy's choices:

• Best film - There Will Be Blood


• Best director - Joel and Ethan Coen


• Lead actor - Viggo Mortenson


• Lead actress - Julie Christie


• Supporting actor - Casey Affleck


• Supporting actress - Saoirse Ronan


• Animated feature - Ratatouille


• Art direction - Sweeney Todd


• Cinematography - Atonement


• Editing - Bourne Ultimatum


• Original screenplay - Juno


• Adapted screenplay - The Diving Bell and the Butterfly

Coxy's Predictions: (updated: all those I got right are marked with an asterisk)

• Lead actor - Daniel Day-Lewis *


• Supporting actor - Javier Bardem *


• Lead actress - Marion Cotillard *


• Supporting actress - Cate Blanchett


• Animated feature - Ratatouille *


• Art direction - There Will Be Blood


• Cinematography - The Assassination of Jesse James


• Costume design - Atonement


• Director - Paul Thomas Anderson


• Documentary feature - Sicko


• Documentary short - Sari's Mother


• Editing - The Bourne Ultimatum *


• Foreign language - Counterfeiters *


• Make up - Pirates of the Caribbean


• Music score - Atonement *


• Song - That's How You Know - Enchanted


• Best picture - No Country for Old Men *


• Animated short - Peter and the Wolf *


• Live action short - The Tonto Woman


• Sound editing - The Bourne Ultimatum *


• Sound mixing - 3.10 to Yuma


• Visual effects - Transformers


• Adapted screenplay - Atonement


• Original screenplay - Juno *

Coxy

Do you have to be a 'musicals person' to love musicals on film?

A couple of weeks ago I went to the cinema with my housemate to see Sweeney Todd: The Demon Barber of Fleet Street.

She LOVED it. I didn't.

Don't get me wrong, I thought it was good and I enjoyed seeing it, but it just didn't stir my passion in the same way as it did hers. When I couldn't find a reason why I felt this way, she concluded that maybe I just wasn't a 'musicals person', and I began to wonder if she was right.

Starting with what I did like about the film; Tim Burton's Gothic fantasy style was just perfect for the mood of the story. And of course, the dramatic, bloody and brutal violence was just the perfect foil for the relative sweetness of the singing. The sweet/bitter blend Depp gets between his voice and his acting was bang on the money too. All good so far.

There are oodles of musicals on screen that I have loved, especially the old ones like Singing in the Rain, The Wizard of Oz and all the Disney animated musicals, so I'm sure I don't have some underlying inability to enjoy people bursting into song. I even like quite a few of the modern ones, Grease and Moulin Rouge being particular guilty favourites of mine, musical or not. So I felt like I was running out of reasons not to like it. I think most relevantly of all, I also loved Tim Burton's take on Charlie and the Chocolate Factory.

So what was different about Sweeney Todd? Well, for one thing, it came at me a bit like a stealth musical. Despite having heard about it for months, I only found out that it was the musical version of the story about a week before I went to see it; when watching the full trailer online and Johnny Depp suddenly burst into song. It doesn't follow any of the norms of musical films, as far as when you can reasonably expect people to start singing. In fact, the near constant singing made it come across more like an opera.

And then we come to the singing itself. The thing that got to me the most was the vast difference in style between the lead actors and the stage school alumni. Both can sing in tune but Johnny Depp's rock voice just didn't fit in with the theatrical-ness of the whole film. From the cock-er-ney kids to the sets to the costumes, the film feels very much like a stage musical that someone has filmed (before you start, yes I know it is adapted from the stage, keep reading). This is especially apparent when the camera finally breaks out of its confines of the sets and follows Mr Todd through the streets for one of his songs. This short lived freedom to move beyond the claustrophobic sets only serves to highlight its absence from the rest of the film.

Some plays make great films when adapted, just like some musicals make great films, but the whole point in adapting it is that you are using a new medium now, and to waste the opportunities that film gives you for exploring artistic expression, in favour of staging the musical again for a camera, is quite frankly a crime. This phenomenon is quite possibly one of my biggest pet peeves in cinema. It's why I didn't like the recent Producers re-make, and its why I don't love Sweeney Todd.

Take someone who is a huge Brad Pitt fan. They will love any film that he is in, regardless of whether it has the qualities to make a good film or not. Having a passion for musical theatre makes you a shoe in to love musicals on film. I don't fall into this category. I am far more interested whether something is great cinematically and if that includes a musical then that's all good, but if it doesn't, well, then it doesn't. I think my friend got it half right, you have to be a 'musical theater person' to love Sweeney Todd, and I'm just not.


Coxy

The case of Cloverfield

This may sound a little obvious but viral marketing only works if you're there to see it.

Hearing about viral marketing campaigns from other people has to be one of the most boring things in the history of the world because no matter how well they describe it, its like trying to repeat an in-joke to a friend and then being forced to finish the story with "I guess you had to be there" because they just can't get what all the fuss is about.

By the time Cloverfield was released it seemed everyone and their uncle was excited about seeing it, except me, who seemed to have missed it all, and remembering the Snakes on a Plane disaster, I didn't hold out too much hope. I had seen the shaky-camerawork trailers at the last minute, but the only thing that really made me want to see it was to get my fix of all things J.J. Abrams while waiting for Lost to start again.

However, Cloverfield blew me away. (As you have probably guessed by its inclusion in my list of Top 10 favourite films at no. 7, see below)

I could say that it was because of the innovative use of shaky camerawork, home video footage and a LOT of exploding stuff, but these things aside, the thing that surprised me most was that after watching it: I quite literally couldn't have told you how long I had been in that cinema to save my life. It could have been 10 minutes or 10 hours later, I honestly didn't know.

As anyone who watches a lot of films will tell you, the more films you watch the harder it is to become absorbed in them, even in cinemas. You find yourself analysing them, or if it's a really terrible one, looking around the cinema in search of entertainment. In many cases you are frequently reminded that you are sitting in a cinema by the kids throwing popcorn, and the illusion is ruined. Add to this the fact that I worked in a cinema for a year, well, I'd come to the conclusion that cinemas just didn't have that all-encompassing-experience magic for me anymore.

So for Cloverfield to have such an unexpected effect on me really stopped me in my tracks. And moreover, I think it having this effect has a huge amount to do with everything BUT the camerawork that everyone else is talking about. The camerawork only serves to draw attention to the fact that this is a film, because, in narrative terms, it is a film we are watching, not invisible cameras placed in live action. It also makes a big comment on the stage we're at in society where people film everything, often looking at a lovely view through a camera instead of with their own eyes. It's the smart touches, like when Hud film the screen of another video camera recording the same thing, that really add depth to the film.

Looking at what did help the illusion; firstly, the special effects are flawless. That's not meant to just be a big-up to the CGI people, but that in a film like this, it really matters. If at any point the effects looked, well, like effects, then although I could have easily forgiven it, anyone who has seen I Am Legend will understand the thoughts I would have had that I wished it had been done better. Secondly, I thought the characterisation and acting was superb, especially the ever inappropriate cameraman Hud. His comments on flaming tramps made what would otherwise have seemed like a rather formulaic set piece in the tunnel, into a hilarious come terrifying, and more importantly, in-keeping part of the narrative.

Finally, I want to say a little about the ending. I am completely undecided as to whether I wish they had left the final scene off or not. When I first saw the film all I could think about was 'what a sell out'; tacking a happy ending onto a sad one. But I've seen it again and I think the rhythmic interruptions of the original video add something: an element of the human. This is, after all, really not about the monster. As they say themselves in the film, what is doing the damage is irrelevant, this is about them and their escape, and this little coda unites the end with the beginning. That said, there is still a huge part of me that would have loved the video to have just cut out and left us hanging!

And in case you were wondering, I agree with Empire magazine in their review: just like with The Matrix, make a sequel and you'll ruin the original film too.

Coxy

The most annoying thing people ask when they find out you're a film student....

..."Have you seen [insert obscure, straight to video, indie offering that only the person asking you the question has ever heard of]?"

Especially when immediately followed by "Call yourself a film student?!" when you invariably reply no.

And the question that comes a close second is:

"So, what is your favourite film?"

How you answer this question relies entirely on what characteristics you find most valuable in a film, and one of the most frowned upon is the most simple of all of these: "Was it entertaining?" Some people, pretentious film students in particular, have come to believe that entertainment is a cheaper form of satisfaction to get from a film, falling behind such things as a political/social message, breaking new ground in style or technique, or even employing literary devices such as a complex plot or a big twist at the end (M. Night Shyamalan take note).

Now these things are great, and if you like these things then they can all add to the entertainment factor of a film, but we are talking FAVOURITE film here! Everyone has found things in even the naffest films that have stuck a personal chord and I think that you should ignore these at your peril. Sure, a film might be great on paper, be extremely well reviewed, have a fantastic director and so on but films are a bit like food. For example, I know Rick Stein is an excellent cook, he makes shed-loads of money and is reviewed extremely well but it doesn't matter how great his meals are is in theory, there is one fundamental reason why I would never include one of his personally cooked dishes in a list of my favourite meals.....I hate seafood.

Personal preference is by far the most important aspect of any choice, discussion or argument regarding film and more often than not it is the first one abandoned in favour of the opinions of others who are more 'reputable'. At the end of the day, you watched the same film they did, they don't have a pair of fancy glasses that allow them to see a better version of the film than you (as cool as that would be) and your opinion is therefore just as valid.

So, back to my favourite films: it is physically impossible to pick just one.

FACT.

One film cannot possibly satisfy all your needs (which is fortunate for the film industry) and for times when you want to be scared silly, watching The Jungle Book just isn't going to cut it, no matter now much you love it. I just so happen to be a big fan of 'Top 10...' lists so that's exactly whats coming next. It's important to note that this list is a work in progress, not only because new films are constantly being released but also extenuating circumstances frequently cloud judgement. The recentness of the film makes a big difference, as does your experience when viewing it for the first time (good films watched on bad dates automatically drop down in my estimation).

I personally like films that have brought something new to my understanding of films, cinema and maybe even life. Whether it was the first film to do it or not is irrelevant, if it was the first one I saw do it, then that was the one that changed my view. On top of that, I love dialogue that's fresh and unexpected, and naturally that 'je ne sais qua' that seems to make fantastic films sizzle off the screen. Of course there are a couple of classics on my list, but I hope there are also some that make you think about whats important to you, and not to be ashamed of your choices.

In my opinion, if you don't find a film entertaining, no-matter how many of these other elements it has, including said film in a list of your favourites, quite frankly, makes you a fraud trying to look cool in front of your friends.


My Top 10 Films

1. Jurassic Park - 1993 - Steven Spielberg


2. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring - 2001 - Peter Jackson


3. Shallow Grave - 1994 - Danny Boyle


4. One Fine Day - 1996 - Michael Hoffman


5. Adaptation - 2002 - Spike Jonze


6. Singing in the Rain - 1958 - Stanley Donen & Gene Kelly


7. Cloverfield - 2008 - Matt Reeves


8. If... - 1968 - Lindsay Anderson


9. The Breakfast Club - 1985 - John Hughes


10. Alfie - 1966 - Lewis Gilbert

All questions, comments and personal lists welcome!

Coxy