Cinecism - the Movieblog of Emily Rose

Try to produce a work of art.

2008-07-24T12:39:00.000-07:00

The world's going to hell in a handcart.

You may remember a few months ago, I wrote an optimistic meditation on the new Brideshead Revisited film. One of my favourite books, turned into one of my favourite TV shows. A slow-paced, nostalgic story of love, religion and middle age.

Last time, I was trying hard to be gentle. I don't want to damn it out of the blue, I want to give it a chance. And I understand that of course, they have to change things. I'm prepared. But I genuinely think this new movie is going to be a trainwreck.

Its all a matter of tone, and meaning. For me, Brideshead Revisited is about a middle aged man who realises he has spent his entire life searching for something he lost at the age of 19. For author Waugh, it was about the operation of divine grace on a small group of characters. For Jarrod, the new director, its about "young individual from a poorer, less interesting background who is welcomed into this beautiful, magical, alluring kingdom with wonderful, magical people. And then he begins to realize that everything is not what it seems.”

None of those things are in the book. Waugh was a converted Catholic who, I presume, saw God in everything - and for him that would be the strongest force in his character's lives. I'm very sentimental, very nostalgic, and my chief worry on going to university is that one day that'll happen to me (pessimistic, but it could happen). When I read the book, its all about Charles trying to regain what he saw in Sebastian - whether that's true love, or what he represented in terms of the rich lifestyle, or his free lifestyle, or just the joy of being young. He's only in 3 chapters or so - but his influence is all over the place. Anthony Blanche notes "inevitably we talk of Sebastian" early on in the novel, and it happens for the rest of the book. The classic image of the show is, well, poncing about with teddy bears.

To justify my reading, my film would be all lingering shots, subtle glances and covered with bittersweet loss from the first five minutes. I might even mix the scenes up Tarantino style, interspersing the early sunny scenes with the later grey and grim ones to telegraph that things are going downhill from the start. Waugh shoved the full of very subtle hits, use of language which is ravingly obvious if you go looking for it. And a fascinating memo sent by him to Hollywood reveals that religion would be the central theme of his movie.

I do not know of Mr Jarrod's background, but for him the story is about class. To be honest, I barely noticed it, just as I barely noticed the religious undertones until they were pointed out. But having seen the trailer, just as I would play up the loss, he's playing up the class issues. The insinuation that Charles is getting in with the family for the money is no where in the book, although it is an interpretation one could follow. He sees the world of Brideshead as temptation - decadant, rich, exotic but corrupt. Again, I disagree - because he sees it as something happening to Charles, wheras for me it's something in the past. He's always looking back at it. Mr Jarrod is playing up the thriller-ish aspects of the novel, sexing up something which was perfectly fine as it was.

Tone. Chaos, eh? This was sparked off by an article on the NYTimes website. Lets do a commentary:

"THE images from the 11-episode mini-series are still vivid, 27 years later. Louche young Oxford students in crisp linen suits (and one teddy bear) drinking endless cocktails. A spectacular country estate, dripping with treasures and crackling with religious, sexual and dynastic tensions. A delicately beautiful Jeremy irons"

Yes, Jeremy Irons was pretty yummy in this. You note they start with the TV show, not the book. The book was already big - but like the Godfather movie, the epic show preserved it in the public mind and made it big.

It is those lingering memories, even more than Evelyn Waugh’s novel, that anyone attempting to turn “Brideshead Revisited” into a feature film for the first time naturally has to contend with. And so as not to contaminate his approach Julian Jarrold, the director, studiously avoided the mini-series — all that elegiac emotion, spread out over 659 languorous minutes — and returned to the book. “It exposed some of the myths I’d had about ‘Brideshead,’ ” Mr. Jarrold said of his rereading. “I’d had the memory of it being a nostalgia trip about the passing of English life and a bygone era, a glorification of aristocracy — about people wearing odd clothes and poncing around Oxford.” That was part of it, he said.

But there was also a bite and a sharpness that are as relevant now as they were in 1945, when the novel was published. “One of the reasons for the book’s popularity is, it is an archetypal type of story of this young individual from a poorer, less interesting background who is welcomed into this beautiful, magical, alluring kingdom with wonderful, magical people,” Mr. Jarrold said. “And then he begins to realize that everything is not what it seems.”

I'm not going to deny the bite and sharpness. The dialogue, the observation of character is priceless. But as I've already noted, I never for a moment saw it as a story about class. It's not even mentioned. It's just an issue that doesn't matter to me personally - my family is affluent, some people I know are richer, others are poorer. So what? I don't believe in class tensions.

The film, which is to be released on Friday, is set in the 1920s, ’30s and ’40s and stars Matthew Goode as Charles Ryder, the unworldly student whose friendship with the aristocratic Lord Sebastian Flyte (Ben Whishaw) introduces him to a whole new world of money, class privilege, deep happiness and deep despair. Castle Howard, an estate in Yorkshire, stands in for Brideshead, home to Sebastian and his family, a symbol of a dying way of life and a character in itself. The mini-series was written by John Mortimer and stars Anthony Andrews as the teddy-bear-carrying Sebastian. It opens and ends with Charles (Mr. Irons), now a British Army officer, unexpectedly encamped at Brideshead during World War II. He begins to replay in his mind the role Brideshead, with its dark sorrows and bewitching delights, played in his life some 20 years earlier.

In this new version the filmmakers have, of necessity, pared down the story. World War II comes up only at the end. There is less time to dwell on the seemingly endless summer when Charles and Sebastian meet and their lives gradually become entwined. Some supporting characters given prominence in the mini-series — Sebastian’s younger sister, Cordelia, played in the original by Phoebe Nicholls, for example, or his waspish friend Anthony Blanche (Nickolas Grace in the series)— appear only glancingly in the film.

See what I mean? For me it would be paramount for WWII to open the film, to let the audience know this is all happening in the past. It would best support my interpretation as a story of lost ideals and innocence. Here, they leave it to the end. Serious mistake. Pity Cordelia will be cut down, but it was inevitable; as with Anthony. I imagine Bridey has been cut entirely.

“It was a terrible struggle, and we worked for many, many hours on the screenplay in order to make the right choices,” said Jeremy Brock, who wrote it with Andrew Davies. “But bluntly, you have a 330-page novel and a two-hour film, and you don’t have the luxury of being able to include everybody.”

Yeh, that's fair. And what they're cutting out is the least of my worries. It's what they're adding and twisting that gets my goat. So...

The filmmakers also have played up the love triangle of Charles, Sebastian and Sebastian’s bewitching sister, Julia (Hayley Atwell). An extended scene during a night of erotic possibility in Venice serves to advance Charles’s romance with Julia. (All the changes — including placing Julia in Venice — were approved by the Waugh estate, the filmmakers said.)

I approve of this. The novel is in two sections - Charles and Sebastian and then Charles and Julia. Without making two films, they can't adequately do either, so fudging them together is really their only option. I'm not sure what "erotic possibility" means though. Actually, the word "extended" disturbs me about as much. Anyway...

“This puts Julia center stage,” Mr. Brock said of the Venice scenes. “When you read the novel, there is a sense that she is slightly the one who comes after Sebastian, that she is No. 2, and I think it’s not quite fair. The true love story for Charles is the one with Julia.”

As I said, all about interpretation and I think that's ridiculous. The true love story for Charles is the one with Sebastian - Julia comes afterwards, she's an echo of what he misses. She acnowledges it in the book; Charles notes they look similar. Mr Brock is deliberately pissing off the Valyard here. Or, to put it more simply, he's actually deciding he doesn't like something and plunging in to restore Julia to where he thinks she should be. Very chivalric. Now I know its only a story, but screwing with fiction really gets my goat - in my mind, it's like a time traveller deliberately interfering with the past. Anyone who's ever watched sci-fi will appreciate you can't change history on a whim, not just because you'll change the present (in our analogy, come up with a worse film), but because you just shouldn't - because its a law you shouldn't break.

Am I overreacting? After all, protecting the integrity of the time continuum and keeping a movie adaption canonical aren't exactly of equal importance. There is a reason why history works the way it does; and there is a reason why stories are written the way they are. Now changes must be made - every now and then, you step on the odd butterfly - but militantly deciding to go back and kill baby Hitler is always wrong. And that's what Mr Brock is doing - he's decided he wants to change things. Ach, yes Im overreacting.

Perhaps he's closer to Mr Waugh's intent: "Charles's romantic affection for Sebastian is part due to the glitter of the new world Sebastian represents, part to the protective feeling of a strong towards a weak character, and part a foreshadowing of the love for Julia which is to be the consuming passion of his mature years." Because I see the story backwards, I see his love for Julia as a result, not a foreshadowing.

And while the homoerotic longings between Charles and Sebastian are more implied than explicit in the earlier incarnations, in the film they share a quick kiss. Instantly their easy camaraderie is polluted by a new awkwardness and inhibition. “There’s a sense that maybe they’ve crossed a line that one of them isn’t ready to cross,” Mr. Brock said of the kiss.

Heh. Its all about tone, boys and girls. Whats the point in making something so obscure so obvious? Let the platonic crowd have their fun, let the "get out of the closet!" brigade prove their argument, and let the people who like it on the fence stay on the fence. Because there's nothing that clear cut about youth, and for me this is the biggest problem encountered so far. If you choose to so read it, then Charles'n'Seb can be at it like rabbits the whole time. There's way enough evidence. On the other hand, the story works just as well if its an entirely innocent relationship. I feel its a mistake to deny that it is love, but

In a surprising casting move Lady Marchmain, the matriarch whose deep religious faith reverberates so tragically through the lives of her children, is played by Emma Thompson, made up toward the end of the film to look much older.“I always associate Emma Thompson with being youthful and contemporary and playing decent, sensitive characters, whereas obviously this is the complete opposite,” Mr. Jarrold said. But Ms. Thompson can play old as well as young, lacing her character’s prodigious charm with a chilly savagery. As much as it is a story about a lost period of English history — a final shining moment before everything changed forever — “Brideshead” is a novel about the inexorable pull of Catholicism. The issues it raises are particularly relevant now, Mr. Brock said, though viewers may interpret what they see differently depending on the role of faith in their own lives. A scene toward the end, when the Marchmain family tussles over the soul of Lord Marchmain (Michael Gambon) as he lies on his deathbed, is wrenching and even shocking. After abandoning his wife and her self-sacrificing piety for a life of sensuality and ease in Italy, Marchmain has returned home to die. But what sort of role should Catholicism play, with its ability to pull in lapsed members with a “twitch upon the thread,” as Waugh put it, citing G. K. Chesterton, at the end of Marchmain’s life? To Charles’s fascinated horror, the question is of central importance to the family, and there is only one possible answer. “In that tug between individual freedom and fundamentalist religion, there’s a story that’s apposite for our time,” Mr. Brock said. “In the modern age that’s something we’re all dealing with.”An important divergence in tone from Waugh’s novel, Mr. Jarrold said, comes in the closing scene, when Charles — now back at Brideshead during World War II — talks to Lieutenant Hooper, a fellow soldier who has a rough accent and the forthright views of a modern man unimpressed by the aristocracy. How to portray him led to long discussions about the way that Waugh “is sometimes profoundly undemocratic” and disdainful of Hooper and what he represents, Mr. Jerrold said. In the book Hooper is “described as a traveling salesman with a wet handshake,” he said. “But he’s the future of England, and the hope of the 1945 generation, and we’ve put a positive spin on him.”

Again, look - class issuese

So lets leave the final word with Mr Waugh, from a different memo to Hollywood about seeing his books filmed: "It has lately been demonstrated that cinema audiences do not know whether the films they see are spoken in Italian or English. It is useless to write down to their level. Try to produce a work of art."

Ugh. I'm thoroughly miserable now, so miserable I've just finished off half a pack of chocolate wafers and am listening to the Beach Boys. It ain't working.

Under those circumstances, it might seem a bad idea to pre-judge another one of my favourite books about to emerge as Hollywood property.

Cirque du Freak is the story of an ordinary kid who becomes a vampire. Only please don't stop reading, because it is so much more than just that. It was one of my favourites as a kid - I bought all 12 books. What is more impressive that they still read well now I've grown up a bit. Author Darren Shan treads a fine, fine line and while the books are aimed at children (every chapter ends on a cliffhanger - "and now the spider was heading for me!"), its never patronising and satisfyingly dark. It starts out as a book about a teen vampire hero. 11 installments later, he's handling alternate Earths, parallel futures and middle age. In one novel, a newly converted Darren dates a local girl in an effort to retain a normal teenage life. Generic stuff. But Debbie comes back in 10 years as an adult with her own flat, while Darren still appears to be 13. He never shies away from making things hard, and tackling ideas like that where other kids books would make it easy.

At one moment, a desperate situation is resolved by a piece of outrageously cheesy deus ex machina. The next chapter begins "No. I wish it had happened like that, but it didn't", and all of a sudden, beloved characters are dying and you can only watch helplessly - especially because last chapter you were groaning because it was all too happy. And characters do die, lovely ones and in cruel ways. JK Rowling only got this dark in the final chapters of Book 7, and was never this ironic.

So lets have a look at the movie. It's being written by Brian Helegand, who wrote Knight's Tale. He has my stamp of approval. The cast list reveals a Wolfman and Murlough have been cast. These are the villains for books 2 and 3 - evidently the first three have been compacted. Another good move - the 12 book series vaguely falls into four trilogies anyway, and these three are similar in tone et al.

Its being directed by Paul Weitz, and suddenly I really wished I'd seen Golden Compass - his last adaptation of a dodgy kids book. If it's as average as everyone said, then I'm a little edgy about him handling my baby. I also wish I knew something about the composer - his films all seem to be indie or low-profile, so hopefully he'll do something interesting and not fantasy-default.

The cast is OK. Ken Wantabe isn't the Mr Tall of my mind, but he will do it well. I wish Mr Tiny wasn't credited as Mr Destiny, but there goes - the actor has a wonderful look. Mr Tiny needs to have presence - be creepy, without really knowing why; just as Mr Tall has to be completely trustworthy, in the same way.

The stars have my temporary approval too. Darren and Steve look perfect, although I don't recognise anything they're in. The jury's out on Mr Crepsley, played by John C. Reilly. He's not an actor I like much (from Chicago, but still), and Mr C is one of the most insanely special characters. A suggestion on the IMDb board is that he should have traded roles with Willem Dafoe, who is playing Gavner Purl. Now JCR would make an awesome Gavner, but I'm willing to give him a chance.

I just have one problem. They're gonna make it a sodding PG. Now done properly, this thing deserves an 18 rating - its still one of the most violent things I've ever read. But that's stupid - its still a kids book. All I'm asking is a 12. Don't aim it at the tweenie market, its not Harry Potter. It should be aimed at young adults. For 13, 14yrold kids who want a horror movie of their own with some proper gore. I can't think of a way that this film could be made faithfully at PG, and retain the alarmingly visceral feel. Drop the visual nastiness, and the nastiness inherent in the plot will be the next to go.

On the whole, I'm optimistic. I'm looking forward to the film I would make, which is a mistake, but I feel it'd be hard to do these books badly...if there is a mouse on set. By mouse I mean a director, a writer, a producer who will weed out the cheese. If they try to do it sentimentally, or use that awful "magical music" exhibited by current kid movies. Its a bleak piece of fiction; the world of the cirque is not wonderful in any way.

Case in point: A Series of Unfortunate Events. Another good series of books. I rather liked the film - Jude Law made a terrible Lemony, it needed to be someone far older and cynical, but the look was wonderful. But the ending! They gave it a happy ending!

Something about the film will piss me off. But I'm not going to issue a fatwah for the crew just yet, because if they steer away from sentimentality and and keep it honest as the book, then there is an awesome film waiting...

In these parts...

2008-07-22T03:54:00.000-07:00

The problem with iconic milestone movies are so busy being milestones they forget to be movies too. Take Birth of a Nation - famous for inventing cross-cutting, moving cameras and modern language of cinema; famous for being shamelessly racist. The Jazz Singer - the first talkie. Everyone knows that. Cinema kids are born knowing it. Who needs to see it? And so on.

What they forget to tell you is that these films are sometimes bloody brilliant too, as well as being a museumpiece. And so we get onto In The Heat of the Night, which I implore you to see as soon as possible.

This is mostly thanks to Sidney Potier (or "ney Potier" as he was credited, before I moved to a TV that could handle the aspect ratio), who's all fire and ice and rage, all wrapped up in stillness and silence. To top it off, he doesn't half look lovely in that suit. And I really wanted him to survive to the end - which, to be honest, is something I rarely ever do. I'm always secretly hoping for a violent, a shocking, an ironic twist on what we've already seen. This is chiefly in bad movies, or at least ones I know are going to do the obvious thing. Rob Roy, anyone? When a movie is good, such as the Three Colours Trilogy, it earns the right to a happy ending. Really, genuinely rooting for a character to survive is a rarity in these parts. Rod Steiger won the Oscar, and I guess he's great too. But, seriously?

"In these parts" would be a good phrase to apply to the rest of it. Sure its about race, but its also about small towns. I live in a small town - actually, its an island - think Wicker Man's Summerisle meets Hot Fuzz's Sanford. That's us - all town carnivals, country fetes, jam making competitions and backbiting gossip. I have little difficulty believing that HOT FUZZ SPOILER our local council would assassinate someone for having an awful house.

It manages to do all the detective movie cliches, from gradual grudging acceptance to "You have two hours to solve the case", yet somehow it all stays convincing. And kudos to the exciting direction too. You can really tell this movie was made in the 60s - not only for its frank discussion of racial issues, but the sense of playing around with the camera. I particularly liked the slow zoom on the fugitive as he flees across the bridge to Arkansas.

To cap it off, the soundtrack is wonderful. More movies should start with decent theme songs.

It must be something in the water. I went to the library to take out my two classic DVDs as usual, and came back with this and Mephisto - another serious drama, this time about Nazis. What's wrong with me?! Normally I avoid this "real life issues" cinema like anything!

The B-feature to today's post is a link to yet another essay on movieviolence affecting real life behavior:

http://www.cybercollege.com/violence.htm

It's defending the belief that yes, screen violence does directly increase it in real life.

I have personally always believed that while violence on screen can sometimes be a trigger or inspiration for real life violence, cinema alone will not turn you from an upstanding citizen into a psychopath. I hold as Evidence A, me myself. I'm a walkover, a doormat, quite possibly the least aggressive person you've ever met, so nice it's actually too nice. I feel guilty about killing mosquitos - which I rarely do anyway. Usually, I let them live. That's how passively unviolent I am. This essay blithely claims:

"Studies show that people who watch a lot of TV violence not only behave more aggressively, but are more prone to hold attitudes that favor violence and aggression as a way of solving conflicts. These viewers also tend to be less trusting of people and more prone to see the world as a hostile place."

Hmmmm...now you see, normally I'd dismiss a claim like that out of hand. As we've already established, I watch and enjoy a high level of screen violence, while remaining an utter pansy. Yet what about the second half? In all honesty, I do get rather paranoid at times; and a triple whammy of Easy Rider, Borat and Heat of the Night has just totally put me off America.

In any case, even though it momentarily made me sit up and think whether all this stabbin' and shootin' was affecting me after all, nevertheless it is not a very good essay. It goes on to associate Christianity with the violence problem to prove humanity is naturally violent - which is total bull, because if people are getting killed over religion, then you're doing it wrong. It's too biased, and its evidence is weak.

Can I arrange a hit for Tuesday evening?

2008-07-21T02:10:00.000-07:00

What the hell was wrong with the 90s? Did everybody suddenly wake up and realise their life was worthless? I refer, of course, to the triple whammy of American Beauty-Fight Club - The Matrix, all basically attacks on the cubicle-worker existance. Good old 1999, vintage year for movies or so I'm told.

It must have been something in the air, and last night I watched Office Space, 1998's black comedy about - yup - depressed office workers; Fight Club without the violence, if you like. It appears to have been written as an act of total wish fufilment. That's pretty much all I can think of to say about it - I loved it, and I recommend it to any frustrated office workers in the mood for something lighthearted.

I've just come back from holiday in Italy. Bit of a trial, really, as my knowledge of the language was cribbed from The Godfather movies. Consiquently, my entire vocabulary consisted of "father", "family", and "can I arrange a hit for tomorrow night?" - not that useful to your average traveller. And that was about Sicilians anyway...we think we might have seen some mobsters one evening too. Apparently, the mafia is still a big problem in Italy. I'd kinda thought it had died down, but we found the anti-mafia office in Florence, mafia-related songs on MTV (all rap; it's the equivalent of getting out of the ghetto songs, I suppose) carry anti-mafia warnings. Hilariously, MTV's anti-mafia logo is the little hand with the puppet strings a la Godfather - which is one of the least anti mafia films I've ever seen. Even though Michael Caine carrying a massive sodoff gun has become an iconic 60s image, I might recommend Get Carter to put off anyone considering a career in organised crime. It's entirely without illusions, and very unpleasant to boot. Mind you, I'm probably the only person who's ever decided to become a military helicopter pilot after watching Black Hawk Down, so maybe it wouldn't work...

We spent a lot of time on Italian music channels, basically because the films were all dubbed. Such a torment. Although we caught Grease one evening (the songs were all from the original), and they showed Apocalypse Now: Redux another. That was exciting. If you want to listen to some anti-mafia Italian rap, may I recommend Cappotto Di Legno by Lucariello - and stay clear of current chart topper In Italia, which is the most mind-numbingly awful piece of music I've heard in any language.

We also did some set-trooping. We visited Florence with a Baedeker, and found the square and church from Room With a View. As I've already noted, The Godfather was set and filmed in Sicily, but we did also get to ogle the Venice sets from Brideshead Revisited TV. Venice is absolutely the most romantic place on earth, and packed with shops selling carnival masks. Most are tat for the tourists, but some are gorgeous. And one such shop proudly advertised that it had provided the masks for Kubrick's Eyes Wide Shut.

Speaking of Kubrick (kneel and pray, folks), I've now seen Paths of Glory and enjoyed it very much. My mum's comments was that she "couldn't see the point". I sympathise with this - it was wonderfully made, the performances were great, and all in all a powerful piece of drama, but apart from admiring the pretties I too felt a something missing. But who cares - it was gorgeous, He really does have a thang for long, wide shots which I love.

Finally, I've just finished K- Unpronouncable's Three Colours Trilogy, and I lovem. Lovemlovemlovem. They're just involving on every level. The music is brilliant. The direction is so pretty that even when nothing is happening, its beautiful. The link between the three films - three colours of the french flag, and all about the three ideas they represent - means that every film has a strong colour palette. I also like the ironies of the way the central concept is used. Blue is about liberty - but it's freedom by isolating yourself from everything. White is equality in the sense of getting even. Only Red, fraternity, doesn't try to be clever - its about communication, or the lack thereof in the modern world. Even my sister, who can sometimes be a bit blonde, loved Red. And the endings, while maybe obvious, are terribly satisfying. And did I mention the music is wonderful?

2008-07-06T09:14:00.000-07:00

There are two things you have to know about me before I start reviewing Perfume. The first is that I have no sense of smell. Now of course, I must have one - its not like I was born disabled. I can still taste food, for example, and taste is closely linked to smell. But most smells are lost on me. I don't notice smokers in restaurants. I can't smell sewage, flowers, the sea. The idea of a "summer" smell is alien. In contrast, Friend 5 is real big on it - apparently, my house has a particular smell, and every now and then she'll catch a scent and instantly recall a time. The most recent olifactory experience I've had was with rotting celery, but that had been pinned to my hair for several hours before I noticed it. The smell, not the celery. I knew the celery was there.

I only point this out because smell isn't a sense I use at all, yet Perfume made me suffer from phantom smells all the way through. I understood what it would be like to have these sensations, without a reliable knowledge. Some masterly direction going on, methinks - like explaining green to a blind man.

The second is about the creepy-deepy stuff. What the back of the box calls "distubing imagery and sexualised nudity". My favourite series of photos by my favourite photographer is images of murdered women. Actually, I have them as my screensaver. I can see you backing off and smiling weakly - honestly I'm not a serial killer. I just love the way he uses the light, and creates images that are really, really wrong, without exactly knowing why. Look at them - they start here, and keep clicking right. All his pictures are somewhere in this line, though.

Imagery is a big - maybe the biggest thing for me in film, and much of the look of Perfume reminded me of these photos. All good directors are effectively creating art in the way they frame the screen.

It's a two-way process too - lots of Recuenco is inspired by old movies (and the next few to the right), 40s movies (and to the right), even Kubrick (this one and the next two to the left - Clockwork O, Dr Strangelove, and is the third meant to be Paths of Glory?)

With excellent direction and superb visual pretties, what else is there left? Well, the plot was fun - and I particularly liked the surreal direction it took towards the end. There were flaws, though. The acting was competant, but couldn't cover the characters were simply cardboard cutouts. The Murderer was drawn the best; but Alan Rickman's daughter was merely a sacrificial lamb to the plot. She was very nice to look at though.

The problem compounded: the script was prime awful. I only mention this because a) films based on books tend to have decent scripts if nothing else and b) I almost never notice them, so this must have been especially dull. To make the issue worse, its lumbered with a fairy-tale style monologue, lacking in charm. What he's saying is interesting, but the way he does it stinks. No pun intended.

It still comes highly recommended though - its just wonderful to look at, and the soundtrack prevented me from sleeping. That's right - not the imagery, or the plot, or the dead naked people. The music. Shudder!

I don't want to use the word "orgy", because its taken on a decadantly sexual meaning, and that's not what the scene was about - it was about love.

Missing in action...

2008-07-04T13:12:00.000-07:00

You think you've seen me excited? Think again! They've found Metropolis!

Metropolis is Fritz Lang's 20's sci-fi silent classic. No, don't stop listening - its fantastic. You can't take your eyes off the screen - admittedly, the absence of dialogue means you can't follow it if you do that - but the imagery is impressive, and at times genuinely scary. The plot is dire, but who cares when its that pretty? My original review is here, in which I note:

"I'm going to start with the bad things, starting off with the fact it's not all there. A card flashes up at the beginning of the film and cheerily announces that a quarter of the film is believed to be lost. Now that is tragic - I don't believe anything has upset me that much all year. It's horrible to think that in seventy years time, current films may be similarly fragmented. It didn't spoil my enjoyment of the film, but I just thought the idea was pretty distressing. Somebody evidently had a grudge against the Thin Man, because virtually all his scenes were replaced."

And it really did give me the wobbles to think about a quarter of such a wonderful film curling away into flames, or rotting in a box somewhere. The Wicker Man almost met this fate - just imagine films as good, which chance and time didn't save. I remember passing a rundown, boarded up cinema in a tiny limestone town in France - all very Manon des Sources - and wondering whether Metropolis was hiding away there somewhere. So sign me up for the new DVD! Here's the news, straight from contactmusic!

"Lost footage from cult sci-fi film METROPOLIS has been discovered in
Argentina.The director's cut of Fritz Lang's 1927 classic, featuring an extra 30
minutes, was believed to have vanished forever after it was cut by Paramount
bosses because of bad reviews.However, the curator of the Buenos Aires Film
Museum discovered a copy of the movie in his archives - and a projectionist
noticed it was longer than all other versions of the iconic film. Film restorer
Martin Koerber, who is one of the few people to see the lost footage, says, "No
matter how bad the condition of the material may be, the original intention of
the film, including all of its sub-plots, is now once again tangible for the
normal viewer. The rhythm of the film has been restored."

Well, use of the word cult gets my goat as it always does, but you wouldn't believe how relieved the news makes me. I keep everything. I'm a hoarder, and a sentimental one at that. In front of me as I speak - a tin of uber-strongmints I won two years ago at a speacking contest, a 3-yr old birthday card, a dollar note from an old art project, a WKD bottlecap from my 18th, and a Guiness tower paperweight - with its original packaging. And I'm a creator - I draw, write, shoot, paint and everything. The idea that a whole work of creation has winked out of existance is one of the most horrific things to me. I'm still in mourning for a poem accidentally trashed a few years back. Admittedly, it wasn't great, but the idea still troubles me. Its why I love film, and not theatre. Yes, being in the room has an atmosphere - but its so brief, and my memory so short. It fades and vanishes. You can't compare theatre directors fairly, as you can in cinema - because all you are relying on is memories of distant events.

The impermenance of such things disturbs me. Ovid, Roman poet and quoted here suprisingly often to say he's never made a film, ends his first book of the Amores by claiming he will live on through his poetry. At the time, it was a pretty generic claim for a poet to make - but he has lived on, and will far longer than I shall, and in that sense it makes pretty chilling reading. He prefaces this claim by listing past greats who have been remembered. Homer! Virgil! But others, a lot of others, of who no trace remains. Particularly scary is his praise of Gallus, of whom not a single line remains, but whose name is also praised by most other Roman love poets. He must have written some formidable stuff. Aristophanies was a Greek comedy writer. To be a serious scholar of Aristoph. seems to be made up of trawling through his jokes and trying to work out why they are funny. Its like watching Comic Relief, without a knowledge of contemporary TV, or watching Broken News, without ever having seen a news item, or watching Spitting Image when its the only record you have of half the politicians mocked. One of the people he makes fun of all the time is fellow playwrite and author of tragedies, Euripedes, only 18 of his 95 plays which survive to the modern day. Some of Aristoph's jokes poke fun at plays we know he wrote, but no longer exist. We know, for example, that he was notorious for including beggars only through Aristophanies' parodies - because barely anything of what survives contains them. I blame the bastards who burnt the library at Alexandra. Tom Stoppard has a comment to that effect in Arcadia - which another character answers like so:

"We shed as we pick up, like travellers who must carry everything in their arms, and what we let fall will be picked up by those behind. The procession is very long and life is very short. We die on the march. But there is nothing outside the march so nothing can be lost to it. The missing plays of Sophocles will turn up piece by piece, or be written again in another language. Ancient cures for diseases will reveal themselves once more. Mathematical discoveries glimpsed and lost to view will have their time again. You do not suppose, my lady, that if all of Archimedes had been hiding in the great library of Alexandria, we would be at a loss for a corkscrew?"

Yes, I just typed it all up. I think its meant to be comforting. It doesn't work. What does work is Neil Gaiman's Sandman, in which the God of Dreams has a library of lost, half finished, half dreamt of books. At least they still exist somewhere.

Its not just film and TV which suffer from the ravages of time. Back in the late 60s, the BBC destroyed old episodes. Why shouldn't they? Contracts prevented rebroadcasting, and the home video player unthought of. Whole TV shows have vanished into the aether. The show Z-Cars has two whole years from which no episodes survive - despite the fact it was being shown weekly at the time. United! has no episodes left at all. A whole show! Just like that! You remember faintly enjoying something from yesteryear, look back and its gone. I only found this out recently via my association with Doctor Who. 108 episodes are missing, presumed destroyed. It used to be more - just like Metropolis being discovered in Argentina, so episodes have been recovered from censors offices in Australia, New Zealand, Japan. All that's left of them is a few photos (or "telesnaps" if you're a real fan) and the audiotrack of each episode. Gone.

On the DocWho forums, there's a lot of conspiracy - and anger - directed against collectors who supposedly own and secretly hoard some of these episodes. They're thinking too small - I'll be unhappy if I never see Fury from the Deep. But I'll be unhappier if there is no way at all for me to ever have seen it - short of a time machine and a video-recorder. I find the concept of these things gently sitting in someone's private room quite comforting -we come, we die, but the art lives on. And one day - maybe not in my lifetime - a well meaning relative will return it to the BBC. I rank its survival for the human race as a whole as more important than it being recovered by this generation.

Does this give anyone else the shivers in the same way it does me? Its not only their absence. There are people who have memories of these things that no longer exist - they've seen them, and one by one their memories die with them. Recently, I got onto Doctor Who with my Latin teacher - not an avid fan, but she used to watch Hartnell and Troughton. Back in the 60s. My first reaction to Hartnell fans normally is one of faint embarassment - he's the original, his episodes are lengthy and B&W, I've still not got around to seeing them - in film parlance, like talking to someone who claims Citizen Kane is their fave. But she's not a fan who discovered them through video like me. She was there. At the time. My first reaction was one of internal shock - maybe she saw "Fury from the Deep"? Or "The Tenth Planet"? Its there, in the corner of her mind, just flickers of black and white - the odd image or idea she recalls, augmented by time and memory. These things which only exist in minds.

I was only 9 or 10 when I watched Through the Dragon's Eye. Its one of those surreal childhood memories which everyone has tucked away. Children from the 60s recall hiding from the Daleks behind the sofa - I was terrified by this, an educational program wrapped up in a sub-Narnia story of a magical fantasy world. Not just me either - IMDb reveals a whole generation it has tainted. It was scary at the time, but its scared me since as well. Our hero disappearing into the fog. Boris drowning in a quagmire. Charn. The knitted scarf. For years, its been in the corner of my mind - and one of the questions I ask pretty frequently of strangers is if they have seen it. The tactics payed off recently - turns out one of my best friends not only remembers it, she recorded it on video. We watched it, and it was weird. Like going back to a place you remember but have not visited for a long time. I remembered very little, yet it was all familiar. And the scene I remembered most vividly - the human-sized mouse turning back into a real animal in the underground cave sequence - where was it? It never happened. And just as entire seasons of Troughton's Doctor Who have been erased in solid form, so they are being erased in the memories of those who saw it.

Incidentally, mum has the same reaction to Escape to Witch Mountain. She has minimal interest in watching Doctor Who, but keeps harassing me about a particular episode which she recalls through the same creepy childhood mist. Her predominant memory is of corridors, dark corridors in a military base - although she did recall enough for us to track down the only one it could be. "The Singing Ringing Tree" is another one often associated with childhood trauma. And I'm sure you have your own. But I stray from my point, which was that in absence of a solid version, our own ideas start to influence the story as it exists.

Robert Rodriguez plays with it in Planet Terror by deliberately inserting a "Missing Reel" card, then jumping to twenty minutes later in the movie with no explanation. Characters have been killed or injured, buildings damaged, whole situations changed. Tarantino, in one of the many pre-Grindhouse interviews, describes a film he saw when this actually happened, and which he was always dying to know. Eventually, with fame, time and cash, he managed to dig one up - and it wasn't half as interesting as the speculation. It happened with "Tomb of the Cybermen", which people raved about for years as the lost gem of Doctor Who - a real classic. Then it was found, and everyone discovered it was really rather ordinary after all. It led to a pretty effective quip on Tachyon TV webzine, "The BBC have found Episode 7 of The Daleks Masterplan. However, it's so embarrassing they've wiped it again." In another place they suggest: "The BBC have announced that the final three episodes of the new Doctor Who series will be destroyed before they are even transmitted. A BBC statement said: "For the fans who complain that the series isn't as good as it was in the 60's and 70's, we will be wiping the final three episodes as soon as they leave the edit suite. This way fans can debate whether they were ever any good or not for years". Losing things gives them an epic status - and this is because memory takes over.

I warned you I had a hangup about this. People often refer to these times as a "throwaway lifestyle" - temporary communications through email, temporary fame through TV or the web, using items designed for temporary use. What no one points out is that now we're saving more than ever before. Take your favourite DVD - chances are it'll have deleted scenes, maybe even a blooper reel. You can order Through the Dragon's Eye on video - other vigilantes have copied their copies, and buy them through eBay. Day of the Daleks has survived, been released by the BBC, and so my mum can resolve her bizzare memories. Amazon, ebay and the rest allow you to contact people who have what you look for - myriad file formats, and the technology to muck around with them in the home gives us a greater flexibility. Look at those 60s Doctor Who fans, who recorded the episode as best they could with an audio tape recorder and a microphone - creating the only surviving evidence. We can record onto video, Skybox, a HDD player, transfer it to DVD, download it off the iPlayer or even, for those of flexible moral standards, various illegal methods of preservation. In the medieval times, few people were rich enough to have books - they were rare luxuries, which had to be hand copied at great expense. Ever seen medieval chained libraries - like something out of Harry Potter- where the books are in heavy wooden boxes, literally chained to the shelves to preserve them? How many books do you have in your house? We have the National Film archive, and a library under the British Museum with a copy of every book ever written. The BBC have even apologetically set up a detailed tribute website so you can reconstruct what's gone, and Blue Peter are offering a life sized Dalek to anyone who can return missing footage.

In such an atmosphere, its unlikely anything will be lost in quite the same way as Metropolis was. And after sinking into a well of despair halfway through, maybe there is some comfort to be found in Arcadia.

"oh Septimus - how can you bear it? All the lost plays of the Athenians!
Two hundred at least by Aeschylus, Sophocles, Euripides - thousands of
poems - Aristotle's own library brought to Egypt by the noodle's ancestors?
How can we sleep for grief?"

"By counting our stock. Seven from Aeschylus, seven from Sophocles, seventeen from Euripides, my lady!"

Because this isn't a record of all the things a careless human race has misplaced, or "put in a safe place" - it's an expression of joy that something has been saved. The rest of Metropolis! Pray, O desparate movie buffs, pray that unlike "Tomb of the Cybermen" it was as truly worth recovering as everyone has always hoped. And now I'm going to watch some celebratory Through the Dragon's Eye...

Film Studies Survey

2008-07-03T08:48:00.000-07:00

I'm out of ideas today, and clearing out my film studies folder - so I thought I'd treat you to a tour of a moviesurvey we had to write and present our results. Nothing lifechanging, but fun in its own way.

Section 1: the voters

Total number of surveys filled in:
· Men: 12
· Women: 14
Only one voter had difficulty answering this question correctly; we can only assume he ticked female by mistake.

Age range:
· 1-13: 0
· 14-21: 13
· 21:40: 5
· 40+: 8

At this point we asked what people's favourite films were, mostly for nosy snobbishness.

Section 2: film

What genres of film do you enjoy?
We specified all the obvious genres, of which the most popular were:
Comedy
Thriller
Action
Adventure
Crime

The least popular were:
Horror
Sci fi
Romance
Western
Art-house

All genres recieved a fairly large number of votes however, and two voters also added "asian films" and "feel good films" to the list.

Predictably enough, lots of men disliked romantic films – however, a similar amount unexpectedly disliked horror. Women were more predictable, liking romance, rom-com and drama best, disliking westerns and sci fi – thrillers being the only anomaly. Film taste was more universal over all ages.

Five people ticked the box claiming they have very wide taste – so some of them are probably lying.

What influences your decision when deciding what film to see?

Again we suggested a series of reasons. Hardly anyone takes notice of what reviewers say, much preferring the opinions of people they know – particularly women. Most people think the genre and story are very important factors, however are unconcerned by the amount of “objectionable” content. The number concerned about the cast are about equal with that of the crew. Though posters help promote awareness of the film, most people wouldn’t go to see something on the grounds of the poster alone.

Do subtitles put you off?
The majority of people (16) had no problem with subtitles, although 3 preferred dubbing. 7 people never watch foreign films anyway – particularly women.

What do you think of all the remakes in Hollywood?
Most people were against remaking old films, with 5 out of 13 proposing to round up and shoot people who tried. 2 people remained neutral, and 7 had no problem with it. Only one person thought they were a good idea. In general, women thought they were a worse idea than men.

Sequels?
17 people would definitely see the sequel to a film they had enjoyed, though 8 people said they would be wary, as they sometimes spoil the original. Nobody complained that too many sequels were happening.

Section 3: watching film

What’s the most recent thing you’ve seen at the cinema?
There were a wide spread of answers to this question. 4 had not been since Pirates of the Caribbean – two people had seen Fellowship of the Ring most recently and one person had most recently seen Titanic.

Who do you usually go to the cinema with?
Most people go to the cinema with somebody – most people go with either family or friends, very few ever go alone. Alarmingly, five people don’t take into account what they’re watching before deciding who to take…

More women went with their families than men, both sexes were equal with taking friends and partners. Women were more emphatic that they would never go on their own.

Is cinema food overpriced?
Most people said yes – 17 would be happier if it were cheaper, though 4 didn’t mind too much. 4 people thought it was about what they’d expect to pay. Women are far more stingy about the cost of cinema food.

And nobody said it was cheap…

Are the tickets at your local cinema…
12 people said they thought it was alright – 11 said it was overpriced. Again, nobody thought they were too cheap. This time, men had more problems with the price.

Do you prefer going to the cinema or watching films at home?
12 people said it depended on the film – of those with a preference, 10 preferred home viewing to the cinema.

How often do you go to the cinema?
About every 2 weeks:………0
About every 2 months:……..11
Once or twice a year:……….12
Less:……………………...…1
Never:……………………….1

Women went to the cinema frequently than men

How many of these are a problem at your local cinema?
Too many adverts – 10
Bad picture quality – 6
Never anything good on – 4
Other people – 8
Talking – 11
Eating – 12
Mobiles – 4
The misanthrope - I object to the very existence of the other audience members: 6

Perhaps our cinema is just bad, but someone found issues with every suggestion we listed. All the votes came from locals, and thus all about the same place. In addition, we received these complaints:
Cold
smells
Rubbish sound
Small screen (6 complaints!)
People’s heads
People laughing at inappropriate times
People throwing sweets at the screen
Don’t show all films

Ever seen something more than once at the cinema?
9 people said they never did this, though 11 said they had once for a particular film. Four people admitted to doing it pretty frequently. Women rewatched more than men, by a very very tiny amount.

What do you usually eat there?

Chocolate -11
Sweets -11
Sweet popcorn -10
Popcorn -7
Hot dog/burger -5
Mints -4
Nothing-4
Ice cream -3
Usually, I go out to eat beforehand - 3
Salty popcorn -2
I go out of my way to buy something quiet-1
Nachos-0

Two people commented on drinks – diet coke and water respectively. It’s interesting to note that ¾ of the nothing voters were female, and all the people who voted for salty popcorn over sweet were men.

Section 4: merchandising!

The majority of people will consider getting the soundtrack or the source novel if they liked the film – replica/actual movie props were the least popular piece of merchandising. 4 people would agree to purchase actor spittle. The majority of people, however, never buy anything. Apparently, women are willing to spend more on merchandising, a fact which probably won’t surprise anyone…

If you’ve seen it at the cinema, will you buy the dvd as well?
Most (13) people would definitely buy the dvd, and 12 said they probably would. Only one person claimed they would not normally.

How much would you be willing to pay for an ordinary dvd?
£1-£3 -0
£4-£6 -1
£7-£10 - 6
£11-£15 - 18
£16-£20 -0
more -1

How much would you want to pay for a special edition or boxed set?
14 people said it would depend on the set.
£11-£15 -
£16-£20 - 5
£21-£25 - 6
£26-£30 - 1
£31-40 - 2
more - 1
Men were willing to pay more.

Do you buy dvds as soon as they come out?
If they really wanted to see a film, 16 voters would buy the dvd immediately. 9 would wait for the price to fall, and 1 person doesn’t buy dvds.

Which of these would make you more likely to buy a dvd:
I buy dvds to see the film, not the extras -15
special editions (remastered, directors cut etc) -10
deleted scenes -8
extra disc(s) -6
directors commentaries -5
free gift (art prints, statue, poster etc) -5
Making-ofs -5
special packaging - 2

Generally, the girls more were attracted by bumper deals.

Section 5: randomness
These weren't part of the survey, I was just curious...

Is Star Wars a cult film?
16 people thought it was, 9 people did not (grumble! Shows what they know, eh?)

Ever knowingly purchased a pirate dvd?
Six people had – four said they thought it was worth it. Of this number, half were male.

Ever claimed to like a film you really don’t?
Never -14
Once -3
I sometimes tell white lies-13
Frequently -1

The guys had far more integrity than the girls – only three admitted to telling the occasional white lie.

If you could shoot any one person in the movie business, who would it be and why? (all answers quoted directly from the sheet…)

Artistic differences:

-The director of Star Wars for giving us the prequel after the original first film (Ed: do you mean George Lucas :) ?)
-James Cameron (for making Titanic)
-Michael Bay – ruining good premises with too much brainless action
-Any director/actor who claims they have never seen the original of a remake they just made.
-The President of Fox TV (they cancelled Firefly!)
-Sid Sheinburg (recut Brazil) or any other studio head which cramps decent directors (Ed: yes, this one was me...did you guess?)
- Kiera Knightly – she is in everything and is a terrible actress
-The director of Ideal Husband

Personal insults:
-Steven Spielburg (Egotistical)
-Jennifer Lopez – she is way too full of herself
-Colin Farrell
-Michael Wood
-Jenny McShane – has a steamy scene with a fave actor! I hate her!

Irrational hatred:
-Jim Carey – I don’t find him funny!
-Jim Carey – I hate him with a vengeance
-Angelina Jolie- I just don’t like her
-Drew Barrimore – why not?
-Roger Rabbit – Haven’t a clue why
-Damon Albarn. He played a cockney taxi driver once.

Everyone else:
-Daniel Radcliffe
-Amanda Bynes
-The Ministers for Sport and Culture
-Anyone who uses fire arrows in film

Did you have difficulty narrowing that list down to one?
Eleven people voted yes, hating their victim with a single minded passion – the other eleven people voted no, proving what a high number of idiots there are in the industry.

Hottest male star:
According to the guys…
Sean Bean
Russel Crowe
Johnny Depp
Samuel L Jackson
Jude Law
Brad Pitt x2
Paul Newman
Nick Cage

According to the girls…
Bruce Willis
Tom Hanks
Johnny Depp
Zac Efron
Patrick Swayze
Jeremy Sumpter
Joaquin Phoenix
Hugh Jackman
Robert Redford
Ewan McGregor
Orlando Bloom
Rufus Sewell

40+ group

Bruce Willis
Brad Pitt
Paul Newman
Patrick Swayze

21-40 group

Sean Bean
Russel Crowe
Tom Hanks
Johnny Depp x2
Samuel L Jackson

14-21 group
Jude Law
Zac Efron
Jeremy Sumpter
Nick Cage
Joaquin Phoenix
Brad Pitt
Hugh Jackman
Robert Redford
Ewan McGregor
Orlando Bloom
Rufus Sewell

Most votes: Johnny Depp and Brad Pitt

Observation: a few men refused to name a hottest male actors, while the women all happily put down their opinion of both male and female stars.

Hottest female star:

According to the guys…
Keira Knightly x2
Meg Ryan
Kim Basinger*
Scarlett Johanson
Halle Berry
Natalie Portman x2
Monica Belluci
Helen Hunt

According to the girls…
Julia Roberts x2
Sandra Bullock
Natalie Portman x2
Cameron Diaz
Kate Winslet
Monica Belluci x2
Keeley Hawes
Reese Witherspoon
Juliet Aubrey

40+
Sandra Bullock
Meg Ryan
Scarlett Johanson
Monica Belluci
Helen Hunt
Julia Roberts

21-40

Keira Knightly
Julia Roberts
Kim Basinger*
Natalie Portman
Halle Berry

14-21
Natalie Portman x2
Kate Winslet
Keira Knightly
Monica Belluci x2
Keeley Hawes
Reese Witherspoon
Juliet Aubrey

*(from about 10-15 years ago – she’s getting a bit old now -ed, added by a voter)

Most votes: Natalie Portman (4), Monica Belluci (3), Keira Knightly and Julia Roberts (2)

Worst film ever seen:

Army of Darkness
Blair witch project
Buffy the Vampire Slayer (the movie)
Dark City
Dodgeball
Evolution
Fritz the Cat x2
Hercules in New York
Ideal Husband
Lady in Black
Langaliers
Lord of the Rings
O Brother, Where art thou?
Open Water
“Can’t remember, but Sting was in it”
The 60s
The Cube
The Good Girl
Titanic

And the vigilante– someone couldn’t narrow it down to one and felt the need to put down a shortlist of the really bad films watched all the way through:
A Town called Bastard
Bats
Hawk the Slayer
Heaven’s Gate
Pete’s Dragon
Star Trek V: The Final Fronteir
The Long Chase
The Pad – And how to use it
The Sphynx
The Ultimate Warrior

We two against the world.

2008-06-28T07:35:00.000-07:00

So we watched Planet Terror. Did I enjoy it? Stupid question. It was everything I expected it to be, and awesome to boot.

PT is unashamed trash, glorious wonderful trash. The script is knowingly awful (but never at the expense of a few good lines - say, the running joke about useless talents), but you watch it to see a babe with a machine-gun-leg, not Proustian digressions on the nature of the self.

Speaking of legs, this movie came out last year when my sister broke her thighbone. At the time I suggested she have it replaced with a gun - even though it was the other leg. I'm not sure she appreciated the suggestion. Ironically enough, the broken leg would resurface as we watched - she repeatedly pointed out the medical flaws in Cherry's ability to walk, talk, swear, shag, ride a bike, on account of her being a) in shock and b) under anesthetic. Everytime I began to explain that, having been attacked by zombies, presumably the zombie-juice would cauterise the wound in some way, she replied defensively that I had no idea what it felt like, and she did. Which presumably means there's something about the whole "I just broke my leg while on a cycle" scenario that she's not telling me...

I loved the jumpy, scuffed up style. In my opinion, the film would have been dire without it. It took the film one level more away from reality - allowing for greater gore content and excusing the deliberately terrible bits. At the same time, the raw nastiness of the screen quality amped up the nastiness of the movie, giving it a surreal, lurid quality. When I was looking for a copy of Saw to view at Halloween, the only one I could find to borrow was a pirate edition which was savagely blurred - I bought it in the end, because the script and performances alone were not atmospheric enough without the mucky detail of the bathroom set. And thus here, the occasional jumps and scuffs, those moments when everything but red washed out of the film, the sound was all crackled up, the image wobbled or the film burnt up entirely. Hell, its just like our local cinema!

At the same time, it still made a good movie. I loved the Wray-Cherry relationship, the sherrif-Wray relationship (and wasn't the idea of placing the inevitable scene when they bond man-style in the "missing reel" a genius one - we instantly know what's gone on), and the two brothers (particularly when it gets all buddyish). And I want Dakota's syringe gun!

Turns out my family are as nerdy on Robert Rodriguez as I am - Dad identified Cheech Marin as Sex Machine from Dusk til Dawn, while my sister spotted the running Machete gag from Spy Game, and I identified Dakota's son Tony as Rodriguez's own son Rebel. Incidentally, don't RR's kids have the coolest names - Rebel, Racer, Rocket and Rogue. His daughter is a more restrained Rhiannon. Although it might come as a hinderance when Rocket wants to become a tax attorney, it's an awesome name for a kid.

RR still makes his films like indie films, despite having the mainstream budget. Planet Terror, for example, stars his personal physician as a doctor, and his real estate agent as a strip club owner. He used his own son because he didn't want to genuinely traumatise a child. And if you've seen the film, check out the imdb FAQ for further details of his son's role because its just fascinating. The bottom line is: I love this guy.

Favourite fact from imdb: John Carpenter was originally involved in the music, and although RR eventually wrote it himself, extracts from Escape from New York appear. You may well ask why this is so interesting. One of my mid-movie reactions was noting the similarity of both movie and music to John Carpenter's Assault on Precinct 13. It's always nice to prove yourself right...

Afterwards, we watched a particularly violent episode of Battlestar Galactica, and I was back to wincing. Planet Terror's gore is so over the top - the lurid over-saturated colours make it look less like ketchup and more like a sort of salsa - that it soon ceases to have an effect. Coupled with the outlandish plot, its far less disgusting than BSG's rather restrained garotting which was set in a realistic place. Well, relitavely...

I just wish I could have seen it on screen. And I wish I could drag my friends around to see it - it's the type of film that should be seen with friends. As it was, I watched with father and sister who were a good audience. It's just a pity its way. way. way. way. too unpleasant in every way for my buddies. I wouldn't enjoy it, because they wouldn't. But I might get them to see Death Proof - a girly movie, with lots of car chases.

My only fear is that, with Planet Terror turning out so good, I won't enjoy it as much. Especially because that movie was the one I was most excited about - the grunge, grime and horror. Death Proof sounds like more its own film, and less of such a faithful pastiche.

Speaking of QT, I saw a horribly exploitative offer in town today. It's one thing to be ripped off; its quite another to recognise you are being ripped off, and want it anyway. It's a limited edition Reservoir Dogs case. I say limited edition - I mean cheap knockoff. The DVD cover's like none I've ever seen before, and the whole thing smacks of a shoddy pirate effort. It comes in a case with handcuff cufflinks, Vic Vega dogtags, a Vic Vega flick-razor (it's actually a comb, but it looks like the razor, so who's counting), sunglasses and - the ultimate in tasteless cool - a Vic Vega cigarette lighter. Now what the fuzz would I do with a lighter? I don't even smoke, and I'd run out of cops to burn pretty quickly. But...but...its so preeeety...

Anyway, good sense prevailed - I can't justify it. But I can ogle it lovingly all the same. Instead, I got Paths of Glory and The Big Lebowski in the HMV £4 sale, and took All About Eve out of the library. It's gonna be a good week...

2008-06-27T10:28:00.000-07:00

Thank you, thank you oh blessed gods of rain - the barbacue has been cancelled.

We're watching Planet Terror!

Yes, this does make me a truly awful friend.

Was that a haiku?

He's a disco-dancing, Oscar Wilde reading, Streissand ticket holding friend of Dorothy, know what I'm saying?

2008-06-27T09:00:00.000-07:00

Who would want to be a guy? Girls have all the freedom. I can watch any genre I like - guys can't. If I parade crime as my movie dish of choice, no one minds - in fact, its really rather cool. I don't know a single guy who admits to loving romances - do they exist, or are they just very quiet about it?

At the same time, when the misery of no romance finally hits following the end-of-school dance, I can still indulge in a mega-marathon of Brief Encounter, When Harry met Sally and Clueless, armed with one box of kleenex and one box of chocolates. Who would be a man?!

Brief Encounter is what happens when one wakes up with "As Time Goes By" in the head, realises there's no legal way to get hold of Casablanca before 11o'clock, and has to settle for second best - the British black-and-white smoldering couple instead of the American; train stations instead of airports. I wasn't entirely joking about the kleenex either - while I handled the latter two movies, well, like a man, I actually cried all the way through Brief Encounter. Which is probably a new record. Or something. I'm a pretty easy cry, but this was impressive even by my standards. All the way through.

I was impressed by the music - 40s movies tend to drown in their overwritten scores. BE did drown, but it matched the mood of the film very well. All or most of it was Rachmaninoff's Second Piano Concerto. I'm not a classical expert - but you'd recognise it if you heard it, because the tune was ripped off as "All by Myself". So while the swells of piano and strings echoed the emotion, certain scenes appeared to be accompanied by the famous love ballad. To pretty good effect as well.

To say its an old film, a lot of Laura's dialogue feels so real and raw. Definitely not a film to watch when feeling sore over love yourself. Mind you, romance never gets old. One of the attractive thing about Ovid's love poetry (written in the good ole Roman days, remember) is how fresh and modern it feels.

Incidentally, my favourite scene was between Alec and his friend Steve. It was bizzare for showing Alec apart from Laura - everything else was from her point of view, leading to the post-1999 interpretation that maybe he's a figment of her imagination. Like ignoring James Stewart for five minutes, and giving Harvey a whole scene to himself. I liked the sudden danger it gave the film - the tone was emotional and bittersweet, but Steve knowing gave it a threatening reality, and his amused reaction made their behaviour seem truly sordid. I'm not in the habit of assuming just because a writer is gay his characters will be gay also (and its a hard position to defend when Oscar Wilde is your favourite author), but I kinda assumed Steve was, at least as gay as one could be in the 40s. His slightly jilted reaction suggests Alec does have a whole world apart from Laura, which you never feel in the rest of the film.

When Tarantino made Pulp Fiction, he told all the characters to assume they were the hero of their own movie - a Mia Wallace movie, a Pumpkin and Honey Bunny movie, whatever. Its an attitude I like to take to films in general. I want to see the Steve and Alec film, not because I think Alec is anything other than entirely straight, but because it would be interesting...

And finally, he's played by Valentine blummin' Dyall! I only just found this out, but excited doesn't cover it. I'm checking the video as we speak. The "Man in Black" was in 70s Doctor Who as the Black Guardian (my no. 1 vote for villain who should come back into the new series), in my 2nd favourite episode of all time Enlightenment. I can see why I didn't recognise him - he looks different 40 years younger, without a big black eeevil cape and a dead bird on his head.

In short it was wonderful. Its certainly made a good double bill with When Harry met Sally (well, I watched BE the evening before, and WHmS the morning after, but the effect was the same). Particularly the moral "men and women can never truly be friends because the sex part always gets in the way", which really could have applied to Brief Encounter. Even though I felt too young to appreciate it properly - I'm still a good ten years off being a thirty-something wondering why she isn't married and depressed about middle age - I'm enough of a pessimist to get the idea. I admired it as a rom com because it was desperately romantic, without being cheesy. By the time it got to its cliches, it had earned them by being so cynical earlier on.

Incidentally, the new year speech - the one at the end - was printed in Empire as a great scene, and I loved it so much I bought the movie. At least Brief Encounter's famous last scene is repeated at the start, so you don't have to wait the whole thing for the stuff you recognise.

And then onto Clueless, which I watched with my sister. We both found it hilarious - until I realised or remembered it was based on the novel Emma. At that point, knowing the rest of the story, my enthusiasm faded. Final verdict - very good, but give me the Heathers any day.

Am I a bad friend? Ever since Grindhouse was announced, I've been really excited to see it. I groaned when it didn't come to England intact; I complained when it didn't come to our island at all. I've already got the soundtrack; I already quote it. If you check in regularly, you'll probably be sick of hearing about it. One of the worst nights of my life was spent in a hotel room between the hours of 8 and 11:30, with a full version of Grindhouse showing at the cinema next door from midnight onwards. It was torture - I can't handle late nights, and it would have been better had my parents said "no" outright - at least then I could have got angry at them, instead of gradually feeling my strength seep away, and realising I couldn't handle (let alone enjoy) any film (let alone one criticised for its length) if I was already too tired half an hour before it starts.

Finally, I start seeing it in DVD shops. Initially, I decided to wait for the inevitable three disc set - the real film, packaged with the long versions of Planet Terror and Death Proof which made it through English cinemas. But it's been years since Kill Bill, and there still isn't a decent boxed set out. So I gave in in the recent bargain sale and bought both.

That was two weeks ago - the path of true love never did run smooth - and the next obstacle was my family. Namely my mother and sister - but eventually an occasion when they are both out presents itself - Friday. Today. Am I excited? Oh yes. But there's a problem...

Two days ago, my friends and I went out for breakfast. Its the summer holidays, and our usual meet ups have been getting dull. Hence we are becoming more creative. Breakfast was one novel replacement for going out for dinner. We started planning a barbacue. For Friday.

Folks, what do I do? I can't throw over a party for a DVD I can watch anytime...can I? Its not like I have somewhere else to go - I'm just staying in on my own. But...but...but...

My IMDB top 250 - part one

2008-06-25T11:57:00.000-07:00

It's a long time since I printed out a copy of the top 250 and stuck it on my wall. Three years later (maaaan, this blog is old!), at 121/250, I have seen almost exactly half. Frustratingly, of course, films drop on and off the list - I'm sure both 12 monkeys and Butch Cassidy used to be here - but no matter.

So here's an analysis of the ones I haven't seen -

Initially, just as a prompt to get me writing - but now its more of a mission statement, a review of things to see over the summer. And a confession - yes, I have STILL not seen Kane...

1. The Godfather (1972)
2. The Shawshank Redemption (1994)
3. The Godfather: Part II (1974)
4. Buono, il brutto, il cattivo, Il (1966)
5. Pulp Fiction (1994)

6. Schindler's List (1993) - longtime readers will be aware of my pathological dislike of real life tragedy. I like to be troubled, I like to be disturbed - but only in a Tideland-y sort of way. I understand this film is brilliant, and if the chance to see it ever arises maybe I'll give in. But I'm not going out of my way to thoroughly spoil my evening. Selfish attitude? The truth.

7. One Flew Over the Cuckoo's Nest (1975) - I didn't realise this was quite this high. In any case, its one I'm really looking forward to still. Insanity floats my boat; so does rebellion against conformity and institutions. Jack Nickleson is one of the "great actors" I still haven't got around to. Plus, my mother thought it was a "distasteful" film, or "very nasty" or something like that - and that's normally a good indication that I'll enjoy.

8. Star Wars: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back (1980)
9. Casablanca (1942)
10. Star Wars (1977)
11. 12 Angry Men (1957)
12. Shichinin no samurai (1954)
13. The Lord of the Rings: The Return of the King (2003)
14. Goodfellas (1990)

15. Rear Window (1954) - much like Schindler's Ark, I know this film isn't going anywhere. I'm not excited - bad experience with Vertigo and the first half of Psycho has put me off Hitchcock's psyce- dramas. Although 39 Steps and The Lady Vanishes were a lot of fun. One day, it'll be on TV or cheap in Oxfam. Until then, I can wait.

16. Raiders of the Lost Ark (1981)

17. Cidade de Deus (2002) - Hypocracy is the spice of life. Forget anything I ever said about avoiding harrowing real life dramas - this is one I'm looking forward to. I've heard a lot about the atmosphere - y'know, sweaty and raw, untrained actors, the crew almost getting linched by local gangsters. Looking forward to an excuse to see it.

18. C'era una volta il West (1968)
19. The Lord of the Rings: The Fellowship of the Ring (2001)
20. The Usual Suspects (1995)

21. Psycho (1960) - Watched the first half of this in film studies, and boy it was tedious. We got as far as the shower, but I wasn't inspired to watch on. Half a year later, on a school trip, we had just checked into our hotels after the longest day (we'd been up at three AM for a coach to Paris, then a flight over the Atlantic, then another internal flight, then another coach. Eventually, we were up for a full 24 hours) - at this point we had been up for maybe 20 hours straight. So I found the classic movies channel, and put it on as background noise. Turned out it was Psycho, and I suddenly got really fond of it. Hey, I was homesick, I was entertaining visits from others in our group (our hotel room was acutally a five room suite, so people kept coming up to ogle), and besides - I thought Norman Bates was great. Plus, my roomate began her shower at exactly the wrong moment...much like the above, I'm not actively looking for it, but I am now willing to sit it through to the end.

22. Fight Club (1999)

23. Dr. Strangelove or: How I Learned to Stop Worrying and Love the Bomb (1964)- did I ever tell you Kubrick was God? He never appears on my favourite directors lists, but he'd be near the top of my top 20 if pressed. This is one of the few I haven't seen - or rather, seen all of. Our history teachers let us watch the first half as a treat after finishing our Cold War studies. I loved it, tho I assume everyone else would have preferred Friends or Finding Nemo. All I need is an oppertunity. In fact, I'll get it out next time I go to the library...

24. The Silence of the Lambs (1991) - I've never been enthusiastic about this. Much like the Third Man, i feel a viewing would be marred by the "join the dots" spoilers. So for The Third Man, once you've got past Vienna-zither-ferriswheel-feet in the door - hands in the grate, you already feel you know it too well. Now actually, that's rubbish - there's so much more to that film, and all the famous bits are in the last ten minutes. But still, they can keep their chianti for now. Jodie Foster doesn't interest me, neither does Anthony Hopkins. Plus, my mother reckons it's still too unpleasant for me. And while I don't stick rigidly to my parents recommendations, I figure there's no harm in this one.

25. Citizen Kane (1941) - ah, dear old Kane - the bane of my life and butt of my every joke. I really need to see this film before I mock it into a corner it can't get out of. But there's nothing worse than watching The Greatest Film Of All Time while trying to watch it with a blank slate and fresh approach. In actual fact, I have seen it - back on a Saturday afternoon, barely recalled from childhood. Tragically, the true identity of Rosebud is all I remember.

26. North by Northwest (1959) - I've already expounded my feelings on Hitchcock. Some classic movies feel as fresh and modern as the day they were made - Some like it Hot, Casablanca, the Third Man. Some should have stayed in the 50s. Until you try it, you never know; but I can't help but feel a weariness when approaching them.

27. Sunset Blvd. (1950) - this film is an entirely unknown quantity. With the exception of "alright, I'm ready for my close up", and a passionate rendition of the musical's title song by John Barrowman, I know nothing. There's a fine line between knowing too much, and knowing enough to whet the enthusiasm.

28. Memento (2000)
29. The Lord of the Rings: The Two Towers (2002)
30. It's a Wonderful Life (1946)
31. The Matrix (1999)

32. Se7en (1995) - Friend 3 is dead excited about seeing this, and in celebration of her 18th birthday bought it, Usual Suspects, Fight Club, Smoking Aces and a few other things she hadn't been allowed last week. I hope to borrow it off her - I need to lend her History of Violence anyway.

33. Lawrence of Arabia (1962) - much like Citizen Kane, I saw this through the same childhood mist. I remember a motorcycle crash (or was that Dam Busters?), and the attack on the train. It barely counts as having seen it though...

34. Apocalypse Now (1979)
35. Taxi Driver (1976)
36. American Beauty (1999)
37. Léon (1994)
38. Vertigo (1958)

39. American History X (1998) - I caught the middle 20 minutes of this the day my sister broke her thighbone. We were up late, waiting for news from the hospital. It depressed me. Not the leg, that was very upsetting of course; I mean the movie. Ed Norton is always worth a watch, but to be honest racism pisses me off more than it makes me feel sad or sympathetic, and irritable isn't a good way to watch a movie. Plus, it was nasty, but not in a movie-OK way. Despite that, the black-and-white cinematography was very eyecatching - and I did only catch the middle on a day already stressful, so I am willing to give it a fairer trial.

40. Fabuleux destin d'Amélie Poulain, Le (2001)

41. Paths of Glory (1957) - more Kubrick. Am I excited? You can blummin bet I am...

42. The Departed (2006) - incidentally, I'm impressed to see this here. Current movies always get onto the list - few stay for long.

43. M (1931) - Boy am I excited about this. As mentioned above, there's nothing more exciting than discovering a movie classic is as raw and terrifying as anything produced by the modern world. I don't know, I haven't seen it. But I have seen Metropolis, and that more than earnt its stature as great. And people say great things.

44. To Kill a Mockingbird (1962) - ugh. Well maybe that's unfair - I had that reaction to reading the book, and turns out that's fantastic (who knew?). So maybe I should give this a go. But I feel the same sort of safe tedium about it expressed above about North by Northwest. Plus, after loving Gregory Peck so much as morally grey Mallory in Guns of Navarone, I'm not sure I could go back to seeing him as whiter-than-white Atticus Finch.

45. A Clockwork Orange (1971)

46. Chinatown (1974) - this is now very, very high on my list of must-sees. Partly because I know there is a killer twist, without knowing what it is - a very rare state for me and a high-profile movie. But also because its a gangster classic, and I'm swiftly running out of those.

47. Alien (1979)
48. The Third Man (1949)

49. The Treasure of the Sierra Madre (1948) - I recognise the name - but this is the first film on the list I couldn't tell you anything about. Actors? Plot? I kinda assume it's a boys own adventure, but was it a western? Or set in the war? Or was that Maltese Falcon? uncertainty is a wonderful thing.

50. Leben der Anderen, Das (2006)
51. Forrest Gump (1994)
52. Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (2004)

53. The Shining (1980) - are all Kubrick's films on the list? Well, sans Eyes Wide Shut (probably). In any case, I am actively avoiding this. I just can't do scary movies, any scary movies; scary movies that scare even hardened horror fans are one place I refuse to go. Kubrick or no.

54. Double Indemnity (1944) - oooooh, noir! Fun fun fun...

55. The Pianist (2002)
56. Saving Private Ryan (1998)
57. Laberinto del fauno, El (2006)
58. Monty Python and the Holy Grail (1975)
59. Sen to Chihiro no kamikakushi (2001)

60. L.A. Confidential (1997) - I almost got my sister to see this yesterday. She is (guffaw) attempting the top 1001 film list, which is hilarious to me personally. Her plan to watch one a day is even more failed than mine - she's watching Wimbledon instead. The list is covered with films which she's refused to watch over the last two years. I came over with a craving to watch this, she agreed - because it was on the list. But I bottled out - she said "shall we watch it?" with such a sense of tedium I knew she wouldn't take in a word. It's about enjoying them, not ticking them off a list. Right?

61. Requiem for a Dream (2000) - my interest in this was first triggered by the theme's use in the LOTR: Two Towers trailer. Even though it has been overused in trailers since, I advise you to check it out because its a very exciting piece of work. I actually thought we had this recorded off the TV - apparently not. I'm still looking out for it though.

62. The Bridge on the River Kwai (1957)
63. Aliens (1986)
64. Reservoir Dogs (1992)
65. Boot, Das (1981)

66. The Maltese Falcon (1941) - no, this is the boys-own WWII adventure, which makes Sierra Madre the western, right? Right? It hurts being unfamiliar with great films - and a trip to IMDB points out it is actually a film noir (oops...) Where Eagles Dare was the one I had in mind. At least I got one right...

67. Terminator 2: Judgment Day (1991) - its funny that the sequal always gets the honours - it doesn't happen with many films. Even the Alien, Godfather and Star Wars franchises have the decency to praise both parts one and two. I'm not desperately excited about this.

68. Untergang, Der (2004)

69. There Will Be Blood (2007) - ugh, sounds a bit worthy for me. Plus, despite the attractive promise in the title, I can't help but recall it was also the tagline for Saw II.

70. No Country for Old Men (2007) - on the other hand, the Coens are always worth a watch, and I couldn't be more excited about this. Plus, Friend 3 got it for her birthday...

71. Raging Bull (1980) - Scorcese is one of the greats, I get it. I don't get him, though - I recognised Goodfellas was great, but didn't feel it; I did love The Departed; again, Taxi Driver bounced off without changing my life. I refused to see The Aviator and, just like my mother, Age of Innocence may still be his greatest achievement. I am still excited about Casino, and particularly Mean Streets. But Raging Bull sounds so unpleasantly downbeat. Plus, I am still confused as to the absolute godhead of de Niro. He was impressive in the end of Heat, but I'm missing the point somewhere.

72. Rashômon (1950) - I'm definitely willing to give this a spin. My contact with Seven Samuri was...completely underwhelming, in two words. I didn't even, as with Taxi Driver, recognise why it was great without feeling it on an emotional level. So I'm keen to give Kurosawa a second chance; and the multiple viewpoint device interests me.

73. Metropolis (1927)
74. 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968)

75. Modern Times (1936) - watching Chaplin is just one of those things I'll get around to in time.

76. Rebecca (1940) - no. Nonononononono. I read this recently as part of my deluded quest to finish the "1001 books to read before you die", and adored it. Particularly Max, and particularly the central deed of the novel. Now while I'm sure Mr Master of Suspense does a great job of presenting the claustrophobia and "haunting" of a dead woman, that doesn't change the fact that someone has changed the facts within the novel. This central deed has been made accidental instead of horribly deliberate, removing one of the major things I loved. Plus, who could make Rebecca in black and white? Granted they had no other option, but when I remake it (and I hope you will buy a ticket, for all the critics will compare it unfavourably with the original) it will make full use of colour schemes. It's one of the most coloured books I have ever read...rant over.

77. Sin City (2005) - I wanted to see this when it came out for the style, and I'm still keen to. I haven't quite worked out how yet - it won't come on TV, I don't want to buy it and I can't get my parents involved - dad thought it was terrible (not enough intelligent plot), and I can guess my mum's reaction. Plus, I'm keen to get going on the graphic novel too - I'm devouring the local library's collection at a terrific rate.

78. Singin' in the Rain (1952)
79. Amadeus (1984)

80. Hotel Rwanda (2004) - you know my feelings on this I'm sure. My favourite Africa movies are Zulu and Out of Africa - buddy adventure and sweeping romantic triumph. Genocide? Oh wonderful. However good it is, you'll have a trick pursuading me to watch it.

81. Some Like It Hot (1959)

82. All About Eve (1950) - my entire knowledge of this film comes from my co-blogger Catherine, who blogged it for the Film that Changed my Life blogathon. Even though I'm always lazy with recommendations, nevertheless I intend to jump at it the first chance I get. I'm assured by her enthusiasm that it won't be a tedious classic, and that its bite will have survived into the 21st C.

83. Vita è bella, La (1997) - English class - and five people were late. 15 minutes late. When they fell in through the door (and falling is the only word to describe it) they were all clutching kleenexes, red eyed and snuffling miserably. They had been studying Holocaust movies in Drama, and this was my introduction to Life is Beautiful. Yes, I'll watch it, OK? Are you happy now?

84. The Prestige (2006)
85. The Great Escape (1963)

86. The Elephant Man (1980) - not even a film I've ever thought about. I know its good, but apart from that I neither know nor care about it.

87. City Lights (1931) - more Chaplin. I remember being recommended this film a lot in a circle from a few years back. Much like Modern Times, I'm not going to run out and go looking, but I'm willing to watch.

88. Sjunde inseglet, Det (1957)
89. Full Metal Jacket (1987)
90. Jaws (1975)
91. On the Waterfront (1954)

92. Touch of Evil (1958) - this is another one which sends me scurrying to IMDb to confirm it's the Orson Welles noir. Now I'm looking forward to this - because its noir, and I want to enjoy something Welles-y which isn't on the same pedestal as Kane.

93. The Sting (1973)

94. Once Upon a Time in America (1984) - Sergio Leone, oh yeah! Gangsters! New York! 3 hours...nah, its definitely worth it. Even though de Niro again makes me feel slightly less enthusiastic.

95. Blade Runner (1982)

96. The Apartment (1960) - um Jack Lemmon and Billy Wilder? Well, Some Like it Hot was awesome - and Billy Wilder was on Empire's top 20 directors list (two years ago it was my mission to see one by every director - I'm still missing Sam Peckinpah and Orson Welles. I've got Woody Allen completely covered now...) So just give me the oppertunity.

97. Nuovo cinema Paradiso (1988) - I know exactly what to expect from this film - which is nice. And on a day when I feel like unashamed sepia nostalga, I'll go running for it. I love the music in any case.

98. Braveheart (1995) - there's a flipside to "knowing what to expect" of a film. I know exactly what's coming from this film, and I'm already bored. Still, it'll be fun to see Patrick McGoohan stretch his hammy-evil muscles as King Ed.

99. The Great Dictator (1940) - look, more Chaplin! Gee, I hope I enjoy the first one I watch, cos otherwise I'll be stumped for the others...

100. Strangers on a Train (1951) - Friend...actually, she doesn't have a number. In any case, a good friend with excellent taste recommended this to me. I enjoyed Hitchcock's other train film (The Lady Vanishes), and I'm definitely ready for this.

OK, running out of time for Easy Rider. It's a sad state when you would rather write about film than watch film. But I can't help myself - watching classics depresses me. Catch you later.

My moustache still smells of your testes!

2008-06-25T11:22:00.000-07:00

Today we watched Borat - and enjoyed it, bizzarely enough. Somehow, much like Team America: World Police I don't think I or my friends were the intended audience. You know the plot: Borat - uncivilised representative of a backward East-European nation - comes to America to improve his country and learns all the wrong lessons. Along the way, he uncovers much of what is wrong with that society and humanity in general; not to mention recieving lawsuits from many of the real people who he unwittingly reveals.

So what did I learn from Borat? Honesty. The people who came off worse were ones with pretentions, inhibitions and prejudices. Lulu, the overweight prostitute (was she a member of the cast from the start, or an unknowing extra who they got on the payroll at a later date?); the black youths who teach him to speak like a homie; the gay pride parade; even the members of the uber-evangelical church - who yes, were scary, but also came out of the movie very well.

There was still smiles to be raised about the Christians and homosexuals - it's a comedy, not a serious examination of society - but the people we saw did not embarass themselves. Even the fake Kazak village - amusing, but also open and friendly.

Contrast that with the uptight dining society, or my goodness the feminists! To be fair, he provoked them. But still - it was mainly the, shall we say, middle class of American who could not accept him.

On the other hand, honesty wasn't the best policy for the headman at the rodeo. Although, with my natural dispensation to think the best of everyone, I like to think his advice he shave his tash to look a bit less Muslim was friendly and well meant, not shameless bigotry. Lets put it this way - I've attended a proper Texan rodeo, and its awesome fun. But I wouldn't like to be the only Muslim in the audience, because it was also quite scary.

Another character (can I call him a character? He's a real person after all...) who has undergone a lot of flack was the fun salesman who recommends a certain gun for killing Jews with. To be honest, the casual racism would have shocked me more

I understand permission to carry a weapon is a basic right in America. It's also bloody stupid. If no one is allowed to have a gun, then you don't need a gun to protect yourself from people with guns. If you are attacked, you are far less likely to get hurt if you don't pull a gun (and if you don't believe me, try the woman in the car from Reservoir Dogs as an example). When I was on holiday there, there was a school shooting - quite an unpleasant one. We watched it on the news, as it was reported with that exploitative enthusiasm that American news programs tend towards. They interviewed a representative of the gun lobby. He said the way to stop school massacres was to let students arm themselves - that way, if someone did start attacking them, they could defend themselves. No comment, asshole.

I like America, honest. I'm not one of those Europeans who assume they're all fat and stupid - that annoys me more than anything. It just happens that I'm talking about two things I really hate about the country - the gun culture, and the television.

Anyway, back to Borat - specifically, those who accuse this of being racist, anti-semetic or offensive? Well it certainly is offensive. But it's unfair to peg it as deliberately unpleasant to any one group is unfair to the myriad of other targets. It picks fun on America and Kazakstan equally.

As for the Jews? It's a mockery of centuries of pointless persecution, not persecution itself. I don't enjoy taking things seriously - and you don't get much more serious than racism. One of my favourite sequences in the film, and certainly the best expose ever of the idiocy of race-hate, was Azimir and Borat realising they are boarding with a Jewish couple. As they hide in terror, spooky threatening music is layed over shots of the family...slowly walking up the stairs...coming closer to the door...with a gorgeously well prepared supper with hot chocolates and brownies.

There is one thing I'd like to know - how did he survive not getting arrested? The movie industry is powerful, but not enough to rescue a star from jail for either indecent public exposure or attempted kidnap.

Incidentally, one way to tell if you are watching Borat with a group of girls or boys - the reaction to the bear. Much like my younger sister's statement that the puppy was the best part of Apocalypse Now, we all loved the bear.

It's also only the second day so far I have adhered to my "one movie a day" mantra - but I do intend to watch Easy Rider later this evening. So maybe that'll make up for days missed...