We were introduced to theme in Screenwriting which is, in my opinion, the soul of any piece of writing. It is, after all, themes that move people, that mean something, that can contain truth. The characters, plot or setting may be memorable but what implants itself in the subconscious, and penetrates through superficial emotion, is that statement of belief. Do you know what you believe? If there is no theme in a film then the audience will try to create one. I know what I believe.
It was pitching time in Adam’s class and Murdo, John and myself eagerly sold our drama Corridors of Power; which I was loathe to part with, having invested so much time and energy in it’s creation. Anyway, who knows? Perhaps one day it will be commissioned and written! Hey, I can dream can’t I? One thing the exercise highlighted for me was that working in small groups is much more effective, and produces far greater results, than working as an individual. Ideas can be bounced back and forward and immediately discarded or developed which cannot happen in one mind (I could try conversing with the mirror) and that is why I know I will find the next assignment, to individually storyline a drama, far more challenging.
We all turned up, bright-eyed and bushy-tailed, on Tuesday morning to be confronted with the news that there was no technical class that morning after all. So that was fair enough, we’d have to just hang around until Gavin’s class in the afternoon. The thought was literally in my head when Gavin appeared to inform us that there would be no class that afternoon either. A day off! I set off back to the flat feeling slightly disappointed but also rather grateful for the unexpected break.
Silent films! They’re just like reading a book really… a book with lots of pictures! Actually I believe they are a cinematic form in their own right, and are still very relevant and enjoyable today (I mean Mr Bean is pretty much silent cinema!), the master of this form being Charlie Chaplin, I would argue from the examples that I’ve seen so far, and I thoroughly enjoyed The Kid. It’s just fantastic, feel-good, funny and flamboyant filmmaking. I love the unique mish-mash of Vaudeville-style slapstick comedy combined with cinematic techniques to provide entertainment which is an experience somewhere between theatre and cinema. In fact, I suppose it harks back to those Music Halls of the early 1900s and the birth of cinema.
The Britannia Panopticon Music Hall was a fantastic venue. Being there, on yet another field trip from our loving and generous tutor Andy Dougan, was like reliving life more than a hundred years ago. I could almost see the people crushed in their thousands in the gallery and hear the noise of shouting, heckling, laughter and applause. I could smell the odour, the urine, the decay and I could feel the cold… I could quite literally feel the cold which helped add to the experience and made it seem all the more realistic somehow. Seeing this place was very worthwhile because of its significance to the history of cinema. Knowing where it started helps put into perspective where it is now, and why. Aside from that, I am fascinated by history and the stories of people in different times and therefore I enjoyed the spirited and graphic description of the Music Hall experience that we received. All in all it was a very successful trip and on reflection it would be a fantastic location to make a film…
Friday morning brought us our first class on Sound. I’d say it was pretty sound… first class in fact! Actually I found it just slightly tedious and uninteresting, however I do appreciate that it is very necessary and there is an art to good recording and design and I have great respect for anyone who really understands how sound works. I remember doing some sound-related activities in Standard Grade Physics but I fear that this barely touched the surface. Anyway, at least we’ll soon be able to point a microphone into some poor actor’s face and produce something mildly comprehensible which is, I suppose, progress.
An enjoyable class on sitcoms to end the week. I Love Lucy (1951) was rather entertaining and displayed the extent to which it has defined the form of sitcoms as they are no different today. The Dick van Dyke Show is, I have decided, my favourite sitcom. It never relies on cheap, sex-fuelled comedy or unimaginative vulgar language for its laughs and true to the Carl Reiner format there is even a lesson learned in each episode. Unfortunately the episode we watched in class was not one of the best, it was rather slow in getting to the gags. The Simpsons delighted as expected. However, I disagree with the idea that they are not a dysfunctional family. They have love yes, even unconditional love but love alone is not sufficient to keep a family functioning properly. Respect, discipline and action are also required but the Simpsons are a perfectly functioning family for the purposes of the sitcom and I would not want them changed. Finally we watched an episode of Two and Half Men which succeeded in lowering the tone and the quality of the afternoon’s entertainment. It is programmes like these that give the impression that any kind of moral conscience, or will to communicate that which is good, on television died with Ed Murrow.
Saturday, 29 November 2008
Saturday, 22 November 2008
Week 8 - Dickie and James
Got lost in Glasgow on Monday morning which was, apart from being rather embarrassing, kind of frustrating because I wasn’t able to help toil and sweat in the arduous task of carrying all the kit from the Halls to the Academy. Gutted. We watched the first episode of The West Wing in Adam’s class and were assigned the exciting task of storylining a season for a TV drama featuring a Scottish Prime Minister, a task which proved to be more of an undertaking than I first expected. Murdo, John and I came up with a rather interesting drama called Corridors of Power. It’s definitely got potential.
Only had to nip in for an hour today for another formative assessment on camera and this time we were required to record a pan and a tilt. Exciting stuff! Actually I wasn’t all that happy with mine but I’m sure practise is all that’s required. Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning were spent on another shoot – this time for a Gaelic Short Film competition – making it the second one in the space of a week. May there be many more.
I was impressed, yet again, by Richard Attenborough with his compelling film Cry Freedom. It was very well made, quite powerful and must have been, at the time it was released (1987), very thought-provoking and challenging. I would be exaggerating to say that it hooked me from the start and took me on a roller-coaster ride of emotion only letting me off when the credits began to roll… It didn’t. However, it was a brave statement on the issue of racism and like all Attenborough’s films gave a helpful insight into a period of history. What fascinated me most about the film, and what caused it to make a bigger impression than it might otherwise have deserved, was that it tackled the portrayal of family life honestly and unashamedly. Instead of modernising and americanising the typical family it was accurate even down to the excitement of the children at getting to stay up and watch a movie… as long as they got their pyjamas on first. It was just the same in my family, if only it was the same in many more in today’s society. Many do not even understand the concept of family and it seems the Donald Woods father figure is a rare find.
Dickie Darling is the epitome of an old English gentleman. That veteran actor sat in his chair, more experience on his shoulders than everyone in that room put together, and talked about… his fame, his success, his knowledge? Oh no, he captivated us like his own grandchildren gathered before the fire and talked about love, family and friendship; the only things of any consequence in this fleeting world. There was something surreal about hearing him talk about having breakfast with (‘sweet’) Steven Spielberg and I look forward to the rumoured Jurassic Park 4! I felt honoured to be the first one to ask a question which was well answered and highlighted the significance of the description The Actor’s Director; he makes films about historical people and events because he is more interested in real people and real events than in the art of cinema. It was truly a privilege to see and speak to a genuine legend and let’s face it how often does one get called “Darling”… never mind by Richard Attenborough?
“Well, I was working with James McAvoy on Friday, having a word with Richard Attenborough on Thursday… can’t recall who it was on Wednesday….” Such is the life of an Academy student! It was an interesting workshop with DFTV 4 and the second year actors, made slightly more interesting by the presence of a Hollywood star, but I was not all that impressed by the directing or camera skills of the fourth years. However, they did work well as a unit and the finished shot looked pretty professional. All the actors’ comments, along with the gems of wisdom offered by James, were probably the most helpful aspect of the whole workshop as it is vital to know the processes and point-of-view of an actor when faced with a lens. It is important to bear these things in mind and I look forward to putting this into practise in the future. The near future, I hope.
Only had to nip in for an hour today for another formative assessment on camera and this time we were required to record a pan and a tilt. Exciting stuff! Actually I wasn’t all that happy with mine but I’m sure practise is all that’s required. Tuesday evening and Wednesday morning were spent on another shoot – this time for a Gaelic Short Film competition – making it the second one in the space of a week. May there be many more.
I was impressed, yet again, by Richard Attenborough with his compelling film Cry Freedom. It was very well made, quite powerful and must have been, at the time it was released (1987), very thought-provoking and challenging. I would be exaggerating to say that it hooked me from the start and took me on a roller-coaster ride of emotion only letting me off when the credits began to roll… It didn’t. However, it was a brave statement on the issue of racism and like all Attenborough’s films gave a helpful insight into a period of history. What fascinated me most about the film, and what caused it to make a bigger impression than it might otherwise have deserved, was that it tackled the portrayal of family life honestly and unashamedly. Instead of modernising and americanising the typical family it was accurate even down to the excitement of the children at getting to stay up and watch a movie… as long as they got their pyjamas on first. It was just the same in my family, if only it was the same in many more in today’s society. Many do not even understand the concept of family and it seems the Donald Woods father figure is a rare find.
Dickie Darling is the epitome of an old English gentleman. That veteran actor sat in his chair, more experience on his shoulders than everyone in that room put together, and talked about… his fame, his success, his knowledge? Oh no, he captivated us like his own grandchildren gathered before the fire and talked about love, family and friendship; the only things of any consequence in this fleeting world. There was something surreal about hearing him talk about having breakfast with (‘sweet’) Steven Spielberg and I look forward to the rumoured Jurassic Park 4! I felt honoured to be the first one to ask a question which was well answered and highlighted the significance of the description The Actor’s Director; he makes films about historical people and events because he is more interested in real people and real events than in the art of cinema. It was truly a privilege to see and speak to a genuine legend and let’s face it how often does one get called “Darling”… never mind by Richard Attenborough?
“Well, I was working with James McAvoy on Friday, having a word with Richard Attenborough on Thursday… can’t recall who it was on Wednesday….” Such is the life of an Academy student! It was an interesting workshop with DFTV 4 and the second year actors, made slightly more interesting by the presence of a Hollywood star, but I was not all that impressed by the directing or camera skills of the fourth years. However, they did work well as a unit and the finished shot looked pretty professional. All the actors’ comments, along with the gems of wisdom offered by James, were probably the most helpful aspect of the whole workshop as it is vital to know the processes and point-of-view of an actor when faced with a lens. It is important to bear these things in mind and I look forward to putting this into practise in the future. The near future, I hope.
Saturday, 15 November 2008
Week 7 – Woe to all the bottles!
Well Monday was mid-term holiday (mid-term already!) so this week began on Tuesday with an MER meeting about the ELIR process outlining what us reps will be required to do whilst the Academy is under review.
I think Andy oversold Network for me. It wasn’t as amazing as I had hoped. It seemed like all the characters were corrupt in some way and I think it was supposed to be funnier than I found it. However, I was entertained and it did make some interesting points about television. Mass hysteria is one of my favourite topics and, whether intentionally or not, Howard Beale’s stirring speeches were good examples. It is all very well to say “Turn off your TV and go and shout out of the window” but ultimately nobody did, because they all turned it back on again to see what he would say next. Like all mad and weird new hypes people eventually adjust, get used to them and finally get bored and in this way Network displayed the futility of ‘pushing the boundaries’. It always has to be bigger, crazier and less conforming and of course the natural end is simply death. Not at all surprising and I have to admit I was not at all surprised. Another point was the enjoyment with which everyone yelled at the world “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore” which of course sounds good but isn’t clear on what they’re not planning to ‘take anymore’ and exactly why they’re mad. Personally, I enjoy life, I think it was made to be enjoyed, and I find it rather saddening that people might imagine they have to be angry about it.
Here’s a question: When does a film start? Does it start after the last opening title has faded? Or when the lights first dim? Or as soon as you enter the cinema? Or does it start from the moment you are initially aware that the film exists? I would argue that, commercially, the latter is true. A cinema trailer was my first encounter with Choke and that made a pretty rubbish start of the film. Nothing in it made me want to see the film and by the time I was leaving the building I had totally forgotten it existed. So the film tried to start, and failed. Next I was told the title. Once again the film tried to make a start and, once again, it failed. A few hours later I had totally forgotten the title. So finally, on Wednesday morning I was sitting in a darkened cinema and the film started. Well, my review highlights my main thoughts on the film and of it there is little more to be said. Frankly I plan to forget it as soon as possible.
I actually really enjoyed For Your Consideration but perhaps only because it contrasted my experience of the morning. It was refreshing to watch a film that I actually found funny and it was educating at the same time, in some small way, about the real situation with the Oscars instead of all these ‘prophetic’ films (Broadcast News, King of Comedy, Network) which instead, are speculating.
A very hard day on Thursday as we had two teaching sessions back to back both of which required brain-related work, instead of the usual afternoon screening where the film does the work for you! However, they marked the end of the first section of these modules now so there was a bit of evaluating and reflecting to be done and it made me realise that I am in fact learning rather a lot. In the evening those of us doing the film-in-a-weekend competition had a meeting to get everything planned out, the revealed ‘object’ being a water bottle.
Yet another intense day on Friday, this time in the practical realm. Learning about back-focus and exposure with Ray was great and he requested that we take the 570s for our weekend shoot instead of the 150s, a decision I am very grateful for, despite the fact that we thought we weren’t ready. The written ‘exam’ in Gavin’s class came as quite a shock – I didn’t expect it to be so hard – and if I am honest it is the first time, since coming to the Academy, I felt like I was back in school!
Shooting our short film over the weekend was an amazing experience and I am rather proud of the result. My first real taste of a professionalish film set and it made me realise two things: first that I am destined to work in film, and second that I can’t wait to start making films properly as part of our course. Anyway, all in good time. Patience…
I think Andy oversold Network for me. It wasn’t as amazing as I had hoped. It seemed like all the characters were corrupt in some way and I think it was supposed to be funnier than I found it. However, I was entertained and it did make some interesting points about television. Mass hysteria is one of my favourite topics and, whether intentionally or not, Howard Beale’s stirring speeches were good examples. It is all very well to say “Turn off your TV and go and shout out of the window” but ultimately nobody did, because they all turned it back on again to see what he would say next. Like all mad and weird new hypes people eventually adjust, get used to them and finally get bored and in this way Network displayed the futility of ‘pushing the boundaries’. It always has to be bigger, crazier and less conforming and of course the natural end is simply death. Not at all surprising and I have to admit I was not at all surprised. Another point was the enjoyment with which everyone yelled at the world “I’m as mad as hell, and I’m not going to take this anymore” which of course sounds good but isn’t clear on what they’re not planning to ‘take anymore’ and exactly why they’re mad. Personally, I enjoy life, I think it was made to be enjoyed, and I find it rather saddening that people might imagine they have to be angry about it.
Here’s a question: When does a film start? Does it start after the last opening title has faded? Or when the lights first dim? Or as soon as you enter the cinema? Or does it start from the moment you are initially aware that the film exists? I would argue that, commercially, the latter is true. A cinema trailer was my first encounter with Choke and that made a pretty rubbish start of the film. Nothing in it made me want to see the film and by the time I was leaving the building I had totally forgotten it existed. So the film tried to start, and failed. Next I was told the title. Once again the film tried to make a start and, once again, it failed. A few hours later I had totally forgotten the title. So finally, on Wednesday morning I was sitting in a darkened cinema and the film started. Well, my review highlights my main thoughts on the film and of it there is little more to be said. Frankly I plan to forget it as soon as possible.
I actually really enjoyed For Your Consideration but perhaps only because it contrasted my experience of the morning. It was refreshing to watch a film that I actually found funny and it was educating at the same time, in some small way, about the real situation with the Oscars instead of all these ‘prophetic’ films (Broadcast News, King of Comedy, Network) which instead, are speculating.
A very hard day on Thursday as we had two teaching sessions back to back both of which required brain-related work, instead of the usual afternoon screening where the film does the work for you! However, they marked the end of the first section of these modules now so there was a bit of evaluating and reflecting to be done and it made me realise that I am in fact learning rather a lot. In the evening those of us doing the film-in-a-weekend competition had a meeting to get everything planned out, the revealed ‘object’ being a water bottle.
Yet another intense day on Friday, this time in the practical realm. Learning about back-focus and exposure with Ray was great and he requested that we take the 570s for our weekend shoot instead of the 150s, a decision I am very grateful for, despite the fact that we thought we weren’t ready. The written ‘exam’ in Gavin’s class came as quite a shock – I didn’t expect it to be so hard – and if I am honest it is the first time, since coming to the Academy, I felt like I was back in school!
Shooting our short film over the weekend was an amazing experience and I am rather proud of the result. My first real taste of a professionalish film set and it made me realise two things: first that I am destined to work in film, and second that I can’t wait to start making films properly as part of our course. Anyway, all in good time. Patience…
Choke Review
Choke is a tasteless and unimaginative stew. Look at the ingredients: the typical, middle-aged male with a problem to be solved or not; his friend the fat and simple ‘best-mate’; a broken relationship; and of course the obvious love interest. Contrived and generic characters that apparently supply everything needed for a good story, and in this case a comedy… I think… although the topic was such that to laugh would have been to publicly announce, “Yes, I’m sick and twisted”.
This film is about a sex addict trying to sort out his life and relationships. It manages to portray holistic human degradation: of the body, with mindless and insensitive sexual references; of the mind, by depicting mentally unstable characters as a source of humour; and of the spirit, by blasphemy and by disregarding the concept of real love or indeed any true emotion. Worse, it does this without ever making a clear point and even the meaning behind the title, Choke, is a plot point that has little or no importance and, again, is pointless.
Ultimately there was not a human moment in it. What I saw was animals in a disgusting celebration of the darker side of human nature.
This film is about a sex addict trying to sort out his life and relationships. It manages to portray holistic human degradation: of the body, with mindless and insensitive sexual references; of the mind, by depicting mentally unstable characters as a source of humour; and of the spirit, by blasphemy and by disregarding the concept of real love or indeed any true emotion. Worse, it does this without ever making a clear point and even the meaning behind the title, Choke, is a plot point that has little or no importance and, again, is pointless.
Ultimately there was not a human moment in it. What I saw was animals in a disgusting celebration of the darker side of human nature.
Friday, 7 November 2008
Week 6 - King Obama
Well it’s a good thing DFTV 1 were arguing for the Democrats or Obama would never have become president! The debate was a bit of a washout. Frankly, we milled them! Actually I was very impressed with all us Democratic speakers and the amazing improvement from last week. I think being smartly dressed (and the American flag) was a nice touch. I was less impressed with my own rebuttal which was a bit rushed, not all that clear and could have been better prepared; however Murdo’s quick note-passing was a bit of a life-saver. There was the old “We love Obama” song which I would have loved to squeeze in somewhere but in the end I’m glad I didn’t do it; it was a serious atmosphere and the event was handled quite professionally so I would have been lowering the standards somewhat! On a serious note the preparation for the debate was a fine opportunity to clue myself in on the presidential situation in America, the Democrats’ policies and the attitude of Obama himself. I can’t help feeling he may start to feel he’s got more than he bargained for… but I hope he makes a good president and the best of luck to him.
Adam was unavailable on Monday afternoon so we just watched two episodes of Still Game (that Rab C. Nesbitt is still evading us!). It’s an interesting sit-com because it is rather serious and sincere about such matters as family, friendship and home whilst being very satirical and light hearted on every other subject. I laughed a few times but I’m afraid the humour didn’t really agree with me; it seemed to stem mainly from the spectacle of old cronies making offensive remarks and behaving immaturely. I think this kind of comedy is a cheap way of getting laughs. Instead of thinking of something clever or witty it’s much easier to chuck in a bit of swearing, some innuendo, a joke on some taboo subject and voila! you’ve got a comedy. One thing it does do well is fit nicely (and perhaps satirically) into the stereotype of a Scottish community.
Had a sort of informal, unofficial assessment on camera with Ray just to check we weren’t going to be dropping it or throwing it around or playing rugby with it or whatever. It was fine and the important thing is both myself and Ray now feel confident about me taking the camera out, which was, I think, its purpose. Funnily enough we can set up, configure and operate a camera and monitor now but we still haven’t been told how to load a tape! Ah well, patience… it will come.
A very warm and wearying afternoon in the DTU learning how to log and capture footage using a tape deck. It’s all good stuff but the conditions are sometimes somewhat summery.
Wednesday morning, first thing, I had a meeting with my PAT (and his black and white cat), namely Andy, and I was disappointed to discover he was not wearing his postman uniform and his nose was much smaller than I remember… Anyway, we both agreed that things were pretty much fine except that I was finding I didn’t have as much free time as I would like; for music, extra projects, writing, etc. However it seems that next term things will be different and the timetable may not be as full.
Biographical films must be a huge challenge. How to fit the story of a person’s life into a couple of hours and still make it interesting and yet as accurate as possible? It restricts the filmmaker somewhat. I do believe that restrictions can be the source of extraordinary creativity but they can also limit the film to a narrow valley of dull formulaic nature. Chaplin, in my opinion, was trying desperately to heave itself out of this valley and didn’t quite make it. However it was fascinating to get an insight into the life and work of Charlie Chaplin; I was impressed with Richard Attenborough’s directing (this was the first of his films that I’ve seen) and it had a certain poignancy about it as it was almost a homage from Attenborough to the man who inspired him to go into film in the first place. Similar, I suppose, to Peter Jackson remaking King Kong, the film that inspired him to become a filmmaker. Interesting also to see the historical link between Chaplin and Good Night, and Good Luck in the form of Joseph McCarthy. Anyhow, I was satisfactorily entertained and informed by this film and look forward to meeting the man behind it all.
I think the phrase most commonly muttered after watching Donnie Darko was “You can take from it what you want”. Let me express that sentiment in a different way, “There’s not really much meaning in it so you have to make that up yourself” or “It’s deliberately vague and open-ended so that, basically, you can think what you like”. Cop out. I don’t think this film was a clever, insightful, meaningful piece of storytelling, I think it was a messy mush of ideas and concepts that were sufficiently stated to enable the viewers to believe some meaningful truth had been communicated surrounded by a black, swirling mist and if they look long and hard enough in order to see through that mist… It reminds me of that Emperor’s New Clothes story where no-one wants to risk being called a fool by admitting that the Emperor is naked. Donnie Darko is naked (not literally), there is nothing of substance in it, and yet people don’t want to be called ignorant or narrow-minded and so they pretend that there is deep, hidden meaning in it and say, “You can take from it what you want” as if it is able to touch each individual in a unique way. Allow me to finish the sentence: “You can take from it what you want, ‘cause I certainly ain’t gettin’ anything from it!”. It wasn’t even particularly well made. I remember thinking when it was halfway through that I hadn’t been hooked yet, I wasn’t rooting for anybody or engaged in the plot. Apparently it ‘speaks to’ my demographic. I imagine teenagers like it because it’s kind of weird (we love to be confused) and because it centres on a teenage character who has psychological problems and turns out to be the most important person in the world. In that sense all teenagers must, of course, be able to relate to him. After all, we all have problems and we all think we’re the most important person in the world… right?
I didn’t really know what to think when watching The King of Comedy. It wasn’t all that funny but it didn’t seem to be taking itself too seriously either. It redeemed itself at the end. The last thirty minutes or so were the best in the whole film and not because they were embarrassing or comical (which they were) but because you saw a man achieving his ultimate goal through sheer determination and foolhardiness. There’s something refreshing about seeing a character who just wants to get on TV. He knows full well he’ll go to prison immediately afterwards and he’ll have no reputation to speak of but he takes it all in his stride in order to live out his dream. Beneath all this though there is a sincere message being communicated; some people will do anything to become famous, and, more worryingly, it works; because the more outlandish they are the more memorable they will be, the more irresponsible they are the more infamous they will be. Look at Big Brother or any celebrity programme and it’s clear to see the relevance of this film; people will do anything to be famous, to be on TV, to get their picture in the paper, and so on. The boundaries of decency and respectability are fast disappearing.
The Open Day on Friday was a bit of a disappointment. When I turned up, in the afternoon, there were no prospective students around to chat with at the booth. The screening of DFTV films was interesting, I’d seen some of them before, and it gives us an idea of what standards we have to meet (and, here’s hoping, surpass!) but, again, no chance for conversation. Anyway, that was that and then it was the weekend.
Adam was unavailable on Monday afternoon so we just watched two episodes of Still Game (that Rab C. Nesbitt is still evading us!). It’s an interesting sit-com because it is rather serious and sincere about such matters as family, friendship and home whilst being very satirical and light hearted on every other subject. I laughed a few times but I’m afraid the humour didn’t really agree with me; it seemed to stem mainly from the spectacle of old cronies making offensive remarks and behaving immaturely. I think this kind of comedy is a cheap way of getting laughs. Instead of thinking of something clever or witty it’s much easier to chuck in a bit of swearing, some innuendo, a joke on some taboo subject and voila! you’ve got a comedy. One thing it does do well is fit nicely (and perhaps satirically) into the stereotype of a Scottish community.
Had a sort of informal, unofficial assessment on camera with Ray just to check we weren’t going to be dropping it or throwing it around or playing rugby with it or whatever. It was fine and the important thing is both myself and Ray now feel confident about me taking the camera out, which was, I think, its purpose. Funnily enough we can set up, configure and operate a camera and monitor now but we still haven’t been told how to load a tape! Ah well, patience… it will come.
A very warm and wearying afternoon in the DTU learning how to log and capture footage using a tape deck. It’s all good stuff but the conditions are sometimes somewhat summery.
Wednesday morning, first thing, I had a meeting with my PAT (and his black and white cat), namely Andy, and I was disappointed to discover he was not wearing his postman uniform and his nose was much smaller than I remember… Anyway, we both agreed that things were pretty much fine except that I was finding I didn’t have as much free time as I would like; for music, extra projects, writing, etc. However it seems that next term things will be different and the timetable may not be as full.
Biographical films must be a huge challenge. How to fit the story of a person’s life into a couple of hours and still make it interesting and yet as accurate as possible? It restricts the filmmaker somewhat. I do believe that restrictions can be the source of extraordinary creativity but they can also limit the film to a narrow valley of dull formulaic nature. Chaplin, in my opinion, was trying desperately to heave itself out of this valley and didn’t quite make it. However it was fascinating to get an insight into the life and work of Charlie Chaplin; I was impressed with Richard Attenborough’s directing (this was the first of his films that I’ve seen) and it had a certain poignancy about it as it was almost a homage from Attenborough to the man who inspired him to go into film in the first place. Similar, I suppose, to Peter Jackson remaking King Kong, the film that inspired him to become a filmmaker. Interesting also to see the historical link between Chaplin and Good Night, and Good Luck in the form of Joseph McCarthy. Anyhow, I was satisfactorily entertained and informed by this film and look forward to meeting the man behind it all.
I think the phrase most commonly muttered after watching Donnie Darko was “You can take from it what you want”. Let me express that sentiment in a different way, “There’s not really much meaning in it so you have to make that up yourself” or “It’s deliberately vague and open-ended so that, basically, you can think what you like”. Cop out. I don’t think this film was a clever, insightful, meaningful piece of storytelling, I think it was a messy mush of ideas and concepts that were sufficiently stated to enable the viewers to believe some meaningful truth had been communicated surrounded by a black, swirling mist and if they look long and hard enough in order to see through that mist… It reminds me of that Emperor’s New Clothes story where no-one wants to risk being called a fool by admitting that the Emperor is naked. Donnie Darko is naked (not literally), there is nothing of substance in it, and yet people don’t want to be called ignorant or narrow-minded and so they pretend that there is deep, hidden meaning in it and say, “You can take from it what you want” as if it is able to touch each individual in a unique way. Allow me to finish the sentence: “You can take from it what you want, ‘cause I certainly ain’t gettin’ anything from it!”. It wasn’t even particularly well made. I remember thinking when it was halfway through that I hadn’t been hooked yet, I wasn’t rooting for anybody or engaged in the plot. Apparently it ‘speaks to’ my demographic. I imagine teenagers like it because it’s kind of weird (we love to be confused) and because it centres on a teenage character who has psychological problems and turns out to be the most important person in the world. In that sense all teenagers must, of course, be able to relate to him. After all, we all have problems and we all think we’re the most important person in the world… right?
I didn’t really know what to think when watching The King of Comedy. It wasn’t all that funny but it didn’t seem to be taking itself too seriously either. It redeemed itself at the end. The last thirty minutes or so were the best in the whole film and not because they were embarrassing or comical (which they were) but because you saw a man achieving his ultimate goal through sheer determination and foolhardiness. There’s something refreshing about seeing a character who just wants to get on TV. He knows full well he’ll go to prison immediately afterwards and he’ll have no reputation to speak of but he takes it all in his stride in order to live out his dream. Beneath all this though there is a sincere message being communicated; some people will do anything to become famous, and, more worryingly, it works; because the more outlandish they are the more memorable they will be, the more irresponsible they are the more infamous they will be. Look at Big Brother or any celebrity programme and it’s clear to see the relevance of this film; people will do anything to be famous, to be on TV, to get their picture in the paper, and so on. The boundaries of decency and respectability are fast disappearing.
The Open Day on Friday was a bit of a disappointment. When I turned up, in the afternoon, there were no prospective students around to chat with at the booth. The screening of DFTV films was interesting, I’d seen some of them before, and it gives us an idea of what standards we have to meet (and, here’s hoping, surpass!) but, again, no chance for conversation. Anyway, that was that and then it was the weekend.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
