joel schumacher's '8mm'

i first saw (most of this film) when i was about 13. i had recently been given my first tv for my birthday and so i spent most nights in my bedroom trawling the channels until the early hours of the morning. typically ending up on bravo hoping to find some soft core porn. i discovered 8mm on channel 4 (mainly because bravo was broadcasting some car program instead of large silicon breasted women performing simulated sex). and the memory of this film has stayed with me since. discovering the urban myth of snuff followed by raw visceral imagery certainly leaves an impression on you, espcially when you've only recently learnt that a lesbian isn't a type of cat like i had suspected (thanks for the info bravo).

i should perhaps mention that snuff is seen as the most extreme of fetishes, shrouded in mystery and commonly believed to be an urban myth. it's main premise being to rape a woman then slaughter her on camera. cheery no?

now, i don't like nicholas cage. it's not that he's a bad character actor, it's just that he can only play one character, nicholas cage. also whenever he has a go at being funny it's more embarrasing and cringe worthy then humourous. case in point, his gags in 'gone in 60 seconds'. this places him in my personal table of 'unfuny and unbendingly singular character actors' up there with adam sandler and keanu 'if i had two more legs i'd be a table' reeves. although in defense cage and sandler have both performed in good indie films where they've managed to break away from their pidgeon-holed hollywood existance. 'punch drunk love' in sandler's case and 'adaptation' (an ironic name) in cage's. anyway back to the title of this, so far ranting, blog, 8mm.

as, painstakingly, detailed above i don't like cage, but this is one of his rare gems, probably in part because the script writer didn't give him any 'funnies' to say. not that this is a comedy, in fact it's one of the darkest films to come out of hollywood. the story focuses around a rich women who finds a snuff film in her recently deceased husband's stash and sends private detective cage off to see if the film is real and whether or not the victim truly died. as such cage embarks to discover the truth, during which he learns of the darker side of human sexuality. as such there is a fair amount of graphic imagery and background props throughout the film. from; asphyxiation, mutilation, enemas, bondage, rape, peadophilia and of course the core of the film, snuff.

cage's character evolves through the film. the first time he watches the 8mm film he can barely stomach it, constantly averting his eyes in revulsion. however the more he watches it for his investigation the more relaxed he becomes, despite the increasing concern that the film may be real. in one scene cage is sitting on his hotel bed, smoking and on the phone to his wife while the 8mm loops itself in front of him. it's not as such that he comes to enjoy or even except this extremism of sex, that would be an entirely different film and would never of been released, but he becomes acclimatized to it. it doesn't effect him as much as it would of before.

we also see that it starts to affect certain aspects of his character, something joaqeen's....whackeee....pheonix's character picks up on. after both returning from a search through the darkest bowels of the sex markets pheonix asks cage if the stuff he saw turned him on. to which he denies most strongly. but it's countered when pheonix points out that it didn't exactly turn him off either, a strong suggestion as to how cage is changing.

later on we can see how cage has changed. when he returns to new york for his revenge , he asks the mum of the deceased girl if she wants him to kill the men who slaughtered her daughter. he starts off asking her for her consent, a yes or no, then swiftly changing to ask if she loved her daughter. when the mum obviously answers yes he also takes it as consent to murder the, i suppose we could call them, perverts. but it's not just for the mum, and it's not because of his strong moral ethic either, that's been broken down from what he's been exposed too. he's also doing it for pure near sexual pleasure.

in the final shot of the film when cage is clearing leaves off his lawn he looks up to meet the eyes of his wife. we can see how haunted he looks, he's tasted forbidden fruit and it'll stay with him for the rest of his life.

one of the touches in the film i really liked was when machine removes the gimp mask and we finally see his face. and what do we encounter? the monster is a balding middle age man who you wouldn't think twice of if you passed him in the street. he admits he wasn't disturbed as a child and he's not mentally degenerate, he just loves to hurt people. and if you ask me, that's a fucking terrifying idea!

so in the sum-up, a well crafted film, very dark and atmospheric, the mise-en-scene gritty throughout, to reflect the depravity people can sink down too. not on par, or even really close, in disturbing cinematography of the likes of irreversible, but certainly one to watch if you want to see the sort of things hollywood can occasionaly bring to fruitiion. also need a special mention for using come to daddy by aphex twin, a classy song that fits the scenes in the film perfectly. one of only gripes with the film, except that it has cage in it, was that they should of gone with their first choice of director, david fincher. sorry schumacher but i can't help imagine how much astonishing this would of been with the man behind se7en, zodiac and fight club directing it.

coming soon, not a clue! it could be fear and loathing in las vegas, it could be a hitchcock, it depends which one i pull off my shelf first.

children of men

this isn't like my previous movie reviews, this one was done for my A level media course in summer 2oo7. to say the least i'm rather proud of it. without further explanation (because it's a large document in itself) here's what i wrote.

Modern Dystopian Films Seem to Have Moved Away from Their Cult Status and Now Occupy a Place in the Mainstream. Discuss with Reference to Children of Men

Introduction

Dystopian film, the sub-genre of sci-fi, has featured in films since the beginning of the 20th century. Dystopians are typically characterised by their bleak vision of the future, either through totalitarianistic states, post-apocalyptic events, or even a change in society that has alienated people that, in contrast to our civilisation, makes them inhumane. The number of dystopian films has grown each decade, along with their popularity. This may be because advancements in special effects has made it easier to create locations and technology seen in films, or even because fear has grown in our society due to the varied development of media texts. Despite their negative storylines, less than appealing visions of the future, and non-Hollywood endings, their appeal is still growing. In recent years they have moved away from their ‘cult’ status and into mainstream cinema. ‘Children of Men’ is a good example of a new age dystopian. Through it’s filming techniques, attention to detail, relevance to our current political climate, social commentary and it’s modestly hopeful ending, it has become a film which can be watched by a larger and more accessible audience than it’s predecessors

Social Commentary

One of the main reasons dystopians exist is any text is to convey a message to the receiving audience. Dystopian novels were written because the author has observed, or believed they have observed an injustice or unbalanced social responsibility in the system, a problem that they believe will escalate into a catastrophe that would change our futures for the worst. ‘The Handmaid’s Tale’ by Margaret Atwood was a protest of equal rights in 1980’s America, a male dominated society that could one day revoke all the rights they were forced to give to women. George Orwell’s ‘1984’ was a novel against Stalinist communism and the looming threat of totalitarianism Russia. ‘A Clockwork Orange’ by Anthony Burgess was focused on the growing violent youth gangs forming in the 60’s, separated into Mods and Rockers, put placing it in a not-too-distant future with split becoming greater so that most groups only consist of a few members.

Dystopian films are usually made for the same reasons as the novels they are adapted from. Films, however, focus more on the elements that affect the modern audience. By decade dystopians have followed a trend. In the 1950’s and 60’s the threat of the cold war and totalitarianistic governments was hanging over the US and Western Europe. ‘On the beach’ (1959, Stanley Kramer) was a film about the last days of man after a nuclear war. ‘Fahrenheit 451’ (1966, Francois Truffaut) was a film where reading was banned and a fascist state controlled all. In the 70’s the fear of environmental degradation and over population inspired films such as ‘Soylent Green’ (1973, Richard Fleischer) and ‘Silent Running’ (1972, Douglas Trumbull). The 80’s was a technological fear, with ‘Terminator’ (1984, James Cameron) and Blade Runner (1982, Ridley Scott) being the most notable. Interestingly the 90’s lacked dystopian films. This may suggest the stability of the 90’s, or even a social disregard or political apathy. However, it’s important to note that not all dystopian films followed these decade trends. These films not only played on the audiences heightened fear, but also tried to make people realise the real threat that our civilisation may be heading towards.

Çuaron also does this in ‘Children of Men’, taking the current moral panics in the nation, and using them to create a meaningful film which explains, in a much more visual way than any other media text, the threats our society is moving into. Çuaron includes messages of violent youths, racism, patriotism, religion, governmental subterfuge and Islamic terrorism. In the film two youths kill the leader of their own renegade group to cause a re-shuffle of power. When one of the bikers is accidentally killed by Theo, his friend vows to take revenge on him. Near the end of ‘Children of Men’ the biker has the chance to deliver retribution to Theo, but before he does he calmly and coldly shoots an innocent man in the head. The way he swaggers, hums a tune and calmly turns his head so he can see the damage the bullet will do to the mans brain suggests at the inbred violence in this youth. Analysis of the biker suggests a lot about the current violence bred into our youths and society. When you take into account the approximate age of the biker, around early twenties, and the date when infertility occurred world wide, this youth was born in the first decade of the new millennium. Most personality traits originate from childhood. The biker was born when violent crime is on the rise and violence in the media is commonplace, this suggests a lot about our current society and out apathy for suffering and pain.

Man’s fear of the afterlife tends to manifest when somebody close to us dies, or when our own demise is near. With all of humanities extinction certain within the next century a lot of new cults and religious sects have appeared. Clive Owen’s character, Theo, and Michael Caine’s, Jasper, briefly discuss a couple of well known religious cults. One such cult sit on their knees for a month and the other flagellate themselves, both groups begging for mercy from god for the crimes of mankind. The desperateness and selfishness of humans and their fear of death has made create new religions and sects to find a way to save themselves, when most of them had no care or belief in religion before.

At the start of the film the coffee shop Theo had only just left explodes, killing almost everybody inside. When Theo travels with Jasper to his secluded house they discuss the bombing incident. Jasper’s belief is that the government plants the bombs themselves, using the excuse of terrorism to drag the spotlight away from their mis-endeavours. With the July 7th bombing only a year behind at the time of the films release, it’s questions the credibility and trust we place in our infallible government. Could our own government be involved in similar actions, or is it really terrorists?

The government supports racism, with civilians told to report anybody they believe not to be British Nationals. Immigrants or refugees, known in the film as ‘fugees’, and rounded up to be placed in camps. With constant panic over the amount of immigrants living in England and the numbers increasing every year it’s not surprising that a large portion of the film focuses on ‘fugees’. Çuaron takes the British opinion of ‘fugees’ one step further then it currently is, with the army and police having little compassion for them, the way they’re collected in cages on street sides, waiting to be sent to camps. It’s not hard to believe the UK travelling down this road.

Although all this extra information adds little to the plot of the film, it gives it depth, prevents it from being a two dimensional world solely focused on the plot. It allows the audience to analyse our own society within the film.

Reality

Dystopians have always held the reputation of ‘cult’, either because of their unpleasant endings, alternative plots, lack of media coverage or simply because they are purposefully aimed at a narrow margin audience. One of the major reasons for their lack of popularity is the realism portrayed in the film. THX 1138 (1971, George Lucas) is a film that has almost no basis on the reality of our society. Set in an underground city where humans are given numbers instead of names, made to consume tranquilisers as part of their diet, robotic masturbation systems are used for sexual release and people are told to buy pointless items to keep industry running. THX 1138 is a film that is focused more on symbolism rather than plot or reality.

Unlike most dystopians where there are only one or two explanations as to why the world has changed drastically from our own, Çuaron has more then one explanation. Although infertility plays a large role in the downfall of humanity, it’s not the only event to happen, we learn that Theo and his ex-wife, Julian, attended large protests against the Iraq War when they were young. A nuclear bomb was detonated in Africa, floods of immigrants have fled from their own war torn countries to England, only to be rounded up and sent to concentration camps, racism is promoted by the government and there is speculation whether terrorist bombs in London are planned by extremists, or by the government themselves and a pandemic in 2010 (a current hot topic with the growing fear of avian flu) has destroyed a large part of the worlds population.

Using all these aspects of political, military, environmental and social downfall, Çuaron creates richly detailed and solid world, its attention to detail makes it a lot more frighteningly realistic. Its references to the Iraq war and the terrorist exploits of Muslim fanatics immediately give us something to relate to. It seems that even if the infertility problem didn’t occur it wouldn’t make much difference to the state of the world, a thought shared by Theo in a discussion with Jasper,

‘The whole world went to shit even before the baby crisis for fucks sake’

The use of well-known locations such as Regent Street also helps the audience relate to the film. By making the well known street look run down and full of black rubbish bags, we can see how low the country is sinking if one of the cleanest and most famous streets in London is full of filth.

Çuaron’s choice in camera angles and filming style greatly affects the realism of the film. Referring back to THX 1138, George Lucas’ use of camera style, stable long shots and cold lighting creates a distanced feeling between the audience and the film. Children of Men is filmed completely with hand held camera’s, every shot shakes and Çuaron tries to keep the shots at eye level. One scene where Theo watches his friend die whilst hiding in the forest is shot from a long distance. We see the shot from about the same distance as Theo does. Relating to the film is easier for the audience because Çuaron has almost lent us the use of eyes, instead of a camera. In the war town street of the ‘fugee’ camp we run along behind Theo, we hide in rubble as bullets thud into the wall behind. We feel like we are experiencing what the characters are living through. The mixture of events, filming style and location helps the audience relate to the film, and the hopeful ending is less likely to effect people in a negative way once they’ve left the cinema.

Psychology of Audience/Happy Endings

Hollywood is famous for it’s happy endings, a tradition that dystopians classically ignore. ‘1984’ (1984, Michael Radford), ‘Eraser Head’ (1977, David Lynch) and ‘Brazil’ (1985, Terry Gilliam) are all examples of negative films. In fact, Terry Gilliam’s ‘Brazil’ had such a negative ending the studio feared they wouldn’t make a profit and re-edited the film to create the infamous ‘Happily Ever After’ version. Other dystopians decided to use the negative end format, but much more subtly, for example, in Soylent Green Charleton Heston’s character manages to tell his superior officer, along with a church full of homeless people the secret behind Soylent Green. However, the audience already knows that without Soylent Green, the food supplies wouldn’t be able to support the population. Despite the hope of the character, dramatic irony means that the audience understands the earth has reached such a state that it can never heal or repair fully. Humanity is nearing its end.

As discussed, directors usually end dystopians on a sad or despairing action. This is a moral challenge to the audience. Dystopians question our lifestyles, social aspects or even political apathy and the depravity that may spawn from them if we continue in our current habits. If the characters experience a positive ending, the entire impact of the film would be destabilised. A negative ending gives the audience ‘food for thought’ when they leave the cinema. We question our society, are we doing enough to prevent a situation like this, morally, politically and industrially? The seminal question which begins all of these being, ‘could this really happen to us?’

A dystopians effect on the audience is greatly increased by the relevance of the character to modern society, if they share our morals and ideologies. In Equilibrium the hero, John Preston believes people should be allowed access to their emotions. Although eh understands the pain and problems that emotions can inflict on people, he believes them to be well worth it. Dupont, however, believes the opposite. Without emotions people are joined in unity, war is forgotten and peace reins supreme, albeit at a costly price. Although both sides of the argument have valid points today’s audience would almost unanimously flock to the Hero’s point of view. We believe being emotionless would remove what makes us human.

Another reason that dystopians have never been in the mainstream is because of audience denial. When we watch these films and we see the events currently surrounding our society and how they have created these nightmarish worlds, we don’t like it. People don’t like the thought that we’re destroying our children’s future. It’s similar when the news is broadcasting information about a murder or rape, we deny the thought that it could happen to us, it’s something that only happens to other people. This is belief is shared when people watch a dystopian film, we deny the idea that the events could ever possibly happen to us, and the easiest way to reinforce this is to ignore the film, or hate it.


Genres

In the last decade cinema has become more varied. With Holly Wood drying out of original ideas many more independent and foreign films are entering the cinema. With their increase in popularity Holly Wood has also begun to experiment, not just with stories, but with directors as well. As Holly Wood in the 60’s began to hand cameras over to newer and younger directors and a new wave of cinema began, Holly Wood is beginning to hand cameras, and budgets, to independent directors. Çuaron Çuaron, with only a few films underneath his belt, and one of them being a Mexican

One of the current experiments occurring in cinema is the amalgamation of clichéd genres, comedy with horror, action with drama; directors are constantly playing with traditional genres. A modern example is Shaun Of The Dead. Shaun of the Dead used the plot of a typical zombie film, defend and wait for rescue, and then mixed in the romantic comedy genre.

This crossover of genres could also be another explanation as to why Children of Men and other modern dystopians have moved into the mainstream. At a quick glance the last big three dystopians are; ‘The Matrix’, ‘V for Vendetta’ and Children of Men. Each of these films used a genre crossing technique. The Matrix and V for Vendetta crossed over sci-fi dystopian with action. The blend of technological, social and environmental events surrounding the past of these worlds, along with their ‘high-octane’ action made them hugely popular at the box office. They also had a large effect on the way people looked at technology and their government. When the matrix was released people began to question reality, and whether AI was, and is, a good idea, and how far we should let it evolve. After v for vendetta was released newspapers began to compare events in the film to what is happening in our current society. With several newspapers warning Tony Blair to be careful!

Children of Men, although having several action sequences, is focused on the traditional British drama. This is one of the reasons why Çuaron was able to create a world much richer and deeper than either of the Wachowski Brother’s films. By giving the film time to focus on characters relationships and their emotions, we have a better understanding why they do what they do. Çuaron’s ability to create a more detailed and believable world than most previous dystopians using a mixture of techniques and genres has made it more accessible to a larger audience that it’s predecessors. We have dramatic scenes where Theo and Jasper are sitting and discussing their situations in life, in typical dramatical dialogue. However, near the end of the film we are thrown into scenes that could of come from Saving Private Ryan.

Conclusion

As the above evidence suggests there is no single reason why dystopian films have grown in popularity in the last few decades. It has been a mixture of technique, social and moral panic, plotline and relevance to our modern society. These elements have moved dystopians out of their old niche and into a larger audience. The problem is, if there are more dystopians being released, will they lose their edge and effect on people, and most important, the whole point of their creation?

peter greenaway's 'the cook, the thief, his wife and her lover'

wow, really and truly wow. an astonishing film. i just finished watching it at about 2am, i've never seen anything quite like it before. true it did have a few similarities in style to some of my other favourite directors, namely terry gilliam and jeunet & caro, but this, a really unique film. i happen to be a fan of michael gambon which is one of the reasons why i watched this film, that and i always saw it sitting in hmv begging to be bought, i just never got round to buying it until now, and i'm glad i have.

right the basic outline. the four people mentioned in the title sum up the main characters, everyone else is minor in contrast to them. the cook in question is called richard borscht, the head chef and owner of an extremely posh and respectable restaurant. the thief is the main baddy who you will come to hate within five minutes of seeing him on screen, all typical inhibitions of a typical human being missing from him. his wife is helen mirren, known as georgina or 'georgie' in the film. a woman who you can only really feel pity for throughout. her lover is michael, a book shop owner who eats in the same restaurant every night.

a quick side note, i hate characters with the same christian name as me, when they're names are talked within films it has a strange effect on me, it makes me oddly uncomfortable. anyway that's got nowt to do with the film.

the mise-en-scene. this is where the similarity with the two directors comes from; a strong use of lighting, mainly in this film green and red, vast over sized locations, i wouldn't go so far as to say it makes it look studio because that would be comparing it to the fucking dreadful 'john carpenters dracula', a mise-en-scene so tacky looking it rendered the film un-watchable to me. there's also a hefty use of steam and smoke in the film. whenever the film wanders outside, which isn't often since most of the film takes place in the restaurant and kitchen, steam flows down the streets, along with rags from construction material, plastic trash and general bric-a-brac. and of course the kitchen is full of steaming and smoking pots and pans. the overall feeling you get from the film is one of two, either a dystopic near distant future, or a uchronian where the financial gap between poor and ultra-rich has increased drastically. the look of the vehicles and even the clothing (which is suprisingly designed by jean paul gautier , which suggest this film had a larger budget than i thought) leans more to the the latter. although in fairness this film could be said to be set in an undetermined time frame.

clothing. since it was designed by an internationally famous fashion designer i feel it's only fair to mention it. first off there was a little trick greenaway used which at first i didn't catch onto. the two main characters, helen mirren who plays georgie and michael gambon, spicar wear expensive clothing which is affected by the light more than any other character. what i mean by this is that whilst in the restaurant where everything is coated in a red light their clothes are of course red. their clothes are actually white but the light itself changes the colour. when they move into the kitchen the clothes instead become green, outside blue and in one short scene in a hospital, yellow.the thing is you can see their clothes haven't actually changed colour because of the light, but in fact each time they change from location to location they're redressed in the correct colour clothes. a clever idea which does serve a purpose, if you're prepared to read into it.

whenever they are in the restaurant the clothes are primarily black and red. black, the colour of death and darkness, which is in-fact discussed by 'the cook' later in the film when he explains he prices food according to colour and chemical attributes. red, the colour of passion and anger. michael gambon's character is a fantastically angry character, always arguing with his associates or verbally and physically attacking his wife and diners. black, well that becomes more apparent later on. but also the red denotes passion as that's where the love affair between 'the wife' and 'her lover' begins, on the restaurant floor. green, according to colour theory, is the colour of envy. it's also the colour of health, greed and in some cultures, the colour of evil. but mainly in this film it's used for jealousy. i won't explain, the film makes that apparent.

the lighting in the film is awesome as well. there are tons of shadows thrown into corners of faces, rooms etc. with the other shades of colour majorly taken up by the location. lighting on faces on the close ups typically comes from the ground up, revealing all the shades and highlights on the face, the most notable case of this is when michael gambon gets 'slightly' ticked off with his wife. the camera work is intriguing as well. when going from room to room the camera always pans across, fading through the walls to allow it to progress into the next area. also whenever we go from new day to new day (it takes place over a week) the camera usually starts in the kitchen where we see the food being prepared, pans right across it and then into the restaurant where it finally finishes on 'the thiefs' table. the camera work throughout is stable and usually from a distance, which is why we gain such a vast scale of the locations.

'the cook...' is certainly a violent film, it's not constant but you're always expecting it to come out of nowhere, if that makes any sense. it's certainly got nudity in it as well, then again what did you expect from helen mirren? she somehow manages to spend about half the film in the nuddy despite most of it being in a restaurant. if you're not into gore or anything remotely shocking i wouldn't suggest this film to you, the two torture scenes in the film are certainly grotesque in their execution.

acting. damn good throughout, you can see 'the lover' thinks 'the thief' a fool from the way he responds to him through smiles and straight-to-the-point sentences. michael gambon certainly enjoys his role as complete bastard and plays it with relish, you can see how much he is enjoying himself. despite being completely nasty and truly despicable he still doesn't beat 'bill' in 'dancer in the dark' as biggest film cunt, he comes close though. but this is mainly because being a git seems to be intrisinc to michael gambon's character, whereas bill does it all of a sudden in a one time chance, plus the situation surrounding the event helps to increase the level of bastardness. there's a great sound bite in the film where helen mirren is inbetween laughing, crying and ranting like a lunatic, one of the best such 'laughs' in a film, it really did freak me out.

the dialogue is great as well. since it's all set in a eating establishment most of the conversation is focused around food, with the candid talks 'the thief' has about 'his wife' being disgusting without actually having to use any extremely rude words, context is enough. the romantic drivvle between 'the wife' and 'her lover' is always enjoyable. never talking about romance in a typical way, but more comparing it to other things, such as watching a film.

it's safe to say this is a unique film which won't suit everyone's pallet (excuse the pun), but if you're willing to give it a try, you will enjoy it.

gaspar noe's 'irreversible'

now to begin with i would like to mention a friend told me about this film and he said that there's a great scene in an alleyway where you see a couple shag from start to finish. he was almost right, if you count an anal rape scene as a 'great shag'. but i'll get to that later.

first off i want to mention how impressive i thought the movie was from an editing perspective. most of the scenes are shot in a single sweep, although at some points you can tell that digital post production was used when an actor may of cocked up half way through a 12 minute scene. the free flowing feel to the construction is certainly impressive and it almost puts the 11 minute battle field scene in cuaron's 'children of men' to shame in respects to choreography. as to the structure of the film, if you've seen momento then you'd understand how this movie plays.

i have a feeling many people seeing irreversible would say something along the lines 'they've used the same idea as momento', when interestingly it's actually the other way round. momento was a hollywood film using french cinematic techniques and genres; by this i mean the noir genre and a non linear plot line. this plot structure was first used in american cinema properly by tarantino in pulp fiction, where the story doesn't simply progress from start to end, but jumps about from one part to another. well momento and irreversible took it one step further and flipped the whole film round. the major difference between momento and irreversible though is that noe didn't want to make the film too accessible to the public. in momento when one scene ends it finishes on the start of the previous scene. in irrevesible it stops at exactly when the previous scene started, which at times means you have to sit there and think 'now is this the same scene or the next one?'

now from structure to camera work. simply put, it's insane. the first three of four minutes has the audience watching the camera spin round and round, rolling and looping through an alleyway. in fact for the first half of the film this is pretty much how the camera operates. it was a technique specifically chosen by noe to create nausea in the audience, think of that running scene in blair witch and you'll know what i mean. later on in the film the camera starts to stabilise in conjunction with the plot. unlike most films where the climax is obviously at the end noe has it right at the start, a scene so violent and perverse it verges on exploitation. although thats not to say its the worst scene, thats about 40 minutes in.

the camera works in reaction to the events on scene, the more sane and less disturbing it becomes, the more the cameraman starts to level out shots. after watching the whole film it's easy to see why noe reversed the plot line. by the end of the film the sweet and realistic conversation between marcus and his girlfriend alex helps the audience forget about the barbaric events. well, up until the point where marcus jokes to alex 'i want to fuck you in the arse', then all the imagery comes flooding back.

if this film was flimed linear then i think there would of been even more walk outs from cannes then there was (200 our of 2400 people). nausea in the film as i've already discussed was used through insane camera work, the events on screens and even one more aspect, one which i thought would of actually been banned. for the first 30 minutes of the film noe uses a sound frequency which is often heard during earthquakes, it also is a sound that makes people fill nauseous. the only other example of such a sound being used in a film that i know of was resident evil. marilyn manson was the sound man for the film, and he used brown noise throughout the film, along with low frequency soundwaves to make the audience feel a big 'queasy'.

in essence i wouldn't say this film was for the kids, or any normal movie goer. you need to be in the right mind frame for this film, sadistic would be the best explanation. if you want to see exactly how far you can blur the line between pornography, exploitation and necessary on screen events then is the right sort of film. as i said in my last blog, i've watched it once before but i never ever ever will again. that's not to say i don't respect the film.

it's a masterpiece, of the marquis de sade variety, but a masterpiece still.

taratino's 'death proof'

very first post on a site i'll no doubt rarely update, but i'll have a go anyway.

currently i'm in china, on a teaching course. as such at night i have a fair amount of free time, and dvds are cheap here. i've been in my placement in north china for about 2 and a half weeks now and i've already bought 14 films for less then it would cost to buy one film back in the UK. the latest film i watched was taratino's new film 'death proof'. sadly the dvd didn't include tarantino's and rodriguez's films, but you can blame those evil weinstein brothers for that, they decided the concept of having two films one after the other was too difficult for the average public consumer, but enough about those two bastards, onto the film.

death proof in essence, is a definite tarantino film, and he's back up to standards ever since the two part farce that was kill bill. it has all the typical signs of a taratino flick; organic dialogue which doesn't develop the plot, but instead develops the characters, plenty of racist terminology, incredibly violent...violence, information about old american films and the back side of movies, retro looking locations in backwater america and of course references to his previous films.

a few of them to mention is the cigarettes 'red apples' probably most prominent in a poster in the first kill bill film, the made up fast food joint big kahuna burger (first used i think in pulp fiction), and even the kill bill whistle, you knows the one :)

admittedly reading the blurb on the dvd i was expecting it to be from stuntman mike's perspective and how a girl gang beat the shit out of him and he gets revenge, i was wrong. it's the opposite way round

the structure of the film is slightly odd to be honest, the best way to look at the film is to split it into two pieces. the first half concerns itself with the construction of stuntman mike's character. although saying that the most important information is only discovered at the end of the first half, via a very unbelievable policeman. though really i suppose you could say that's another taratino cliche, a pointless or ineffectual police presence when they occasionally feature in his films.

anyway back to the first half. as always the characters are developed through the dialogue, rather then some films where actions or events define them. the actions in death proof occur later on in the film, with the dialogue acting as a reason or even excuse for the occasional ghoulish violence. the main cast are females, all young, attractive and quite happy to show off a bit skin (one of the first shots in the film is off jungle julia's arse. all the females are sassy and in control of their lives and events, and most of the male characters (very few of them) are pricks. are friend stuntman mike seems ok at the beginning of the film, just a bit of a creepy old man with a lot of stories under his belt. in fact the sudden change in him does take you by suprise, specifically when you've got the wrong end of the stick. i won't mention much more other than one scene in the first half will make you cringe and shudder, i know it did to me and i'm usually ok with screen violence.

the second half of the film is almost identical in it's structure to the first film, lots of dialogue between the females, and then lots of action. yet again i won't detail to much otherwise i'll completely ruin the film.

right onto the visible aspects of the film. tarantino used some interesting ideas, things that pretty much only he can get away with. to keep in the spirit of 1950's american 'grindhouse films' he has pretty much completely ignored continuity. there's scenes where you know it doesn't completely fit with the previous one, with giveaways such as arm placement, cigarettes, even the way a character is facing. since these sort of films were shown in B movie cinemas there are occasional drop outs of colour and sound. some scenes either jolt and repeat a second of the footage twice. one of my favourite aspects is the cigarrete burns. you can see them as massive black marks on the top right side, and at some parts of the film either the end or beginning of a scene will be jumped and at one point the whole film drops out as the projectionist takes to long to load the next reel. in some parts of the film you'll get strolling lines across the screen as if the film has been damaged. all in all the visual editing and post production does give it the feel of being a really cheap grubby B movie

as for entertaining, i'm not so sure. several times i found myself checking my phone to see what the time was, other times looking around the room etc. at other points i was ignoring everything around me. i don't taratino has managed to create a flowing film, it can be quite hit and miss.

right that's enough from me, look out for my next review, irreverisble, a film i shall never ever ever watch again