2011: Thank you

“Life moves pretty fast.  If you don’t stop and look around once in a while, you could miss it”.

Ignore the hair, he speak the troot'

It’s not often a right minded adult would heed the advice of a 15 year old truant, but Ferris Bueller didn’t get many sentiments wrong, and this is no different. It’s easy to become disillusioned by a band, a director, a film franchise, but now and again something happens that reaffirms why you love it in the first place.

2011 has had more than it’s share of these moments, whether it be Ben Wheatley confounding all expectation with his ‘Kill List’, 80’s sensibilities returning in J.J.Abrams’ ‘Super 8’ (surely Bueller would approve), or Duncan Jones emerging as the next big thing with *shock horror* an actually clever action sci-fi flick (Source Code).  Bearing in mind it’s only late September, it’s already turning into a vintage year on both sides of the pond.

Subtlety? I fuck subtlety!

What makes this as surprising as it is welcome,  is it’s sheer unexpectedness. This is a year, on the surface, dominated by the immense power of the machine, the Hollywood that shelves the original in favour of filling it’s trolley with the remake/franchise/sequel, or sometimes all three at once (hello ‘Fast 5’). In addition, there’s been no backlash to inspire such a year, no mini cinematic revolution, and no discernable indie movement responsible for any visible change of direction.

At first glance it’s a year populated by the ‘Thors’, ‘Hangover II’s, and the ‘Harry Potter’s of the world. But underneath this blanket of behemoths lies something for more interesting.  Exhibit A: ‘Limitless’: A seemingly standard case of ‘man of the moment’ (Bradley Cooper) starring with ‘older man with waning gravitas’ (Robert De Niro) for ‘super hero tale grounded in reality’ (miracle pill). First thoughts? Oh fuck. The reality was different. A clever, lean thriller which slightly betrays the marketing campaign that preceded it.

Don Cheadle. Yep................

Then there’s the kind of film impacting on 2011 that’s so refreshing. I haven’t even seen ‘Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy’ as yet. But a non-showy, talky, mysterious, low action character piece (FROM ENGLAND!) becoming the most talked about and hyped movie of the year? Next we’ll be talking about Don Cheadle in a 5 star Brit flick comedy set in Ireland. Oh,  wait!!!!!! Of course, we’ll always be peppered with the usual  Transformers  sequel, the inevitable ‘final’ Final Destination, and another 2+ hours of life waste from the Pirates of The Caribbean clan.

The Richard Keys impression went down a storm

But in a year so laden with treasures, this makes the dross somehow more palatable, even perversely more enjoyable, as we know it’s a distracting aperitif as opposed to an indigestible main course. ‘Troll Hunter’, ‘Warrior’, ‘Hugo Cabret’, ‘Drive’, ‘A Separation’. And these are pictures I haven’t even seen yet.  And how ‘nice’ (for want of a better word) is it for this list to be so varied? So different and distinctive?

So often contemporary movies can leave you with déjà vu, the easy option of accurately classifying ‘this’ film as a cross between ‘that’ and ‘the other’. But 2011 has thrown up ‘Kill List’ (Wicker Man comparisons are obvious but not entirely correct), and promises B-Movie premise for A-List cast of the year in Soderbergh’s ‘Contagion’, which could turn out to be, well, who knows?

The Rum Diary: Might be good. Will definitely be odd.

Johnny Depp will shortly be back into his trippy ‘Fear & Loathing....’ slippers for ‘The Rum Diary’, a Bruce Robinson directed adaptation of a Hunter S. Thompson novel. Yes please. While if that doesn’t tickle your fancy, there's always Fincher’s reworking of 'The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo’, which has the potential to be so brilliant that it makes my brain bleed. 

Oscar Baiting. A Necessary Evil

Michael Bay: Fuck yeah

Hyperbole, like the 5000 metre pacemaker who fades away once fatigue, reality and all it's disappointments kick in, follows all major films around. Michael Bay's pictures always open amidst a torrent of generally negative opinion, yet rack up box office numbers akin to a jammed calculator. Conversely, the next Mike Leigh movie will probably start life as a critical darling before taking just enough at the box office to fund the expenses of the tea boy.



Curvy girls. Indeed.



This hype is all part of the ride, it leads us to films we may not always be inclined to go and watch, and for this I'm eternally grateful. And it takes an eternal optimist (or deluded fool) not to take all pieces of praise and criticsm and treat them both with a healthy dose of scepticism.

But around this time of year, the media frenzy briefly (very briefly) departs from highlighting the 'Thrills' (Marie Claire), 'Rip Roaring Comedy' (Cosmopolitan) and 'Pant Browning Action' (The Sun) of summer blockbuster tosh to concentrate on renting our minds as well as our wallets. They target the Oscars.

I was looking forward, and still am, to seeing Gary Oldman deliver the 'performance of a lifetime' in Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy', I really am.



But why the fuck is Heat magazine telling me I need to see it because it's a 'rip-roaring tension ride'? Last time I checked, Heat photgraphed Alexa Chung jogging on Hampstead Heath and reported Ashley Cole pining for Cheryl (not Baker). Well, fuck off Heat. Stick to what you know. I don't go telling Steven Hawking that he needs to upgrade his telescope.

German film. About the Stasi. Not a comedy.

Anyway, I digress. Is this Oscar-baiting press coverage really healthy, or even necessary? Well, maybe. Films such as 'Winters Bone' and 'The Lives Of Others' are just 2 examples of films I wouldn't have been aware of had they not been backed to the hilt by studios concerned, hopefully, as much with their artistic merit as their income.



But it can seem that the film industry is obnoxiously out of step with some of it's peers. People probably do get excited by the Brits/Grammy's, but probably not 4 months before they occur. Equally, I'm sure Premier League footballers would all love to win a 'player of the year' nod, but I doubt it takes up a quarter of the season campaigning, and the results tend to be forgotten as quickly as an episode of Hollyoaks.

Of course, we all love getting accolades from our counterparts, those who do the same job as us and assume we put the same amount of effort in as they do. It's human nature to wallow in self-congratulation at times. But for a quarter of the year I would seem slightly foolish lobbying the board members of my company to recognise the outstanding report I handed in eight months earlier.

If you don't have one, you're shit.

But for some reason, although every soundbite pre-ceremony would beg to differ, it matters. No one has ever accepted the Best Actor Oscar with a shrug of the shoulders and a "aw sweet, I'm well happy at that". And why should that be the case? I, for one, love scoping out the Oscar nominees across numerous categories, knowing that with them brings the chance to cast my eye over a movie that may otherwise have slipped by un-noticed. Who cares if they're picking up an award for a film they actually finished working on eighteen months ago? It's all part of the show, a show that, at it's best, can awaken even the hardiest of hearts from it's slumber.



The Weinsteins had finally spotted the hidden camera



Of course it's contrived, and of course the more money Miramax shove behind their campaign for the next piece of Paltrow fluff, the more chance it has of landing on the voting laps of the academy. But this would be missing the point. Hollywood can at times seem a bloated, egotistical and vapid machine that delivers only one the most basic levels of art. But at Oscar time, at the time the money machine can be at it's most crass, is also the time that we're reminded how good it can feel to be served up something we didn't ask for, but in hindsight couldn't do without.

Riots. Cinema. Etc.

Whilst taking a bit of a risk, I’m going to attempt to write about something serious this time. Most risky of all, here follows an attempt to boil down a generation old debate into a few hundred words and a couple of Googled jpegs. So...........whilst discussing the recent riots in the capital this morning, and the media influence at the heart of it, I heard the following:

“Kids want I-Pods these days coz’ they’re told they need them, and music and films just back up this view without addressing consequence”.

Anarchy, in a nifty hat.

My first reaction was along the lines of “wait a minute you fucking idiot....” but then I thought about it for a minute (a few seconds). What if it’s too easy to rule out how much sway film (for the purpose of this rambling) can have? What if the notion of personal responsibility is compromised and undermined by a non-stop barrage of role models and characters doing exactly what they shouldn’t?

I’ve heard various stories over the years of the impact 1971’s ‘A Clockwork Orange’ had at the time, a film which mesmerised and terrified in equal measure and, as is usually the case, was really only appreciated when history got a hold of it. Some of the themes of Kubrick’s picture remain highly relevant, perhaps uncomfortably so. The public fear of being victims of apparently random crime, the threat of violence for the sake of violence.  These are crimes which prey on the mind of many a citizen 40 years later. The extraordinary becoming horrifically ordinary.

Ron Weasley

Irresponsible film-making?

But I wasn’t around to gauge that in ’71, so the first real recollection of film being partly blamed for society’s woes  for me came in 1993, with the case of murdered toddler Jamie Bulger.  The perpertrators of the crime were themselves children, and whatever other, more important details of the case, one thing sticks in my mind. The constant reference to the film ‘Child’s Play’, horror films and video nasties which had ‘a’ part to play in the horrible event.

The issue of censorship once again loomed large. Why were children allowed to watch such films? Where were the parents? But most of all, why were these films allowed to be made/watched/thought of at all? In reality, there is no perfect answer.

Don't you wanna be him

But there are a few truths.  Firstly, no film-maker is dumb enough (I hope) to ever enter a project with the intention to incite anything other than debate or restrained argument.  Did the writer/director of ‘Child’s Play’ (i forget/can’t be bothered to find his/her/it’s  name) intend to provoke violence or events mirroring their own work? Of course not.

But here’s the real debate. I’ve seen countless films such as ‘Goodfellas’, ‘Kidulthood’, ‘Romper Stomper’,  ‘City of God’, ‘Scarface’ and a thousand more which show, at times in graphic detail, the dire personal consequences that such violence, such materialism, such lack of respect for all people and all things, can lead to.

Keeping us safe and guarding  us from...stuff.

Then there’s the more subtle, satirical slant of movies such as ‘Taxi Driver’ and ‘Bowling for Columbine’, citing disaffected youth as a by-product of circumstance and society. But here’s the thing. Most, and I use that word loosely, of the thugs, and I use that word strongly, don’t understand the subtext. Or maybe more worryingly, they don’t care.

The most overt films, which graphically show the dire consequence of materialism and ‘take take’ of society, don’t resonate. Tony Montana gets his comeuppance. So what? They remember the drugs, the one liners, the beds draped with dollar bills, the champagne,  the chainsaw, the whole excess of it all. Do they care that De Palma balanced this with tragedy and disaster? Do they bollocks. 

Disaffected youth.

In more recent times, and probably more applicable to what we’ve recently seen on the streets of London, are films like Noel Clarke’s ‘Adulthood’. So Clarke makes sure his protagonist doesn’t end up a hero, doesn’t get the girl, doesn’t have, well, anything. Does it matter? Nope. It’s the faux gangster lifestyle that's initially dressed up as attractive, the reliance on only things that can be bought, stolen, or fought for, including people.  Here, and for all films lost on those who can’t even see the lines let alone read between them, moralising and attempting to show balance is redundant.

If we live in a world the ‘disaffected’ (in place of a few harsher labels) simply take without conscience, why should we be surprised if they simultaneously feed on a films' glamour and extremity without a care for the underlying truths? And these are just the obvious examples, the cases where a character so brazenly pays a price for a misspent lifesyle.

If the most blatant messages are missed, then what hope do the nuanced, intricately woven meanings and subtexts making their way into the psyche of an individual not capable of interpreting them correctly? None.  Absolutely none.

French unrest. In black & white. Must be serious.

But who does a film maker create for? The biggest audience?  The lowest common denominator? Themselves? At times, maybe all three. I heard it on a number of occasions that ‘Child’s Play’ was the ‘trigger’ which prompted Bulger’s killers to act. Perhaps this is true. But if they hadn’t have watched it, let’s not pretend they wouldn’t have found a replacement trigger pretty fast.

Asking whether advertising, TV, music, education, etc is responsible for recent events is a question for all, and one to which their probably won’t be any definitive answers, or perhaps even answers at all. But for film, as with any art, the answer is simple. No matter what subtexts or hidden meaning a movie conceals, any positive notions are in the eyes and ears of the beholder.  And when a movie purports to be responsible in it’s entirety, there will always be those ignorant enough to view extremes as a call to action.