...so where were we? Oh yes, quick recap. So Carey Mulligan...that was a good call, wasn't it?! Not a particularly original one, I'll grant you, although becoming a major international Hollywood Oscar nominated star in the space of a year isn't bad! But The Knowledge has moved on. Speaking of which. Doctor Who.
I recently wrote in an email to a friend that "there is nothing on television at the moment which matches it for imagination or flair or that I look forward to as much." Except for maybe Mad Men which has become an epic saga of American life, to rank alongside The Godfather, There Will Be Blood and Citizen Kane. It seems to me that the boundaries of cinema and television are nearly all but broken down - sitting in the dark with that shimmering light on a screen holds its place, but only just. 'Sight and Sound' reflected this in this month's issue with an article about how the last ten years of British television had in fact been something of a golden age - although Doctor Who didn't get enough of a look in (although my obsession with it and actress Karen Gillan does have an unhealthy edge, I'll admit!)
The main reason to post again is to share a piece from David Mamet's new book Theatre. He describes his time working with the actor William H. Macy at the Atlantic Theater Company which tried to pass on some of the knowledge they'd learned from their time in Chicago to students. The book as a whole - although always fascinating - is probably too simplistic in what it demands of plays, drama, films, art in general, but this advice always stands: 'be prepared, be early, never complain, help your fellows, figure it out - your capacity for work is vastly greater than you suppose.'
Sunday 2 May 2010
Wednesday 11 March 2009
David Peace
The novelist David Peace, who I've never read and until about two months ago had never heard of, is the man of the moment. His book about Brian Clough's 44 days at Leeds United has been turned into a film, The Damned United. The most interesting article I've seen so far is an interview with Michael Sheen in Time Out. What excites me most is to see what the director Tom Hooper has done with it - after John Adams, one of the finest pieces of work I've seen, TV or film, in recent years, The Knowledge expects great things.
Meanwhile his Red Riding books have been adapted by Channel 4 into a trilogy of films which are gaining lots of acclaim. I've just finished catching up with the first one, Nineteen Seventy Four. The acting was very fine, the writing intelligent and its muted colours created a certain atmosphere that captured a particular perception of the 1970s (although I could have done with a few less 'interesting' shots and moody lighting). What I thought mostly though was: 'but surely this is Chinatown?!'. Okay not quite - they're two very distinct works. But there are definite similarities; Andrew Garfield's journalist protagonist as against Jack Nicholson's Jake Gittes; Rebecca Hall's Paula compared to Faye Dunaway's Evelyn Mulray; the theme of the problems of individuals being linked to widespread corruption all seemed very familiar; and Sean Bean's businessman John Dawson could be John Huston's Noah Cross, even down to his penchant for young girls. Meanwhile 'Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown' becomes 'This is the North. We do we want here!'. Having said all this, it wasn't a patch on Chinatown (1974).
Meanwhile his Red Riding books have been adapted by Channel 4 into a trilogy of films which are gaining lots of acclaim. I've just finished catching up with the first one, Nineteen Seventy Four. The acting was very fine, the writing intelligent and its muted colours created a certain atmosphere that captured a particular perception of the 1970s (although I could have done with a few less 'interesting' shots and moody lighting). What I thought mostly though was: 'but surely this is Chinatown?!'. Okay not quite - they're two very distinct works. But there are definite similarities; Andrew Garfield's journalist protagonist as against Jack Nicholson's Jake Gittes; Rebecca Hall's Paula compared to Faye Dunaway's Evelyn Mulray; the theme of the problems of individuals being linked to widespread corruption all seemed very familiar; and Sean Bean's businessman John Dawson could be John Huston's Noah Cross, even down to his penchant for young girls. Meanwhile 'Forget it Jake, it's Chinatown' becomes 'This is the North. We do we want here!'. Having said all this, it wasn't a patch on Chinatown (1974).
Saturday 7 March 2009
Friday 6 March 2009
Art and Life
I was 21 and living in Cornwall. One night we made the trip from Falmouth to Truro to go to the cinema. We missed the start of the film and I had a miserable cold. It was an inauspicious start to say the least. But the film was The Truman Show (1998) and at the end of it I was convinced as I have ever been that I had just seen a masterpiece.
In the ten plus years since it was released it has, if anything, become deeper and more resonant. This was, remember, a few years before Big Brother. As happens so often The Truman Show was part of a trend of films that came out of Hollywood at the time; The Game (1997) and Edtv (1999) also looked at the theme of an individual being constantly watched and whose actions are being controlled by external forces. The subtext of this is the metaphor of cinema; how a writer and director dictate the movements of protagonists, how editing subtly changes the meaning of events and how lighting and photography can alter mood purely through the way things look.
But only The Truman Show (and considering that Edtv is actually about a man having his life filmed by a video crew, it's strange that it is so light on this) begins to hint at the implications which would become apparent with the rise of the reality television genre. Peter Weir's film suggested how we the audience would turn real life into soap opera and how, like a soap opera, our interest would be fickle and changeable.
In the end the film focussed on those creating the story behind Truman's (Jim Carrey) life and didn't quite realise how he could become like the reality TV contestant Jade Goody who, for non UK readers, has moved from a figure of fun and derision to aspirational status symbol to pariah and now with the news of her terminal cancer, a latterday saint. I feel uncomfortable comparing Goody's real pain to fiction, but as a member of the audience which has watched and followed her journey, I am complicit in creating (and encouraging) the Big Brother industry and media creation of her. The article that most sums up my feelings is by the sports journalist Martin Samuel, who may just be one of the best writers around.
In the ten plus years since it was released it has, if anything, become deeper and more resonant. This was, remember, a few years before Big Brother. As happens so often The Truman Show was part of a trend of films that came out of Hollywood at the time; The Game (1997) and Edtv (1999) also looked at the theme of an individual being constantly watched and whose actions are being controlled by external forces. The subtext of this is the metaphor of cinema; how a writer and director dictate the movements of protagonists, how editing subtly changes the meaning of events and how lighting and photography can alter mood purely through the way things look.
But only The Truman Show (and considering that Edtv is actually about a man having his life filmed by a video crew, it's strange that it is so light on this) begins to hint at the implications which would become apparent with the rise of the reality television genre. Peter Weir's film suggested how we the audience would turn real life into soap opera and how, like a soap opera, our interest would be fickle and changeable.
In the end the film focussed on those creating the story behind Truman's (Jim Carrey) life and didn't quite realise how he could become like the reality TV contestant Jade Goody who, for non UK readers, has moved from a figure of fun and derision to aspirational status symbol to pariah and now with the news of her terminal cancer, a latterday saint. I feel uncomfortable comparing Goody's real pain to fiction, but as a member of the audience which has watched and followed her journey, I am complicit in creating (and encouraging) the Big Brother industry and media creation of her. The article that most sums up my feelings is by the sports journalist Martin Samuel, who may just be one of the best writers around.
Wednesday 4 March 2009
Changing Your Mind
Jonathan Rosenbaum has republished his original review of Paul Verhoeven's Basic Instinct (1992) to show his surpise at how much he disliked the film when it came out. He's now a fan (indeed in his book Essential Cinema: On the Necessity of Film Canons he listed it in his 1,000 favourites) and it raises the interesting topic of a critic changing his or her mind.
Pauline Kael famously never did (largely because she - also famously - rarely saw a film more than once), David Thomson believes it's why rewatching films is so worthwhile and often does. Probably one of the most famous examples is Joseph Morgenstern who wrote Newsweek's review of Bonnie and Clyde. In the August 25 1997 edition of the Los Angeles Times he explains what happened next:
'I think I subconsciously sensed that I’d missed something. When we went out on Saturday and my wife asked what movie I wanted to see, I said “Bonnie and Clyde.” The audience just went wild, and the cold sweat started forming on my neck. I knew I’d blown it.
On Monday morning, I went into Newsweek and wrote a six-column review. It began with a description of the previous review, and then I said, “I am sorry to say I consider that review grossly unfair and regrettably inaccurate. I am sorrier to say I wrote it.”
That night I met Pauline Kael at a Chinese restaurant and she said, “I read your review and you really blew it.” And all I could say was, “Wait until you see the one next week.”'
Pauline Kael famously never did (largely because she - also famously - rarely saw a film more than once), David Thomson believes it's why rewatching films is so worthwhile and often does. Probably one of the most famous examples is Joseph Morgenstern who wrote Newsweek's review of Bonnie and Clyde. In the August 25 1997 edition of the Los Angeles Times he explains what happened next:
'I think I subconsciously sensed that I’d missed something. When we went out on Saturday and my wife asked what movie I wanted to see, I said “Bonnie and Clyde.” The audience just went wild, and the cold sweat started forming on my neck. I knew I’d blown it.
On Monday morning, I went into Newsweek and wrote a six-column review. It began with a description of the previous review, and then I said, “I am sorry to say I consider that review grossly unfair and regrettably inaccurate. I am sorrier to say I wrote it.”
That night I met Pauline Kael at a Chinese restaurant and she said, “I read your review and you really blew it.” And all I could say was, “Wait until you see the one next week.”'
Tuesday 3 March 2009
A Douglas Sirk steak with extra mash
Channel 4 has just shown two Douglas Sirk films Magnificent Obsession (1954) and Imitation of Life (1939), both of which were remakes of John M. Stahl films. I'm looking forward to catching up with them. Meanwhile there is a new book out about the making of Imitation of Life.
Monday 2 March 2009
Watching (and reading) habits
Read this. And then read Andrew Sullivan every day. You probably do anyway. Most of the time it's nothing to do with films - just brilliance. As the P.A. Announcer in MASH would say, 'That is all.'
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
