Bat's Entertainment!

I've been steadily making my way through my unexpected Christmas DVD bonanza over the last few weeks, and for once have actually been grateful for my annual flu week (between Christmas Day and Hogmanay, every year like clockwork) as it's given me a chance to laze on the sofa and binge without feeling slightly guilty for doing nothing else.
Sadly repulsed by the thought of food (so many leftovers went to waste...), I could only indulge in a purely cinematic fashion. In the same way that I'd go for some tasty stodge to get me through a nasty sniffle, I went for comfort-watching and opted to watch my old childhood sickday favourites- Tim Burton's Batman (1989) and Batman Returns (1991).

I make no secret of how much of a Batgeek I am- I have tickets to the live show in August- but I lost my faith once Joel Schumacher took over at the helm and pretty much laid waste to the series with the hyper-camp, neon Batman Forever and the...just...aaawwwwful... Batman & Robin. I was 10 when a film first made me want to leave the cinema. It's like realising that Santa isn't real- not all films you see in the cinema are wonderful like when you were a child. Still, my passion was reignited by continuing to watch the superior Batman: The Animated Series and later, Christopher Nolan's re-imagining of the series with Batman Begins and The Dark Knight.

Much has been made of how Nolan's efforts saw the transition of comic book films into real, legitimate cinema- no doubt largely in part to his reputation, skill and spot-on casting. For me though, there will only be one Batman who brings back childhood memories and reminds me of how much I loved it in the first place, and that's Michael Keaton. Apparently many people disagreed at the time due to Keaton's previous persona as a comic actor- when the casting was announced, Warner Bros. received 50,000 letters of complaint from comic book fans. In fact, it was so controversial that even Bob Kane (the CREATOR of Batman) himself protested against Keaton.
To be fair, you can see where they might have had a problem. Batman is the Dark Knight- a superhero who doesn't need superpowers; merely a mind-boggling array of gadgetry and sheer brute strength. According to the original script, Bruce Wayne was supposed to have "muscles on top of muscles and scarred from nightly combat".

The top two pictures suggest a man who's clearly seen his share of action and knows his way around a workout room, whereas poor Michael Keaton looks sort of middle-management and has a distinct lack of chin. Not only that, but even when in Batsuit he's upstaged at every turn by his arch-nemeses (The Joker and The Penguin respectively), who camp it up with epic scenery-chewing turns that mean Batman is literally only there as a love interest for female leads and because... y'know... you need to have a good guy in it at some point.

It's this humanisation of villains that Bob Kane also sought to voice his concerns about, claiming that while Tim Burton had a 'great vision', he was too consumed with "characterization of the villains, and the scenic backgrounds, that at times he forgets about the story line". It's a complaint that has often been made of Burton; that's he's more of an outstanding set designer than a director. I find this ridiculous; in as much as his films are beautifully designed they also have alot of heart. His choice to cast Keaton was based on the fact that Batman should be an 'everyman'- after all, wouldn't Bruce Wayne's frequent disappearances from high society functions be kind of suspicious if he looked like he'd been hitting the 'roids?

Additionally, films such as the Superman series, Flash Gordon and even the original Adam West Batman series had been very cartoonish in style, with bright colours and all-American ideals. Burton's films offered more psychological depth, a darker edge and a grittiness that suggests that even superhero crime fighters have flaws. The emphasis in Batman on the Joker's performance is surely down to Jack Nicholson himself- a larger than life character, renowned for being a legendary actor in his own time. By the time Batman was released, he was practically a veteran. As for the sequel, well, Christopher Walken is the archetypal creepy-bad-guy... in order to give him a well-rounded part you have to get in depth with his character, and his character is bad. Simple as. As for the Penguin, his rise to fame and then notoriety is central to the basic plot of Batman Returns. It's almost like his origin story, only it skips out the first few years and catches the viewer up with them when he introduces himself to Gotham. How then, could you make a film about a villain's rise to power without giving him proper characterisation?

With regards to set design, there is no doubting Burton's skill and awe-inspiring (well, for me anyway) creative talent to imagine the most mind-bending worlds, beautifully and darkly realised. They fit the characters of his films, too. The town of Sleepy Hollow was actually built from the ground up, and the spooky, ominous mists surrounding the 19th century small town went perfectly hand in hand with the tone of Washington Irving's story. In the same way, the Gotham City of Batman and Batman Returns. The 1989 Batman was shot at Pinewood Studios, so as to escape the American press; and with a $5.5 million budget, production designer Anton Furst, together with Burton, mixed deliberately clashing styles of architecture to make Gotham City as ugly and bleak a 'Metropolis' as had ever been seen.

^^ The Gotham City set at Pinewood Studios
The most obvious influence for Gotham City is Fritz Lang's Metropolis, with the stark industrialist sets lending a bleak and ironic play on the film's title. Also, there are remnants of Ridley Scott's Blade Runner, as well as the original concept sketches by Bob Kane himself. This is a world where you can really believe that crooks and villains would fester and flourish, to wreak havoc on the honest, hardworking folks. I found a quote from Furst which for me really conjured up an image of the thought process and logic behind the designs. He stated, "I thought we'd go back to the turn of the century; and imagine what New York might have become had there been no planning permission, and no concern about the quality of life for people in the city". There is absolutely nothing computer generated about this version of Gotham, which appeals to everything I love about the idea of creating sets and designing new worlds. You can almost imagine a sort of hi-tech, modern day Gangs of New York version of the city, or one which doesn't look dissimilar to Ichabod Crane's New York in Sleepy Hollow.

The sequel follows similarly, but is more expansive- the inspiration here was Fascist, World's Fair and Russian architecture, with a healthy dose of German Expressionism thrown in for good measure. The mix of styles really pulls together well. Since this film involves the story of the Penguin, it shows a Gotham that exists not only in skyscrapers and the streets but way below ground too. Here though, Furst was replaced by Bo Welch whom Burton collaborated with on Beetlejuice and Edward Scissorhands. The similarities to Burton's other work is more obvious with Batman Returns than the original, and it has alot more of a 'quirkiness' to it befitting of his usual style.
With all of the painstaking effort made to deliver a world so uniquely and perfectly realised, it's easy to laud Burton for being so concerned with the look of the film. But it's this look which gives the films their haunting and poetic tone befitting of the characters and storylines. Just look what happens when the colour palette is amped up and everything is spray painted neon...

Pictured above- the death of childhood.

Everything that I loved about the original Batman films came down to the dark heart of it all, which was ripped out by the third and fourth 'efforts'. Burton gave us the wide-eyed Vicki Vale and the sultry Selena Kyle; Joel Schumacher gave us Nicole 'everything she says sounds like she's out of breath' Kidman- who, really, was just a poor man's Kim Basinger- and frumpy dumpy Alicia Silverstone, who hit her peak in two Aerosmith videos and Clueless, and should've stayed there. But I'm digressing, so I'll get back to the point.

Some things may change as you get older- things you like, things you don't, what inspires you or what doesn't. It's only when you go back and look at things in a different, or more 'grown up' way, that you fully appreciate the things you loved when all you had was childlike wonder. Looking into the films in a more (I hate to say it cuz it sounds so pretentious) 'specialised' way really did give me a greater appreciation for them. Being able to recognise influences, to know how they fought against adverse fan-reactions and understanding the profound impact they had on similiar films of the genre just compounds everything I love about Batman, and indeed Tim Burton, and only adds to the experience I had watching it as a wee yin. I love that I can watch these films when I'm feeling rubbish and ill and want something comfortably familiar, or alternatively if I'm feeling like watching something stimulating and hugely influential to me.

In saying that, I will add that there's one thing Christopher Nolan had that Burton didn't... any ideas what it could be.....?

Production Values- The Dark Knight

I watched The Dark Knight for the first time in its first week of release, and have seen it about a hundred times since then, and so feel like I could navigate Gotham City like the back of my hand. Still, when you actually have to think about it in terms of production design, it's not as easy as I thought. 40-odd pages of the official production notes later (yes, I read them all) and I feel like I understand it a little better.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=0OYBEquZ_j0

Above is the bank robbery which takes place for the first five minutes of the film. This scene was actually shot in Chicago, along with numerous other sets including Harvery Dent's office and the Gotham City Police Department. According to Christopher Nolan, he chose Chicago for being 'wonderfully cinematic'. He also added:

"The real world is built on a scale you could never reproduce in a studio"

I agree with this to an extent; as much as I love the twisted, fantastical world of Tim Burton or the brilliantly gothic sets of The Cabinet of Dr Caligari, there are some incidences in which you really need the real deal. For instance, the police funeral on the streets of Gotham really couldn't have been contained to a set- the sense of danger is knowing that the threat of super-villainy could come from any of the hundreds of windows.
As Wayne Manor was burnt to the ground in the first film, The Dark Knight immerses our hero and the action right in the heart of the city, so the architecture is of huge importance. Even the indoor setting are elongated and at some points threaten to dwarf the action, as shown in the bank still below:

In terms of sheer scale, the towering skyscrapers of downtown Chicago make a convincing Gotham and tie in with the theme of 'escalation' (as described by writer David S Goyer). Compared to the clutter and chaos of Batman Begins, all of the action in Dark Knight seems especially heightened, from the opening shot to the skyline of Hong Kong. It adds to the feeling that there is no build up to a climax in the film; the film in itself is continuously climactic.

In the official Production Notes, Nolan and production designer Nathan Crowley cite architect Mies van der Rohe as an inspiration, as he designed a number of key buildings in the city- including the IBM Building, which was used for the locations I mentioned earlier.

^Some examples of van der Rohe's work in Chicago

^ a van der Rohe design.

^ Bruce Wayne's city centre penthouse

The sense of elongation in depth and height of these buildings is clearly what Nolan and his team were aiming for, and in my opinion they deifinitely succeeded. While there is a sense of upward growth, at ground level the city seems claustrophobic, dirty and dangerous- it's understandable why the characters would want to elevate themselves above it. While Batman may be an avenger for the people, his Bruce Wayne mask must still be seen to be above everyone else.

Gotham City has obvious comparisons to Fritz Lang's Metropolis with its long, geometric shapes and claustrophobic skylines dwarfed by huge buildings and criss-crossed with roads, traffic and general bustle.

The architectural element of the film is ably helped by the set decoration and costumes. Even the general look of the film suits the purpose; where Batman Begins had a browny/yellow tint, this is very blue and nothing about the film suggests warmth. In fact the only time 'warm' colours are really used are for the huge action set-ups. I think this juxtaposes two of the leading characters of the film. Batman is finding himself pressured into revealing his true identity, as the people of Gotham are increasingly afraid of a masked vigilante. Also, Bruce Wayne and his alter-ego and growing further and further apart, and he also distances himself from close relationships. He is the colder, aloof 'blue' of the film, while the anarchic Joker is represented by the numerous explosions. Even his dress sense is warmer. While Bruce Wayne wears sharp, expensive suits, the Joker is a crumpled offspring of punk and nihilism, wearing rich purples and greens, with his face smeared with deep red. According to costume designer Lindy Hemming, "my research ranged from Vivienne Westwood to Johnny Rotten to Iggy Pop to Pete Doherty to Alexander McQueen. I was collecting all sorts of images.” This comes across abundantly in his image and allows us to get a deeper understanding of his personality.

The advancements in technology with camera contribute to the look and feel of the film. It was the first film to integrate traditional 35mm film-making with IMAX cameras. According to Nathan Crowley (production designer), " The perspective is huge. I mean, we purposely had a lot of low ceilings and beautiful shiny floors because they stay in frame". I think this goes a long way to creating the elongated buildings and sense of things being heightened. Wally Pfister, the cinematographer, also stated that IMAX allowed greater contrast and 'richer colour saturation'. This absolutely comes across in the film, and every colour pallette looks like it has been fully explored.

Overall, I'd say this film is a perfect example of using technology, traditional methods and art direction to help tell the story. Everything about the film really pops off the screen and all of the elements come together really brilliantly, to create something that- amazingly- is even better than the sum of all of its fantastical parts.

Notes From My Sick-Bed

Well, in the words of John Bender, it's been a banner freakin' year in the Calgie household. Usually my Christmas list consists of two DVD's I really would quite like, and a couple I'm not too fussed about. This year, I was determined to finally make good on all the times I said "Hmm, I really should watch that" and asked for a fair plethora- and got them ALL.

Not pictured: Inception and the ENTIRE STILL GAME BOX SET (these were a present from the Ross and he turned up after this was taken)

Sadly I was laid up with the evil winter lurgy at Ross's until two days ago, and so haven't had a chance to binge on too much cinematic goodwill. It was a surprisingly easy decicion to make- I discounted subtitled films on account of being barely able to see, then TV boxsets for only having watched them recently. Same with Batman. Which left me with something comfortable, familiar but not so recent so as to have gotten sick of it... everyone's favourite cannibal, Hannibal Lecter.

Shamefully I only saw Silence of The Lambs for the first time a few years ago- and only because I wanted to be 'in on the joke' about a friend whose party trick was an impression of Buffalo Bill. I caught it late at night by chance, and sat goggle-eyed from start to finish. The story- for other unenlighteneds like 21-year-old me- is based on the novel of the same name. Star FBI trainee Clarice Starling (Jodie Foster) is given the chance to work on the case of gender-bending serial killer Buffalo Bill (Ted Levine), but in order to do so she needs the help of notorious killer- and brilliant psychiatrist- Hannibal Lecter (Anthony Hopkins on tangibly frightening form). Lecter is a well-educated man with a thirst for knowledge and fine wine, and a taste for people. Namely his victims. He will only help Starling as long as he can interrogate her on her troubled childhood and recall painful memories that have made her into what she is.

It's no exagerration to say that Silence of The Lambs is without a doubt one of the best- and classiest- horror films of the 1990s- and with the likes of Seven, Interview With The Vampire, even From Dusk Til Dawn, the decade was almost seeing some kind of new wave of well-produced, smart scary films from relative newcomers and established directors alike- Jonathan Demme had graduated from TV to make Silence of The Lambs two years before Philadelphia, and Robert Rodriguez was very much of the '90s new-wave', while legendary director Wes Craven got in on the resurgence of the genre that made his name with a potentially risky- but in fact, quite brilliant- parody. Which in itself spawned a sub-genre of its own in 'slasher movies'. If we put Leprechaun aside, the fact that Silence of The Lambs is so well renowned almost 10 years later is something of an achievement, to say the least.

The source material hasn't lent itself to sequels well (Hannibal- why, Gary Oldman? What went wrong?? Red Dragon- ach, it's nae bad. Hannibal Rising- get out of my sight). Similarly, writer Ted Tally's other works haven't made so much of a splash; he was even drafted in to write Red Dragon. Here though, something works and it works...soooo....well. Perhaps credit is largely due to the actors bringing it to life- Jodie Foster cemented her transition from child star to proper 'actress' with an Oscar for her portrayal of haunted but determined Clarice. Her scenes with Anthony Hopkins incredibly tense, helped by the half-lit jail cell. The whole film is beautifully under-lit, which works especially well in the scenes in Buffalo Bill's house- the final showdown in particular is terrifying in that we can't see anything, and don't know where anything is coming from.


That's what makes it such a shame that the sequels are so sub-par. With Hannibal, Lecter is made out to be some kind of comedy-uncle-cannibal type, with turds like "I'm giving very serious thought... to eating your wife". Whereas in Silence of The Lambs, Lecter's disturbingly creepy and intrusive tones get right under your skin and you can feel Clarice's discomfort at having to negotiate and open up to him. He is genuinely menacing, and the uncomfortably long close-ups between them really make you feel like you're up close and personal in the dingy hospital too.

Buffalo Bill is also an ingenious creation, giving a darkly sinister flamboyance that is fitting of the tone of the film. In any other script he would seem outrageous, but here it's frightening because it's so unpredictable. We only find out about him through infuriatingly cryptic and infrequent clues from Lecter. From parodies such as Jay and Silent Bob's homage in Clerks 2, to the voice of Chris Griffin in Family Guy being based on Seth Green doing "a bad impression of Buffalo Bill"- it has inspired alot of recent big hitters in popular culture for being absurd, but in its original context still works as a genuinely deranged and believeable serial killer.

The film is also littered with great shots edited together to make you believe things are going to turn out a certain way- I won't go into details but if you've seen it, it's the one which results in Clarice ringing a doorbell. It's beautifully staged and elaborately set up to deliver one of the most tense and tightly-wound surprises I've seen. Every scene is deliberate, considered and takes its time... and it's all the more reward when we do eventually feel like we're getting somewhere. In ten years after its release, all we were given was a sub-par sequel that managed to simulataneously vomit all over the legacy of the original AND make it look even more superior by comparison. Quite a feat indeed. In terms of its class, style, direction, cast and the roster of awards it received in return, I still don't reckon you will find a better example of 1990s horror- or indeed, of the last 30-or-so years. A pretty big claim, yes... but then again Hannibal Lecter himself was never one to do anything by half.

Scary Monsters, Super Freaks

Let's be honest here- despite the fact that I'm studying Digital Film and Television, there's no way I'm going to be handed the keys to the kingdom straight away when I graduate. I'm not going to be given control of a big-budget blockbuster. Just like with any other industry, you have to be willing to put the work in and be willing to start at the bottom. Still, it's nice when every once in a while, a little indie comes along that holds its own with the big boys.

We found ourselves with a few spare hours in between class last week and decided to saunter across to Cineworld and see what was on. It was a week of slim cinematic pickings- hence why once again I haven't made as much use of my Cineworld card as I told my mum I would when she got it for me. But anyway. We opted for Monsters, which I didn't know a great deal about... but the poster put me in mind of The Crazies, which I really enjoyed, so I figured it couldn't be all bad.
I haven't yet seen Cloverfield- well, that's a lie. I've seen about 15 minutes of the third act. It seems to be the recent yardstick by which all recent monster movies are based, which is most irritating. It really infuriates me when speights of films jump on the genre bandwagon, as every new one which comes along is always a little bit worse than the one which came before it. I put this to the back of my mind since I knew literally NOTHING about what we were about to see, and for this I think I was actually able to enjoy it alot more. The opening scene, of a group of US soldiers in Mexico, is all night-vision shaky cam and for a while I was worried we were about to see Cloverfield Part 36. Thankfully though, once we met our protagonists, all was resolved.

The Mexico of this film is a country divided- but not by any political means. Six years prior to the film's opening, NASA sent a space probe to Mars to look into evidence of extra-terrestrial life. The probe broke apart over Mexico, and shortly new life forms began to appear. Half of the country is quarantined as an 'infected zone'- but unfortunately for US photographer Andrew, it's the half that lies between him and going home. When Andrew's boss asks him to escort his daughter to the ferry back to America, he begrudgingly accepts. One drunken regret later and they have no choice but to head home the long way.

The rest is more of a road movie than a shlocky creature feature, which made for a pleasant surprise. There are only really two members of cast, Andrew and his 'ward' Sam. The two characters have a really natural charisma between them and their relationship develops really naturally. Sam is engaged, but she seems unhappy, Andrew is estranged from his young son and they're both stuck in a foreign danger zone alone. Even though the outcome of their relationship is obvious, you also really want it to happen because it feels like it should. There is a tangible chemistry between the two characters and their initial caution soon gives way to playful banter. I'd have felt cheated if they hadn't gotten together- and I was even more impressed to learn that the script was, for the most part, non-existent. The pair were simply given a brief description of the scene and played it out as they felt it should be. (An effect ruined slightly by learning that they're actually a real-life couple...but still, good on them).

The dialogue isn't the only thing that's ad-libbed about Monsters, mind you. The supporting cast were all locals who volunteered to take part, and locations were used on-the-run. The professional crew consisted of only two people too. I find something really appealing about this guerilla type of film making- it makes the medium far more accessible. Director Gareth Edwards is an established visual effects artist, true, but the 'monsters' are actually almost secondary to the developing relationship of the characters. That said, when they do turn up they're impressive- relief! They sort of look like giant electrical squids... and despite the title suggesting otherwise, they don't take up alot of screen time. The problem with other monster movies such as Jeepers Creepers is that the build up is better than the actual creature- when you see it you wonder what the hell you were waiting for. Sometimes no screen time is better, but thankfully with Monsters this isn't the case.

So not your typical horror then. The film is unique in that it launches you into the middle of the action, then the rest is a bit of a slow burner, but it works. The slightly-shaky camera never looks cheap or gimmicky, and there are plenty of gorgeous shots of the Mexican rainforest. One particular favourite shot of mine was when Sam and Andrew are sitting on a pyramid looking at the wall between them and home- it just looks stunning. If you're looking for something a bit different from your creature features, this is it. I just hope it doesn't spawn too many rubbish imitations... but then again, the one good thing about them is how much better they make the original look. Now, I'm off to find myself a Super-8 camera and a dog sized Godzilla costume. Think it'll work...?

A Dozen Ragin' Dudes, One Hell Of A Movie

There's alot to be said for super-long, cripplingly dull bus journeys. When I had to make the 4-hour journey back and forth between Aberdeen and Glasgow, it gave me alot of free time to read the kinds of books I'd normally only buy just to look 'cool'. Sadly my childlike attention span meant I never got much further than however much I'd read on the journey, although some did stick with me... Peter Biskind's sort-of-trilogy for one (three?). Seeing Is Believing was mostly concerned with the 1950s, which I felt MUST be important since it was full of references to very important films I'd almost heard of, but never seen.

I read the chapter on Sidney Lumet's 12 Angry Men then immediately watched the film. I loved everything about it, especially after reading about it, although I did categorise it alongside Citizen Kane- one of those films you watch only every once in a while, to remind you of why you like it. Recently, Auld Sid's name has popped up in our Cinema History classes with Andy too, so I geeked out and got his book Making Movies out of the library. It's really interesting, concise, and Lumet comes across as a very likeable- but knowledgeable- guy. Once again, I skimmed some things he said about 12 Angry Men, which got me all excited to see it again. I knew the outcome, but I'd left it long enough between viewings that I'd totally forgotten how everything played out.

The basic plot involves a jury deciding the fate of an 18 year old Hispanic boy, from a poor slum area of New York, who is being tried for the seemingly open and shut murder of his father. We only see one shot of the boy's face, as the twelve jurors are escorted from the courtroom, and we know nothing about him. In fact, we know nothing about any of the characters. The next 90 minutes take place within the confines of one room, as the men try to reach a decision on the boy's fate. Eleven of them opt for 'guilty' straight away, after a few hurried introductions and small talk. Crucially though, none of the jurors' names are ever revealed. One dissenter (Henry Fonda) argues that since a 'guilty' verdict will entail the death penalty, they should at least discuss it.

I know, doesn't exactly sound thrill-a-minute huh? Well, surprisingly, it is. The film tricks you, kind of... It's an 'alternative' courtroom drama, focussed on the behind-the-scenes preconceptions of the jurors. Twelve men in one room, for 90 minutes, is a tricky thing to keep fresh, but the film pulls it off with aplomb. The dialogue and tautly-wound structure ensure that we only learn information as the characters do. Looking back on the first week of term with Richard, we learned about the importance of 'who knows what'... and here, we don't find out anything easily. It's a brilliant move that means we don't have any preconceptions either. We know the accused boy as well as the jurors do, and we know them as well as they do each other. As the story unfolds and personal prejudices and backgrounds are brought to the fore, tempers and patience begin to run thin. Henry Fonda's eloquent dissenter never loses his own temper, but tries to coax the remaining men using logic and dispelling prejudice.

The 'trick' here is that it ends up being completely different to what we thought we were in for... once you've seen one courtroom drama, you can tell how the next one's going to go. Here, however, we have no idea whatsoever. The performances are uniformly excellent, despite not being familiar with most of the cast. Each character is so firmly rooted in their own beliefs and opinions that it's hard to see how one man will be able to convince them all to have a change of heart. In a sense, it's a mystery/thriller too, the whole way through I was on the edge of my seat despite having seen it already. As each of the men begin to come round to Fonda's logic, it is revealed how their own backstories have influenced their decisions, opinions or lack thereof. The biggest revelation is Lee J Cobb who's feverish backing of the 'guilty' verdict stems from his fractured relationship with his only son. Nothing is played out for sympathy, and we're not given huge spoonfuls of exposition...

...instead we are given no more information than what any juror usually would. This is part of the film's brilliance, I think, as it means we are left to make up our own minds. There is a subtle shift from courtroom drama/whodunnit to in depth character study; each of the complex personalities of each of the jurors, and how they interact with one another, reveal why they've come to their respective decisions. It's seemingly simple, but despite a potentially dull premise my attention never wavered once. Subtle changes in the different lenses also helped with the shifting focus between all of the jurors. Admittedly I probably wouldn't have noticed this fully unless it had been pointed out to me, but thankfully it had. The room stays the same size yet to us gets bigger, more claustrophobic, contains twelve men or is focussed on one. Despite the characters not being distinguishable by name, we're never unsure about who's making a point.

OK, so it's perhaps not light viewing, but as a piece of film-making this is a classic. The tension cleverly mounts for the whole duration of the film, meaning the climax has an emotional gut-punch that takes you by surprise, even if you've guessed how it might end. Confusing? Maybe. But then, so is the intricacy of human nature and personal belief, and that's what is really on trial here. The morality of the film is not thumpingly heavy-handed, but played out with clever reason and logic, and for that reason this is a film which rightfully deserves its place as an all-time great.

Production, Or Why I Couldn't Do An Office Job

Oh, the weather outside is frightful... and I'm getting a bit bloody sick of all this snow. Honestly, I don't care if I never see another flake of snow again. In fact, if Bing Crosby himself were to chap my door and start singing White Christmas he'd be getting a severe case of door-in-the-face.

Still, being snowed in has meant I have some time to catch up on blogging in between turning 24 (sob!) and standing about freezing bus stops desperately waiting for a bus that will never show. I've fallen behind on the old reflective blogging which I have absolutely no excuse for- especially now that it doesn't seem like I'm going to be going anywhere for the time being!

This year has been a bit of a frantic catch-up, since half of us spent the first month of term in Delhi. We've been getting full-on weeks of classes, starting with writing with Richard, then editing with Aldo and finally production with Abigail. I'll start with production, since it was the most recent...

It was never my strong point last year; it seemed to me to be like the film equivalent of an office job. Still, working on the grads, plus ours and the 2nd years' end of term films showed me first hand how much work producers actually have to do. It's alot of running around after people and requires an incredible amount of patience- plus having a car helps too, I'd imagine.

I don't want to be too quick to dismiss anything that could potentially be a career path for me in the future- after all, the other week I even managed to log all of my clips from last month's fashion show ALL BY MYSELF. Proud of myself or what! It just shows that if you put your mind to something and look pathetic enough that tutors think you need help at every turn, you can really do it. This year, though, production classes seemed to focus more on production 'management'... which involves a hefty amount of paperwork and seemed more like a crach course in using the various programmes on OfficeWorks than anything else. We mostly went over everything we did last year, and I found the whole thing incredibly dry.

We had to go into groups, pick a script and make a production folder consisting of a synopsis, production requirements, script breakdown, stripboard schedule, budget, paperwork checklist... SERIOUSLY?? A checklist for PAPERWORK?? Obviously working on a feature film, or even a short film, is a huge organisational undertaking, but I simply don't have the patience for it. When it comes to things like script breakdown sheets, I can do them no problem, so it's not a case of competence- it's just that it's SO repetitive, once you've done a few you can do an entire script's worth in record time. It just doesn't seem to leave much room for creativity- when I was about halfway through my stack of script pages I was so bored I wanted to claw my own skin off.

I do feel like if I were out in charge of this side of a production I could do it, and probably do it well. It's one of the few things I picked up quickly, but it reminded me of being in school. Whenever I'd finish something and find it relatively easy I'd get bored and start acting up. As much as I like to think I've grown up from being the class clown of my high school, I felt the same need for a challenge. At the end of the week we had an assessment, which for the first time saw us cloistered around a table in the library frantically reading over notes. Luckily for me it was essay questions- I was always good at these in school since I'd write paragraphs of spiel to make sure I'd covered EVERYTHING. If it were multiple choice I'd have probably been sitting nose-deep in a brown paper bag.

Overall then, I can safely say that this particular migraine-inducing class, while it may be an essential job, is not one for me. I'd just feel frustrated at outting so much work into something that I wouldn't have a huge deal on creative control over. Plus, I found it hard to even put all of my tips from work into a coffee jar to try and save them up- anyone who expected me to be able to produce a budget and manage to get funding secured would be as crazy as I feel after a week of ripping paper into strips.

Edit This!

Editing. One word guaranteed to strike fear into my heart right up until the end of last year. After spending an afternoon teaching myself Adobe Premier in college before editing our 5-minute, production-value-free film, I thought I'd be able to pick up new software in my stride. Dead easy, I thought. But nooooo. Last year I had migraines for the first time in 3 years- once after our question & answer editing assessment, and the second after our practical assessment. Then in the second term, our classes kind of... dried up. I sort of assumed that'd be it, as follow up classes never really happened and before long we were involved in other projects anyway.

I was quite happy to learn that Final Cut was getting launched in favour of Avid this year- for me, if I don't understand something, my preferred option is to start all over again and TRY not to fall behind in something new. We also had a new tutor, which was a double bonus because he wouldn't know how I was the last to leave on both nights we were editing our 'Home' films and it's STILL not finished.

The first two days of editing were a nightmare. I didn't 'get' anything, the 9am start was a sucker-punch to my insomniac system and trying to keep up I felt like I was running through mud. At the end of Monday and Tuesday I felt behind, which made me feel really horrible... like I was especially thick and couldn't understand something that no one else looked like they had a problem with.

By Wednesday however, things started to fall into place for me. I had tapes that needed captured and I was determined to learn how to do it on my own. I felt if I could do this for myself it would be a huge achievement for me. Cue inspirational montage music and images of me frantically pointing, clicking, nodding and taking notes.



After a most heinous start to the week, I finally started to keep up- or at least, I knew what to do a few seconds after it had been done on the big projector screen, rather than several minutes/weeks. It helped that Aldo seemed really enthusiastic about what he was talking about, and his knowledge on the subject was crazy. Plus he threw in a nice wee picture of Charlotte Gainsbourg in one of his slideshows- never a bad thing, IMHO. We also covered audio-editing a little bit, which was interesting for me. The Ross studied music technology at college and I think I may have bored the rear-end off him in trying to impress with my new-found knowledge.

On Friday, we had our third-ever sound class with Cammy. For this we were split into three groups, ours being the first up. After some confusion of time, my group (Me, Lucy, Meg, Dilara and Murray) finally got underway and we got to have a wee fondle of the equipment. Sadly because of time constraints we didn't have time to actually go out and practise with it, although the smaller class certainly made a difference. I felt as though it was easier to ask questions and I wasn't holding anyone back by doing so. I think sound is pretty interesting, if it involved getting to work on sound FX and things like that- but no way could I see myself being able to hold a boom-pole for lengthy periods of time. Unless I figured out some way to hold it underarm, thus freeing up my other hand for cigarettes and coffee. Despite our weeks of training in Delhi, sadly I have lost pretty much all the tone that tose three weeks of constant running about gave and I've gone back to being 'soft'... if we'd had sound on our first week back, I guarantee I'd have TOTALLY rocked it. Sadly, we'll never know...

As for those tapes I had to capture... Well, after a good 2 hours sitting in the DTU cringing at some shots. congratulating myself on others (although I'm sure our tutors would have other words to say about this... I hope not though!) and generally squinting until I could barely see in an effort to focus/concentrate, I managed to get them all logged! :D cue overly-enthusiastic victory dance and air-punching. Sadly since Gav was away that week, I couldn't get the external hard drive off of him to they're still not fully captured. For now though, I'm more than happy with myself for what I've done so far. And only a year behind everyone else!