Revision. Ahem.

I am not a happy bunny!

Over here in the sunny world of the A-level student, exam month has arrived! And so has a craving for a good film I haven't felt for an age. You have no idea how much I want to rewatch The Godfather. And Guns of Navarone. I'm starting to get distinctly twitchy towards Legend of 1900 too. Even The Two Towers has wobbled back onto my must see list, after all the excitement about the Hobbit movie. I've resorted to mourfully listening to the Reservoir Dogs and Jackie Brown soundtracks while reviewing contempary opinions on Philip II's financial policy within mainland Spain - it's like last year all over again!

Ah, Reservoir Dogs. I'd forgotten quite how much I love you. The music alone is making my brain dribble out my ears.

This is all one long way to say, don't come here expecting a post for the next few weeks. For though I will undoubtedly give in and write a 32 page article on the use of music in QT movies, or the use of 70s guitar twangs in modern cinema, or try and argue that something blatantly offensive is still valid cinema (see: Song of the South, SS Experiment Camp), theoretically I'm far too busy to do anything of the sort.

I've started thinking about "1567 Revolt of the Nethelands: the movie". The hero is William of Orange, the Dutch noble who (single handedly, they'd have you believe) liberated about half of his country from Spanish dominion and religious persecution. He was a brilliant politician who I wrote my history coursework on, his particular skills being successfully uniting the disparate groups behind a single leader. He needs to be someone with gravitas, but not too beefy. He was really quite a sensitive noble guy at heart - I'm thinking maybe David Wenham, who cinched the gentle-but-heroic Faramir in Lord of the Rings.

The immediate villain of the piece is the nasty Duke of Alva, sent by King Philip II to sort the rebels out with an army, painted by generations of protestant historians and propagandists as a one-note Lord of Darkness. Who better than Christopher Ecclestone? Well, lots of people probably, but I couldn't help noticing the facial similarity between he and the much maligned Duke.

And who for Philip II himself? Like the Duke of Alva, Philip II was the bogeyman under the stairs for generations of protestants. In my Entirely Historically Accurate movie, which will utilise my fair and based-on-available-evidence knowledge,

I want him to be the evil cackling pantomime villain he's been until the revisionist historians got ahold of him. In an ideal world where he's not dead, I'd get Antony Ainley, who played the Master on Doctor Who in the 70s. The Master and Philip II shared several traits - an awful beard, a penchant for black velvet, the habit of chuckling evilly to himself, the desire for WOOOORLD DOMINATION! Yes, it's going to be one of those historical epics where the producer hires a quorum of historical experts on the period, and then ignores most of what they say. Might make a better movie...

I've yet to see Elizabeth: the Golden Age. I'm told Philip II is played very much in this vein, as a villainous religious maniac:

What else am I studying? Well, Branagh's Hamlet is perfect enough for me; Branagh's Frankenstein leaves much to be desired. But it does contain the phrase "maybe if I reverse the polarity of the neutron flow", so it ain't all bad.

My two english modules are one on Hamlet and Chaucer (The Merchants Tale, all lying and "thronging". It'd make a tedious film, unless you made it into an all-out shamelessly bawdy comedy, in which case I still wouldn't be interested. Unless it was filmed it in the original Chaucerian English. The story is all about bad wives - the word wife is spelt wyf, and pronounced "wiff!", and its hilarious...) and the other on the gothic.

I'm not sure Frankenstein could ever make a good movie, because frankly I don't think its a great book. I also agree with those who see it as more science fiction than gothic - it's built on a "what if" premise, it's all about what it means to be human, and it all starts with man meddling with science. Doctor Who remade it as "Brain of Morbius"; Ridley Scott remade it as Blade Runner, hell, even King Kong and Edward Scissorhands can be seen as its distant cousins. The other book I'm studying is The Monk, a good ole story of a saintly friar who gets involved in pretty much every depravity the 17th Century author could get away with. Brilliant book! It'd make a distastefully nasty film though...

Our other history module is on Ireland - specifically 120 years of it, from Wolfe Tone's uprising in 1789 to the Anglo-Irish treaty in 1921. What a bloodbath. Two friends and I considered making a movie of the entire topic, with three of us, changing hats along the way; but frankly, even though it's fascinating, I wouldn't know where to start with filming it. I'd be far too terrified of offending someone, and films why try to be inoffensive normally end up watery and muddled.

Parnell was an Irish nationalist leader, and a pretty darn good one. He was a skilled politician, who had wide reaching links from Westminster, where he was an MP, and more radical nationalist organisations such as the Fenians. At one point, the Times attempted to blacken his reputation by connecting him with open acts of violence - that would be an interesting event for the movie. Another is he deliberately(ish) getting himself thrown into jail to avoid committing to either side of an issue to retain universal support, a smart bit of political manouvering.

So far, so ordinary. The bit which'll make the producers ears prick up was his long running and romantic affair with the married Kitty O'Shea, the biggest open secret in London. They lived together, had three children and refered to each other as husband and wife; Captain O'Shea even bailed Parnell out of prison. Then, at the height of his political career, the Captain decides to divorce her and Parnell's adultery is cited in the divorce case. And it explodes - despite the fact everyone knew, Victorian hypocracy strikes. Parnell's party is split into Parnellites and anti-Parnellites - Parnell loses the support of Gladstone and the Liberal party (note on Irish politics: in this period, the Irish Parliamentry Party were too small to make a difference. They wedded their support to either the Conservatives or Liberals, effectively determining who would get in, in exchange for Irish reforms). And naturally, as this is my movie, play up a sub-buddy relationship between he and Gladstone who knew very well about the affair, but has to play to public opinion. Parnell loses all his credibility; though he does marry Kitty and dies a few years later in her arms.

Hollywood would LOVE it - a big, sweeping historical story, yet with a powerful love story set at the front. From the first gangster movies, cinema has always loved the rise and fall story. I can see the trailer now - "In a land of conflict...one man will risk everything...for the woman he loves..."

...and d'ya know what? A little investigation reveals that Clark Gable played Parnell in the movie of the same name in the 30s. It flopped. But at least it proves my idea was a good one. Time for a remake? I'd go see it, he's one of my favourite characters in this topic (as far as you can have favourites in history. My favourite Brit politician is Peel, because he's smart and pragmatic, willing to deal with problems because they are problems, not because he's committed to this or that policy. And his smile was compared to "the gleam on a coffin lid", which is cool. The other person I really admire is Daniel O'Connell, who organised large "monster meetings" to show support for repeal of the union. The Brit government finally threatened to forcibly shut one down at Clontarff. What did he do? Decided not to hold it. Now that might seem like a pretty useless action, and indeed it was - that was the end of his repeal association - but that's not the point. It would have been easy to just take a stand and watch the slaughter, but giving in was far braver. It's also nice to have someone in this topic 100% opposed to violence. Just don't get me started on Carson, who's still a baddie as far as I'm concerned...)

If anyone knows where to find a copy of this movie (and I mean literally anywhere), I want to see it! You can even post it to me and I'll promise to post it back.

Sod that. I'm watching Reservoir Dogs. Philip's twin foreign policy of concervacion and messianic imperialism will have to wait...

Woes.

I've pretty much settled my uni choice down to Kings now - unfortunately, none of the sensible accomodations have an on-site piano.

This is worse than it sounds. There are a lot of speciful things in my life wot I am going to miss at university - the other 26 copies of The Picture of Dorian Gray (if I can only take one), my DVDs (particularly my Godfather boxed set), my videos (even more than the DVDs, because they are all second hand, and represent a diverse random slice of things I've watched on my own. Especially my retro TV collection - Robin of Sherwood, Danger Man, the Prisoner and Doctor Who), my teddies (ranging from my innocent childhood friends, to my more postmodern additions which all appear to have gained unsuitable names. Is it sick and wrong to subvert the simplicity of childhood by naming a blue bear Mr Blue instead of Bluey?) and my clutter (things like my red apple packet, model Globe theatre, et al). What? My friends and family? Oh yeh, them too I suppose.

In fact, the only named object in the house I'm going to remember to miss will be Megan. Megan is my piano - and like all my other precious posessions, very second hand. I take my piano playing very seriously - I've never had a lesson in my life, and practice a good hour a day, sometimes two, sometimes four. I am normally a kind, sharing, calm person - this never has, and never will extend to anyone playing the piano in the same room as me. I have a special loathing just for them. One of my dreams is to go and see a proper pianist in concert - no one else will go, as it is understandably dull. Another one is to be a proper pianist in concert, but my playing is nowhere near reliable enough for that. I can cope without Megan the same way I can cope without a DVD player - for about two weeks, and then I start to resemble Willard in Apocalypse Now.

In tribute to the absolute misery of a situation I find myself in - three years of key-less hell - here are some of the great piano movies and scenes wot come to mind - along with sheet music links where appropriate and possible.

The Legend of 1900
Pianist: Tim Roth
Well this is it, folks, the ultimate in piano-porn. There's not even a point in pretending this isn't about the piano, because it er...is. A musical prodigy who has lived his whole life on a cruise liner imparts his life philosophy, is generally wonderful and plays a lot of mean keys. It's a whimsical piece of sheer piano love. Has there ever been a film that has actually addressed the trauma of people about to be separated from their musical instrument? No, thought not. Or defined the wonder of music better? Probably, possibly, but 1900's epic end speech deserves a mention.
One to watch? Some people could be really annoyed by the ambling plot, but what the hell. It's gorgeously shot, inventively scripted and downright brilliant.
Piece to remember: Ennio Morricone's Piano waltz, sheet music available here

The Man Who Wasn't There
Pianist: Scarlett Johanssen
Superficially: a slow-paced noir about a little deciet spiralling out of control. Think Fargo In The Fifties.
Actually: features a charming subplot about a young girl with a piano, who claws her way through a veritable mix-tape of "Classics You Kinda Recognise", as well as a soundtrack culled from "The Best Classical Piano Hits...Ever". So its simplistic, yet it also suits the tone of the film perfectly.
One to watch? Though this is clearly very well made, I found it cold and hard to sympathise with. Others call this the Coen's finest hour. If you have time to watch something subtle and quietly hilarious, then definitely give it a watch.
Piece to remember: Beethoven's Pathetique, sheet music available here

The Pianist
Pianist: Adrian Brody. He won an Oscar, you know...
Superficially: the story of a Polish Jew whose life is screwed up by WWII
Actually: He's also a pianist (the clue's in the title) - this presumably is meant to be making a point about man's dehumanisation in war. Or something. It certainly makes for a very affecting piece of Chopin at the end, in a scene I couldn't possibly spoil for you. Though there's slightly less piano playing in here than you'd expect (our hero is, after all, on the run from the Nazis, and the piano is neither portable nor quiet), but when it comes out, it's wonderful.
One to watch? I'm hardly a good judge, I hate this sort of thing, but Brody deserves his Oscar, and it is pretty marvellous in its own downbeat way.
Piece to remember: Probably Chopin's Prelude in E Minor. The full soundtrack listing is here. Most of it should be free on the internet somewhere - why not start here?

The Piano
I haven't seen it. So kill me. I'm putting this entry as a placeholder until I have.
Piece to remember: The Heart Asks Pleasure First, by Michael Nyman. You know this song, even if you think you don't. The sheet music is available from all good music shops - cheapskates can download it here.

Three Colours: Blue
Pianist: Juliette Binoche.
Superficially: after a woman loses her family to a car crash, she cuts off from life
Actually: her deceased husband is also a great composer, who left his final masterpiece unfinished. Cue lots of lovely music which, incientally trivia buffs, was actually written before the film was shot. This is not as piano-specific as some of the above - you couldn't physically play any of the songs - but music is central to the plot.
One to watch? Oh yeah. It's French and arty, but don't let that put you off - the colours and atmosphere are gorgeous, the soundtrack is excellent and Ms Binoche is a stunner.
Piece to remember: none in particular


ALSO SEE
While these films aren't pianocentric, they do have one or two corking piano scenes to enjoy.

Casablanca
Pianist: Dooley Wilson
Superficially: a WWII love story
Actually: "Play it Sam, for old times' sake..." Ignoring, for a moment, the iconic "As Time Goes By" and the key position of the piano in the plot, this film also contains the brilliant musical stand-off featuring the Marsellaise.
One to watch? All too often, viewings of so called "classics" are accompanied by a cold appreciation and disappointment. This is not one of those films - its still as tearjerkingly wonderful as the day it was released. Not that I was around back then. Its twice as amusing and cynical as you expect, and an absolute joy.
Piece to remember: "As Time Goes By" *hums*, download the sheet music.

Road to Perdition
Pianist: Tom Hanks and Paul Newman in duet
Superficially: a father-son bonding drama set against the Irish-American mob during the Depression.
Actually: contains another one of those scenes in which the piano is used as one big metaphor - here to show the love and unity between mob boss Newman and his top guy, Tom Hanks. Gorgeous piece of music.
One to watch? Beyond that scene, this film is packed with great performances from its supporting cast - Stanley Tucci, Jude Law, Daniel Craig and Paul Newman are all brilliant. Tis a pity, then, it had to focus on the two least interesting characters. But what the hell - its well made, and well worth it for any time they're not on screen.
Piece to remember: Goodness knows what its called, written by Thomas Newman. I have created a sheet music version myself - ask for it, and I'll send.

For the time being, this is the best I can do:
http://members.tripod.com/jeanies_home_studio/sitebuildercontent/sitebuilderfiles/road-to-perdition_the-piano-duet_int-sheet-music.pdf

Gosford Park
Pianist: Jeremy Northam
Superficially: a cluedo-esque murder mystery packed with gorgeous period detail and starring pretty much everyone
Actually: contains the aforementioned as Ivor Novello, and thus several scenes of him romancing the piano. Mr Northam is gorgeous, as is his piano, bringing the total gorgeousity up to quite a high level.
One to watch? if slow-paced period drama is your thing, then you'll love this portrait of all facets of the grand house party, from the guests to their servants. Of course, you might also find it interminable.
Piece to remember: nothing stands out, its all lovelyful - and I can't find any Novello free online.

The Others
Pianist: Keith Allen
Superficially: a Victorian ghost story
Actually: all builds up to a sequence which I gather was meant to be scary. And indeed, it should be, with etherial music playing of its own accord from the supposedly locked piano. Pity for them, then, that the piece they chose is one I love (and, incidentally, play) so badly.
One to watch? It's all very sub-Sixth Sense stuff - creepy children, jumpy violins and pale faces. I loved it, the whole design of the film is just gorgeous. The background music ain't half bad either.
Piece to remember: Chopin, Waltz, Op.69, No.1, downloadable here.

Man on Fire
Pianist: Dakota Fanning
Superficially: a vicious but heartwarming story of redemption and love between a little girl and a hitman. No, it's not Leon.
Actually: she plays the piano, so there's the odd bit on the soundtrack.
One to watch? Sure, if you've got a high wince threshhold. This is the perfect date movie - with sweet, emotional bits for your gal, and lots of explosions and bloodletting in the second half for your guy.
Piece to remember: Clare du Lune, Debussy

Blade Runner
Pianist: Sean Young
Superficially: a police assassin hunts down androids which look human
Actually: contains one of my favourite piano scenes ever, with Rachel's diegetic piano playing swirling in and out of Vangelis' background music.
One to watch? Definitely.
Piece to remember: Unfortunately, I've never found the sheets for this, or even what it is.

Top Gun
Superficially: action-fighter pilots show off in fast aircraft for two hours
Actually: see it for the "Great Balls of Fire" scene. Man, I've been hankering for a copy of the music ever since.
One to watch? As dumb fun goes, this is as good as it gets. Just do me a favour and watch it on the loudest sound system possible.
Piece to remember: Great Balls of Fire

About a Boy
Pianist: Toni Colette
Superficially: a lazy rich guy finds redemption when he becomes friends with a disfunctional kid
Actually: the leaping point for some of the most quoteable piano moments ever - "the worst part was when they closed their eyes" - as well as "Santa's Super Sleigh", the Xmas-cash in classic.
One to watch? If Hugh Grant is your kind of thing, then certainly. If he and his films irritate you, then don't switch off, keep listening. It's still worth a shot - the script is amusing and satisfyingly bleak at times.
Piece to remember: Killing me softly wiht his song

Just missing the cut
Groundhog Day - lots of piano lessons
Corpse Bride - piano duet
Commitments - most of it
Godfather - the piano interlude in the middle
The Blues Brothers - again, most of it

Now somebody give me sympathy!

Contains Moderate Angst

I've worked out my ideal job! It's blindingly obvious, and also blindingly brilliant? Why not gun for one of the 11 jobs at my beloved Board of Film Classification? Even though I know there are downsides to sitting in a room watching films all day....wait, what am I saying? What downsides? The only possible downsides are eye strain and being forced to watch something you'd never choose yourself - a brilliant way to find new things.

At the moment, everything is very Future in my life. Jobs, university, not starving to death at university (it'll be fine, I can cook pasta and soup. I'll alternate...). Hopefully, my future will look something like this. On the face of it, the unbelieveable combination of Classical Studies with Film Studies sounds like the pansiest of pansy options available. It's not. Golf Management is the pansiest of pansy options available. I'm not going to uni for a piece of paper to allow me to work - I have always wanted it to be three years of in-depth study into a subject I am passionate about. What better than a course that combines my two key interests, even if they make an odd pair?

Plus, I've started enjoying the reaction I get from those around me. The more unguarded wince, because it sounds like a "soft option" - the intelligent tend to quip "what, three years of studying Spartacus?". Do I care what they think? Some of them, yes very, but the mass not at all. I suppose I only got away with applying for it because everybody (secretly) knew I was going to get into Cambridge, for the slightly less outlandish Classics...

The first year has two introductory film modules - "forms" and "contexts". I expect this to be a rehash of the AS course I took last year, learning cinematic terms and how to talk about cinema.

The second year allows you two modules - at the moment, the choice is between: Topics in European Cinema, Topics in World Cinema, Film Forms, Asian Popular Cinemas, Stardom & Performance, Cinema & Spectatorship, Film Authorship.

None especially appeal to me now, except maybe Spectatorship (please give me something on censorship!) Asian Popular Cinema could also be fun. I was so close to applying for Brunel, just because they are home to the Cult Film Archive. They do a whole load of postgrady stuff, so don't be too suprised to see me there in four years time if you're still reading. The Archive runs http://www.cine-excess.co.uk, a cult movie conferance, which I'll definitely attend sometime...

The third year, which again allows for two modules, will be a bit of a wrench for choice, for the opposite reason: American Underground Cinema, American Independant Cinema, Film and Trans-nationalism, Film Noir, The European Crime Film, Movie Music, Fathers in Film, Third Cinema and Beyond, Film Genre, Style and Ideology, Representation and Identity in Film

Representation and Identity isn't too hard to ignore - feminist movies et al, ugh - but picking between European Crime, Film Noir and Movie Music will be tough. And I'd love to know what Third Cinema actually is...

The other film course I applied to was Southampton, which has slightly better choices (partic "
Utopian and Dystopian science fiction film"), but is just film. If I had to give up one of the two, I'd keep Classics - Latin would be hard to keep up in my spare time, Cinecism itself proves I can write competantly about film without a lecturer breathing down my neck - which means my next choice is probably Exeter. I always intended to make the choice intellectually - for example, I went for Cambridge over Oxford, because Oxford played home to two of my literary heroes + Brideshead Revisited, and I never wanted to feel I was there for those three reasons alone. It didn't quite turn out that way, and here I am again picking Exeter because it is green and pretty, over Southampton because it is gray and cold.

In celebration of these discoveries of something so obvious, here's two classification links:

Recently found on IMDB top links, the classification board in Ireland:
http://www.belfasttelegraph.co.uk/news/local-national/article3493053.ece
It is something I have long noticed (what with Region 2 DVDs listing both English and Irish ratings) that the Irish ones are invariably far higher. They made Constantine an 18!

And Helen O'Hara of Empire rephrases almost exactly my words, but with far more coherency and in far less room, concerning the now thankfully junked government bill about tightning up censorship rules:
http://www.empireonline.com/empireblog/Post.asp?id=114
She even used the same post title as me (more or less)!


And some good, good, good, bad, good news. My school has extended Film Studies to a full A-level. This is bad news for me - they ignored my request flat when I was doing AS film, but it's nice to see they took it on board for future generations.

I'm just back from Florida, to share some movie-related thoughts with you.

Universal Studios
a.k.a. the non-event theme park of the century. It's amazing how a studio with that many films could make such a dull park. Without a pair of ears as a unifying theme, there was something ever so slightly off about this place. Nevertheless, I had a hoot - we did the Mummy Returns ride (naff), the E.T. experience (also a bit rubbishy) and the Men In Black shoot'em up. We also did the Jaws boat ride - by far the best ride in the park. It scared the hell out of me when I was a nipper, and I was satisfied to discover it is still pretty nerve wracking. Plastic sharks coming out of the water should not be that creepily effective - mind you, the same could be said about the film...

It was also oddly moving, passing a mock up of Sgt Brody's house, with the news of Roy Scheider's death being barely five hours cold. I hate star deaths - you feel you know them, you feel a bit sad, and then you feel awful for their nearest and dearest for daring to intrude on their grief. Or at least, that's what I feel like. At least no one else I know seems to care too vocally about this - Heath Ledger was another matter. I spend 2/3 of my day in the Sixth Form Common Room, a hotbed of female students. That was a hard day. Because I was a little upset, and again feeling quite bad for his family, and the people who really knew and cared for him; but spending it with a room of people who felt quite as sad as me. And then the guilt factor set in - human tragedy vs. cinematic tragedy - because he was playing the lead in The Imaginarium of Dr Parnassus, TG's new film. Terry Gilliam's new films inevitably suffer irreperable setbacks. Floods, set-loss, actors get ill (Man who Killed Don Quixote), going badly over budget (what, most of them?). Is it morally wrong to feel sorry for someone's death because it impinges on their art? Keats died young, hence we never got any more Keats poems. After all, without their art, we wouldn't care for these strangers at all. In any case, it looks like the project has been salvaged - Jude Law, Colin Farrell and Johnny Depp are all stepping in to replace him - a very exciting idea - so with that brief hiccup of fear salved, I can return to sincere and acceptable grief.

Not that Hollywood has any idea what that is. There's no rest for the greedy. The scum have rereleased Knights Tale special edition, with an extrapretty Heath picture on the cover. Do not pander to this tastless cash-in!

We also tried getting onto Twister, but it broke down when we were fourty minutes into the queue. We'd already done the real things a few days earlier (we got trapped in one of the Kennedy Space Center outbuildings by a tornado warning. Perhaps I should have been more worried? In any case, a) We were in the same room as the multi-billion dollar International Space Station. That building must have been terroristproof, weatherproof, bearproof, childproof and everything. At least, I didn't see any bears. Probably the safest place in the state. Though all those space models dangling from the roof didn't make me too happy; b) we'd just done an epic run across an exterior metal gantry in the pre-tornado rain - I call it rain, but the sky was just filled with water, and I was far too busy being soggy to worry about a little thing like breeze ; c) The toilets were outside and d) the prospect of trapped tourists created an irresistable disaster movie cast. We befrended a pair of mature Florida ladies, who were surefire gonners. Being in a family of four, it was also highly unlikely that we all made it out alive - quite possibly, me. We got out about 20 minutes later; it destroyed a few condos in Cocoa Beach, about 5-10 miles away from us, thankfully no one was injured as far as I know.)

The surrounding Universal buildings are mocked up like a film set - one building decorated with the logo for "Genco Imports". Trivia nerds may recognise this as Vito's company from the Godfather, and true enough, closer inspection showed "Proprietor: M. Corleone" pasted on the window. I overreacted and got a photo, but it made me wonder: were all the surrounding buildings in jokes and obscure film references? Certainly Genco was the only one I recognised.

The most fun to be had in the park was their live shows - particularly the Blues Brothers show, which was just perfect. We also saw Rocky's hotpants from the RHPS.

Oh, and if you live in America, check out the Universal cinema - you don't have to pay to get into that bit, it's just a shopping street with restaurants. They were showing bouth Kill Bills and Casablanca, which was an almost irresistable temptation.

Disney Hollywood Studio's Sci Fi Diner

The Theme Park formerly known as MGM has the greatest restaurant in the world, period. In fact, it's the restaurant I wanted to run. It's the drive-in experience, only in a large dome painted to look like late night outside, with the tables all made up as car-booths a la Pulp Fiction. Well I got myself a burger and a five dollar shake (well, it was nearer $4.87, but plus tax...) and had the best half hour of the trip. The screen played a constant loop of sci-fi themed 50s clips - trailers for Attack of the 50 Foot Woman, Plan Nine from Outer Space, Attack of the Giant Gila Monster; extracts from "modern science" programs, cartoons with space themes as well as intermission food adverts. My sister tells me one of the ads we watched was the one used in Grease. Brilliant in every single way - I'm a sucker for all things kitch, tacky and downright bad.

I later found out they have a similar caf called the TV bar, where you eat in a booth decorated like a kitchen from a 50s sitcom. Pity we couldn't visit that as well...

As for the park, well we saw the live High School Musical 2 dance - and I'm happy to report that live-show Gabriella is just as irritating as her on-screen counterpart - as well as a "how-we-film-car-chases" experience in a massive arena.

Pirates of the Carribbean

The inevitable question here was: how much have they changed the ride since the movie. The answer be, not much - the structure's still the same, just with a few Jack Sparrow references thrown in. And an insanely lifelike Johnny Depp anamatronic hiding in a barrel. It rolls its eyes and tosses its head just like the real deal.

And at the theatre...
We actually saw two famous people - the most exciting of which (for you at least) was Mick Jagger, spotted at the airport. The less famous, but more exciting for me, was a certain ex-Doctor currently appearing in a certain musical. I was terrible. You always imagine you'll behave with some decorum when coming into contact with stars and idols - say in the context of a musical, actually watching anything else on stage. But apparently not. I enjoyed the evening, though I couldn't possibly comment on the show as a whole. I'm fangirl scum, I admit it. I feel unclean. But I did have an absolutely wonderful time, drool or no drool.

And as a coda to yesterday's post:

Apparently, one of the guys in our year is going to a Hollywood acting school in L.A. instead of university. He's not a bad actor, but it is a bad idea. He made a pretty good (at least, loud) Othello, and is definitely confident enough to go for it. But its just one of those things which no one is really ready for, y'know? Friend 2's harsh assessment "what, to do porn films?" isn't exactly what I had in mind, but I'm not optimistic. All the luck in the world to him.

At least he's trying. I appear to have already given up on my directoral dreams through overapplication of logic, so maybe he's right and I'm wrong. I have lowered my expectations to "film critic". A suitable replacement - because all critics secretly want to be in the industry. They certainly think they know the business better.

All you need is love...

Firstly, a guide to 80s action movies: http://www.ruthlessreviews.com/80actionguide.cfm

'tis good for a giggle.

In today's post: two reviews, a defence of so called "buddy-movie-love", an attack on what makes good so called "violence", a discussion of my so called "favourite movies list", a requiem for my so called "scary" film studies coursework and the usual so called "paragraphs" about QT. this, I realise, is a window into how I write, and an apology for the fact I haven't written for a week. Instead of 7 small posts, here's one big one. Because that's such a mess, I'm going to use a few headings to sort things out. Starting with...

A SO-CALLED REVIEW

I watched the Guns of Navarone this afternoon. And loved it. I know I have all these delicate film-buff notions about how old films are as good as new ones, but we all know that isn't true. Some old films are up to modern standards, but many, many others (while great for their time) now seem unforgivably tame and stagy compared.

Smell the roses. This film is brilliant. It delivers everything you could ask for from a rip-roaring old-school yarn, and more. Heroics, derring-do – and some things which I didn’t expect, which just carried it above my expectations. Things like a lot of moral muddiness – our heroes err on the side of anti for most of the film – and more nastiness than I’d expect in an old-style, “tame” film.

In this slightly morally-skewed state, it also comes up with a brilliant stance on War itself. As I’ve pointed out before, few war films are actually about character or plot. They like to pretend they are, but believe me, they all have an agenda. Usually, it’s a blend of: “war is hell”, “war is crazy” and “war is amazing”.

Here it’s pitched perfectly in the middle. On the one hand, the orchestra keeps playing Rule Britannia - this film is all about our daring lads risking all for King and Country. A crack commando team are sent behind enemy lines to disable some big guns so three evacution ships can pass through unhindered. Yay! At the same time, Gregory Peck comes out with a dour statement that:

"The only way to win a war is to be just as nasty as the enemy. The one thing that worries me is we're liable to wake up one morning, and find we're even nastier than they are."

And by the end of the film, you could make a fairly stinging assessment of whether our heroes managed anything like it…

I bet Hollywood must secretly be pleased for Hitler. After all, World War Two gave them a bunch of unredeemable villains for every occasion. Indiana Jones? James Bond? Of course, the Brits and Americans are fighting on the side of civilisation and goodness. They don't murder innocent civilians and torture captives! Franklin comments that Miller was able to blow up a building without damaging the orphanage next door. No one bats an eye if Nazis start being inhuman – not even the Political Correctness brigade can defend them.

And that’s what is so wonderful about this film. It addresses all of this without bashing you over the head with it. These Nazis are some of the most dislikeable I’ve seen for a while. The moment that ice-blonde one comes into the room, you know exactly what his hobbies are. But as the deathtoll of nameless security guards mounts, you have to start feeling sorry for them, especially after a German officer shows the same strength in resisting interrogation and death threats as our heroes have moments before.

And how much more heroic are our heroes? The Zulu-style stirring narration which opens the movie praises the concept of a few brave men who are willing to risk their lives to save the many. But at times it goes a step further. They are attempting what the Anglo Saxons would count as a “great deed”, but while they are willing to risk their own lives in the attempt, Gregory Peck’s character demonstrates he’s willing to risk other people’s lives as well. And herein lies the conflict, especially when David Niven comes out with a beautiful “why are we doing this?” when faced with losing something far more important than all those strangers they’re trying to rescue. He says it in a way I’ve never seen in a war film before. But why shouldn’t he say it? It’s true…

All this goes on in the background though – ignore it, if you like, and just focus on what’s going on. The message is there because it’s part of the plot, not to make you rethink your politics. Its effects on the characters and their relationships is the most important thing here. And there are some truly, truly great scenes

One moment which deserves a mention for being truly chilling is when the aforementioned blonde Nazi rolls his gun along the a man’s injured leg with captives standing by. Just that. It’s a silent threat, and a very nasty one. It lives perfectly in old-fashioned expectations of how much you can show, while allowing your imagination to run as far as you’ll let it. THIS IS THE DEFINITION OF "VIOLENT". It’s not necessarily about your inventiveness, or how much claret you’re willing to spill (Saw 2, take note) – it’s all about buildup and atmosphere. This has both.

But the success of any buddy movie (and that’s basically what this is) rests on the way characters interact. All present and correct here! They make an amazing team.

Gregory Peck is great in his role as pseudo-leader of the posse, who conveniently speaks both Greek and German. Sometimes, he does look pretty Greek. And he's scarily convincing as a German too. In fact, the only one he doesn't pull off is being English (his character was in the book, but he refused to even attempt it for the film.) As in Jaws, he was so good that I didn't notice that he was playing what (on reflection) is a very overdone, clichéd character – the leader under pressure. He brings something new to the cliché.

But the norm is being bucked at every corner. Take Stanley Baker’s knifer who’s lost his nerve. In any other film, he would have redeemed himself. Here, he just fades away. Brilliant!

Of course, my favourite character was David Niven’s Very English Captain Miller, the explosives expert who can’t function without his Very English cup of tea. I say “of course”, because it’s probably painfully obvious to a lot of people why this is so. It certainly would be to my sister, who cried “Oh, THAT’S why you like it!” as soon as Mr White asked “who’s a tough guy?”.*

Just to clear things up, I have never thought in any way to ever even assume, imply, hint, hope, believe or suggest Messrs White and Orange are in love with each other. Ever. Whatever my sister says. Or my livejournal communities list.

My sister does have this funny idea about me and what I like in films…can’t imagine where she got it from…

Mind you, as for Gregory Peck’s assertion that the real plot is:

"David Niven really loves Anthony Quayle and Gregory Peck loves Anthony Quinn. Tony Quayle breaks a leg and is sent off to hospital. Tony Quinn falls in love with Irene Papas, and Niven and Peck catch each other on the rebound and live happily ever after."

…I can only say yes, definitely. Can you even doubt it? As I must have already made abundantly clear, I LOVE BUDDY MOVIES. And according to Simon Pegg, the mark of a good buddy pairing is that they’re “secretly in love with one another.” My sister interprets this as me being a closet slash fan, but she’s wrong. For the uninitiated into the sticky world of fandom, this is the wikipedia definition of slash if you're easily disturbed, and this is the fanfic symposium definition in case you're feeling more open minded. I don’t really believe in it. I’m not for a moment claiming any of these people aren’t straight (not that I’d have a problem if they weren’t); I’m just a fan of that undying, platonic buddy-love which completely transcends sexuality. It has all the fun of true love, without the tedium of angsty “relationship problems” and most of the cloying dialogue. The “secretly” is the best part: we know, they know, and they don’t feel the need to be demonstrative about it: they just get on with it. Perhaps it’s just an extension of the sort of normal romances that interest me – I like them subtle and ultimately unrequited. If you’re still clueless as to what I’m going on about, see virtually any of my favourite films…especially BC+SK (when it was described by Paul Newman as “a love story”, he wasn’t talking about Etta…), Freebie and the Bean (tagline: “It’s also a love story”), Hot Fuzz (OK, they’re deliberately playing this up as part of their action-movie-mockery, but that doesn’t stop it being sweet) and this, blatantly the worst of the lot, which should be watched if merely for an easily misinterpreted use of the word “care”.

Did I just rank this as a “FAVOURITE FILM”?!

Erm…it usually takes a while for things to settle onto my increasingly illogical favourite films list. A list of “favourite films” is such an irrational thing that mine is governed by crazy rules to keep me sane. How can anyone claim to love Zulu more than Res Dogs? Or vice versa? Once you’ve established you like them both, putting them in an order is ridiculous. What do they have in common?! Which is why my list is covered in little anomalies, such as Twelve Monkey’s presence. Is it better than Tideland and Brazil? No. Do I like it more than Tideland and Brazil? No. Why is it on the list, and they aren’t? No idea. See how weirdly the list works? Keeping it subconsciously, deliberately wrong spares me from attempts to make it “right”, which I’m sure you’re already aware is pretty impossible.

Rififi, Run Lola Run, Brazil, Tideland, Unbreakable, Freebie and the Bean, Hot Fuzz (did I hear someone scream buddylove?), Dodgeball…why are these not on the list? I adore them, they’re amazing. L.A. Confidential spent near on four years in limbo before being promoted. The Godfather needed about 45 seconds, but then again I had already had a few years to get used to the idea I was going to like it. So how long will it take this one? Well, folks…it’s taken about three days.

When you watch a film, you get sucked in by the world. The colours and atmosphere and music pick you up, and spit you out the other side. Whenever I see something I adore, it’s like being brainwashed. I keep remembering a sensation in the back of my mind, feeling ripples but forgetting what made the splash. I’ll feel wonderful, then try to work out why, and in a few minutes remember…it was just because I saw {insert film here}. That’s always a bit of a let down. I got it for all the others, and I’m getting it for this. A buddy-movie about moral panic in the face of insurmountable odds? Add a sepia tone and you’ve got my perfect movie. As it stands, I loved this film more than any I have seen for a long time. And at the end of the day, love is what its all about…



…you know, it’s a pity Robin Hood’s got Maid Marian hanging about in the wings, because…y’know…Will Scarlet...



(*Yeh, I’m not feeling very good about that…My parents had already basically said it was ok for little-miss-aged-15 to see it, that’s not why I feel bad. It’s because she commented:

“This is only the 2nd 18 I’ve seen all the way through!”
“Oh, which was the other one?”
“Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.”

…

That was what we watched the last time we watched a film together…I’m corrupting the young! Of course I feel terrible, especially as she didn’t think it was very good at the end of it all. But it’s no fun to watch on your own, and nothing beats the experience of watching it with someone who’s never seen it before. My sister’s squeal of “ew, ear!” made the whole thing worthwhile. Is that cruel of me?

Now I know you must be heartily sick of MONSEUR QT. “But you don’t even like half his films!” I hear you cry. But I have this irrational affection for him personally. If he decided to make a sweeping romantic triumph about a WW2 nurse in Africa (just compounding all the worst elements into my nightmare film here…The English Patient was never going to succeed with me…), he’d make it in such a way I’d want to see it. His soundbites and quotes are often aligned with my personal beliefs, and I respect and understand what he’s trying to do cinematically even if I don’t always appreciate them as entertainment.

I’ve now seen Kill Bill vol. 2, but can’t be bothered to lavish a whole post on it, mostly because I have very little to say. Except it was miles better than Kill Bill vol. 1. And I feel gloriously vindicated.

Back when I was doing my FILM STUDIES COURSEWORK, I commented that the centre of my scene was a lengthy unbroken shot of a young girl trapped in a cupboard. I wanted to keep the camera on her as long as the audience could endure watching her panic, without moving or breaking away. And then we would cut to her friend taking an agonisingly long time to find her. Now as it happens it didn’t turn out that way – I couldn’t keep my friends’ attention for anywhere near long enough to shoot what I had in mind.

At the time I was quite hurt by this – the whole idea behind my short was this one moment. But now it doesn’t matter. Because QT’s done it, and he’s proved me right. I know now how amazing my sequence (which is already fairly good) would have been with it in. Without giving too much away, it’s in the Kill Bill graveyard scene. He uses exactly my shot, and leaves it for several minutes of black-and-white panic. Now as it happens, I was going to colour my shot black-and-red, and my heroine was facing the other direction (and the torch was a good idea, I hadn’t thought of that), but that’s not the point. The point is, I’m basking in reflected pride and the knowledge that with a scene like that, it would have lifted it from creepy into terrifying.

I’ll tell you candidly, I’ve been having trouble sleeping on account of that scene, and that shot particularly. Do I care? Hell no! Because if I’d got my shot as originally envisaged, I’d have been having the same trouble over my own film. Wouldn’t that have been great? Thank you, Quents, for proving me right…

And while we’re on the topic, I know the consensus is that directors acting is a bad thing (even though he’s one of my favourite things in PF), but he’s really good as McKenas Cole in Alias. Even if I did smirk when he got the grey masking tape out. He plays this bad guy, but basically plays him as himself (a bit on the dweeby side…), which is great.

And finally, to briefly return to the original points of the post…he could make me interested in watching his wall dry. Even were Michael Madsen and Tim Roth not already attached to his newest film (Res Dogs spoiler – who reckons there’s going to be some karmic revenge taken for the last time they were on screen together? Anyone? It’s just the type of thing he’d do…), I’m now as excited as they come for “Inglorious Bastards”. What’s it about? Well people keep mentioning the spaghetti westerns, and the Dirty Dozen – Sergio Leone in occupied France. Sounds like a sort of…World War Two buddy movie to me…)

ANOTHER SO CALLED REVIEW

PS - I was right about Saw II. It was almost good, at times. But it roundly ditched terror for yuck, and gave us a cast of characters nobody could care about. It would have been more interesting if Jigsaw's intent had been less...bloody. If the game hadn't been based around seeing to what extreme lengths people would go to survive, but forcing them to work together. That would have resulted in more character coordination, and a more interesting film. A bit more puzzle solving. The joy of Saw I was that it was basically all buildup, with a fantastic payoff. Like I said above, buildup not blood is how to create true horror or violence. But having traded a single room for a whole house, and two guys for eight, naturally they won't have as much time for terror.

Like the first one, I liked the aesthetics. And there were lots of little touches I liked - the cop's game was bewy clever indeed; I liked the fact that they didn't get anywhere near saved in the house itself, and left some things unanswered (like the meaning of "over the rainbow".I actually worked it out this morning - you'd have to use the numbers in the order the colours are in the rainbow. Ding!) and there was some interestingly fast paced zippy direction at the start (though it soon became annoying, and it distracted from the terror in the yucky bits. Which were very yucky, I looked away for most of them. But it just didn't get under my skin in the same way that even the bloodless Tideland did.)

But that didn't make up for the many, many things I disliked. I spotted the connection between the characters immediately. I knew what was going to happen to Obi. And I spotted the twist, which was illogical in the extreme and 50% lame.

It was a good sequel though. Here, we return to the bathroom, and see some more of Lawrence, Adam, Zip - even Amanda - from the first film. I loved this - it was something they easily could have forgotten, and didn't. Now if only the rest had been as compelling....and the girl who played Amanda looked just like the blonde from Dead Ringers (current events comedy show). It's hard to remain worried when you keep expecting her to purr "Hello, I'm Fiona Bruce..."

Final verdict: it wasn't scary. It wasn't clever. It didn't even leave as much room for great acting. But it did have some extreme scenes of people in variously nasty situations. Meh.

I did notice something interesting though. The Saw movies will not kill their children. Isn't that funny? If you kill a child, or a dog, or a helpless Drew Barrymore in the first ten minutes of your film, you cross the line. The moment you demonstrate you'll do it, the audience know that nobody is safe, putting them permenantly on edge. A plea when you make Saw 11: do it, then we'll know you're serious.

Oh, and that guy I spent the whole film thinking "Gee, he looks like Mark Wahlburg". That's Donnie Wahlburg, his older brother. My deepest sympathies.

Here we go again...

On Sunday, out of the blue, while drinking milkshakes in a cafe after a long day of misbehavior at the local castle...

Friend 3 innocently asked "When are we going to do more filming?"

There was a pause before she was pounced on by me and Friend 4 and hugged. Someone actually WANTS to film again? What news is this?! Why didn't you say sooner?!

In case you missed the debacle, "filming" is a catch-all term that translates as "six girls shoot Fellowship of the Ring on a small island with a budget of £10". It took abouty five years, and the finished product is 40 minutes of slickly edited excellence. We even have a cast-commentary.

I was on top form as Boromir, Galadriel, Arwen, Bilbo, Farmer Maggot, Merry's stand in, The Witch King, co-director, co-cameraperson, co-lighting expert and ADR supervisor. Everyone else had a similarly packed list of credits. True, we had to snip Moria, and Legolas never actually appeared on screen, but it was good in its own way. I'll post some pictures of our sets and costumes later. They’ll need a bit of an edit, as my friends will be mad if I don’t blur faces.

After a few minutes of discussion, we decided to do Robin Hood. Amazing. Friend 4 and I had abstractly been trying to get something else going for a long time now. We even had our plans for Prince Caspian neatly arranged when Hollywood decided to make it instead. We’d gone through several phases, always flaking out at one stage or another. But this, this is happening.

This is speed filming. We have one year, and we've just lost the summer. Lots of things are on our side though. Forests, to start with. Our Summerisle has lots of little nature parks we can shoot in. Our Lord of the Rings costumes - we're already equipped with cloaks, daggers and LOTS of swords. Plus, Friend 4 and I are archers, and we've both got really nice wooden longbows. The cast is tiny - everyone has only one named role, with lots of nameless cannon fodder. And I have connections. Most usefully, to the director of local museums, who’s already agreed to let us into that same castle early so we can shoot undisturbed.

Of course, that doesn't quite outweigh the problems. We still have to contend with the weather, and bumping into strangers in public places (though that is often quite funny. Last time, we bumped into the local roleplaying group. They were dressed up and running about, trying to kill a Goblin Baby or something; and we were dressed up and running about, trying to film. We had a strange stand off while both parties thought "WTF?!" from a distance. My friends were mortified, but to be honest...we're still young. The role playing group are all in their 30s. Well old enough to know better...). And I’ve still got no idea how to show people with arrows sticking out of them which ISN’T holding them under the elbow.

Thoughts in that department are very much appreciated.

Meanwhile, we’ve got to tackle the problems of costume and script in under a week. We film on Friday. Why am I even blogging?! I should be panic-typing. We don’t have a plot yet. We’ve got a basic character outline, three Robin Hood novels and a vague idea that Maid Marian should get captured at some point. But oh! It’s a beautiful thing…

I write an awful lot, but never finish. It’s perfectionism. I only write when it feels right, sometimes agonising for days over a single paragraph. This is bad technique, and when things come it’s like they come from somewhere else. I don’t write it. I wait for the touch of the muse. Its lengthy but it works, and it’s fine because I write for my own enjoyment.

In this case, however, on Monday I constructed a vague outline of the opening scene (think the opening of Leon, with bows and arrows) and it needs to be scripted by Tuesday, so people can learn their lines and construct costumes by the end of the week. Now I’m not too worried about this. What I AM worried about is the fact that I have NO IDEA WHERE IT GOES NEXT. And it’s not just a flight of the imagination, because I’m constrained by the lack of cast. Not only does it need to be fun, it also needs to be clever – covering up all our problems. But writing like this is an absolute rush. I just wish I could come up with amusing dialogue now…Would anyone notice if I stole Alan Rickman's lines from Prince of Theives and picked up some of the buddy lingo from Firefly? I'm especially tempted by some of Shepherd Book's bits...particularly "the Bible is a little fuzzy on the subject of kneecaps"

And while we're at it, who here can name...

Five Films with a duck in them

Because we couldn't think of any.

~NO MORE MONKEY BUSINESS~


So I'm sitting at my computer, I haven't posted for days owing to being on holiday and trying to work out what to write about to rediscover my blogging umph. Die Hard, Ocean's Thirteen, In the Mood for Love, Shrek 3, the Lord of the Rings musical...(that's everything we watched while on holiday. We're unusual like that)

Thankfully, in my absence I've been hit with a tag and a blogathon.

So first things first, The Performance That Changed My Life...oooh, hard. Should I go for the best performance ever, Al Pacino in The Godfather? Bit predictable, maybe...or Kevin Spacey as Vincennes in L.A. Confidential? Love that film, and uber love that performance. Or should I go for something more offbeat, like Henry Fonda in Once Upon a Time in the West.

They've all changed my movie watching life be creating a series of hurdles most other actors trip straight over. But my actual actual life? Well, that'd have to be Brad Pitt as Jeffrey Goines in 12 Monkeys. "WHAT?!" I hear you say.

Movies are a cue to real life. How many times have you had an argument, then thought "well that was familiar, cliche-ridden and very badly scripted"? Or got married and wondered what the hell happens next, because films don't tell you what to do once you've managed to get to the altar. Or dashed around accessory shops for weeks looking for exactly the combination of bangles to emulate a particularly well dressed heroine (very guilty...) They sell us this fiction of the "happy-happy ending", teach us how to talk and act. After The Godfather came out, real life gangsters loved it. The FBI observed them calling each other Godfather, or kissing rings from respect. Films give us our most potent impression of experiences not our own. Who'd ever consider drugs after sitting through the Trainspotting cold-turkey sequence?

Now I'm fairly conscious of this failing. Yes, I've spent ages trying to dress like Emily from Brick. Yes, Eternal Sunshine still fills me with the desire to dye me hair orange, blue or red. Yes, I've got to go out of my way to swear less when the characters on screen swear more. But if there's one character that has influenced my behavior more than anyone else, it's Jeffrey.



We first meet Jeffrey hiding under a jumper in a mental institute. It's a Terry Gilliam film, our hero has just been catapulted from the future to the past, and the past have placed him here. He's disorientated, feverish and drugged up from the doctors. Cheerful music is playing from the TV in the background as he is moved into the patients room. You get the instant impression that, if you were mad, this'd be the least likely place you'd get any saner. As Jeffrey peers out from under the sweater, a "boing" is thrown into the mix of noise. And that's it, he's off, wound up like a wind-up flipping rabbit toy. Mr Gilliam keeps us off balance with skewed camera angles, endless corridors and something like three reverse-dolly-zooms in a row, while Mr Pitt just does his thing.



I know what you're thinking. Brad Pitt - young, handsome, always in the glossies - ergo he can't act. Wrong! Perhaps with more recent films like Babel and Fight Club the rest of the world will realise he's more than just a pretty face. Everyone, even you and I, has one default character they can play. Brad Pitt's is Robert Redford. Watch him in Ocean's 11 or Spy Game, where down to the smallest inflection and mannerism he uncannily resembles the smooth, charming and ultimately very nice older actor. Shock to the system seeing him like this.

Jeffrey is Tyler Durden without the glamourous seduction. He's got the wacked out theories, the grim view of life and the army he's going to change the world with: not space monkeys, but the Army of the Twelve Monkeys. But this time, there's no way you could ever fall for it - Jeffrey throws the kind of "madman performance" disability charities dread. He twitches, he jumps about, he laughs and stares into the camera with glassy eyes. Reputedly, director Terry Gilliam took his cigarettes away to make sure he cinched the rapid speech and nervy quirks.

At times, the similarity between the pair is uncanny. Here's Tyler on consumerism:

"Is this essential to our survival? In the hunter-gathered sense of the word? No. What are we then? Right. We're consumers. We're by-products of a lifestyle obsession. Murder, crime, poverty -- these things don't concern me. What concerns me is celebrity magazines, television with five hundred channels, some guy's name on my underwear. Rogaine, Viagra, Olestra..."

And here's Jeffrey in much the same vein:

"We are not productive anymore, they don't need us to make things anymore, it's all automated. What are we for then? We're consumers. Okay, buy a lot of stuff, you're a good citizen. But if you don't buy a lot of stuff, you know what? You're mentally ill! That's a fact! If you don't buy things...toilet paper, new cars, computerized blenders, electrically operated sexual devices... (getting hysterical) SCREWDRIVERS WITH MINIATURE BUILT-IN RADAR DEVICES, STEREO SYSTEMS WITH BRAIN IMPLANTED HEADPHONES, VOICE- ACTIVATED COMPUTERS, AND..."

The joy of Apocalypse Now is that it's all so crazy: by the time you get to the end Kurtz is so mad it almost turns into a sort of sanity again. It makes sense. Ditto Fight Club - much of the film's fun is being taken in by Tyler's off-colour ideas, and mentally signing up to "Project Mayhem". There's none of that in Twelve Monkeys. Jeffrey is just a crank. He's strangely endearing, but at the end of the day "a fruitcake". And he likes animals. But maybe, just maybe, he's also destroyed the world...

I figure there's a great marketing oppertunity for a "Goines guide to life". One inspirational quote a day to remind you how *crazy-head-flick* the world truly is:




On TV: "look, listen, kneel, pray"



On morality: "There's no right, there's no wrong, there's only popular opinion. "



On insanity: "Crazy is majority rules."



On who-knows-what-it-means-it-just-sounds-profound: "Who cares what psychiatrists write on walls?"




Why, you may ask, did fuzzball of energy this change my life. Maaan, you've clearly never actually met me. Hyper fast speech, speaks constant nonsense which resembles sense, habitually gestures madly with hands and hops around the room to make his point? I even get ratty if someone takes my TV-watching chair! This is a great performance because it's totally unlike anything Mr Pitt has done before or since. This is one of my favourite performances because it makes me laugh, feel nutty and horrified all at once. But hey, they weren't the questions asked. And it's the peformance which changed my life because *flick*...*pause*...*dashes off camera*...GET OUTTA MY CHAIR!

:)

If you're new here, hi nice to meet you. This is me, and these are my well written posts. This is not one of them.

And now the tag, thanks for this Catherine. But it exposes what a Scrooge I am about summer just as much as Christmas.

01. Name movies you watch every summer.
Nothing in particular, but I could never watch The Godfather just because the curtains aren't thick enough to block out sufficient light to appreciate all those deep browns...

02. Songs that remind you the most of summer.
My sunny selection. The Beach Boys. America, especially Ventura Highway. The Doors. The Lost Boys soundtrack (esp. "Good Times"). Any music which is good for driving down long, sunny American roads, as consolement for the rain.

03. What was the favourite summer holiday you ever went on?
Ooooh, possibly Toulon in Greece, or Virginia, or Wyoming...gosh I dunno! Does October count as summer? We went on a fantastic London jaunt in October...

04. Your favourite airport reads. I like the classics on holiday. If you're stuck in an airport, airplane, hotel cos it's raining, diner cos the car's broken down, coach journey, passport control e.t.c. bored out of your mind, you'll read anything. With that extra umph, you'll read anything. I've got a bad habit of forgetting to finish books. "Crime and Punishment" and "Les Miserables" stand out as fantastic books I'd never have finished at home.

There are some books I always take on holiday - namely "So You Really Want to Learn Latin" vols I-III, a Latin dictionary, a copy of The Silmarillion and the Picture of Dorian Grey. Because I always need to do more Latin revision; and there's nothing worse than being stranded in a foreign country unable to check the minutest line reference. one time, me and Friend 4 were embroiled in a terrible argument about the latter book. We had to sneak into WHSmith and take a peep at one of the copies for sale to resolve it. Never again!

05. Are you a sunbather?
Nooooooo. Remember back in Tudor times when pale skin was a sign of distinction? I don't see the attraction at all. I live in the shade. I feel queasy standing in the sun and get neurotic about the back of my neck burning. Also, I want to drink your blood....

06. Your ideal holiday destination this Summer that you haven’t been to before.

Theoretically that would be Egypt, because I've been wanting to go there since I was 4-ish. Mes parens keep saying it's too dangerous, and I keep saying it's only getting worse. But I probably don't want to be in Egypt in the height of summer.

07. Describe your Summer of 2006 in 10 words or less.
Can't remember it; I think I might have juvenile dementia.

08. What Summer movie must you see this year?
I must see Order of the Phoenix, whether I like it or not. Oh, you meant it in as in "I absolutely must see X" instead of "they're dragging me against my will"? My mistake...I'm quite looking forward to Phoenix quite a lot, mainly for the production design, but I'm dreading what they do with Sirius' house and I desperately don't want to see...you know what I'm sure. I've no idea why I'm dreading that, because I'm not a huge fan in any way. I want to see This is England, but it's not quite a "summer movie". I've already seen Die Hard 4. Incidentally, my dad's must-see summer film is Ten Canoes, a slow paced meditation on Aboriginal legends. Oh dear...

09. Which Summer changed your life?
The summer of Lower Fourth, about five years ago. Don't ask. It wasn't in a good way.

10. Do you like the beach?
Negative. Sand gets everywhere, there's never any shade, the water's always freezing. Fish and chips tastes awful, and anyone who says otherwise is being nostalgic. I don't even like ice cream!

Sorry, I'm not really a summer person...besides, I live about ten minutes from the beach so it's not a really big deal for me.

11. Your earliest memory of a Summer holiday.
Dude, I can't even remember two years ago. I've got shaky memories of the last few months. I have no idea...

12. And finally, what do you intend on doing this Summer?
Definitely finishing my Rosencrantz and Guildenstern are Dead fanny website. All I need to do now is name it. I wanted to call it "Stark Raving Sane", but one of the fanlistings has taken that one...playing the piano almost constantly...watching my backlog of recorded films...staying sane. I always go a bit batty when separated from my friends longer than a week, so the summer holidays are something of a struggle...

God, what a grump I am!

For this, I'm tagging my bebo buddies - here and here.


And finally, a headscratcher. Five films containing an airplane, in which the flight does not end up in peril, whether it be from snakes, Russians, or the Narrator's cruel imagination. Go figure...

An evening after bemoaning the idiocy of the dumb chick* who refused an invite to a Sonny Chiba marathon, I cheerily attended a Buster Keaton double bill at our local hall.

*True Romance. She made something of an impression on me...

Wowie! Screw the actual films, the atmosphere alone made my evening. They had costumed extras wandering about with tashes, massive 20s cameras and megaphones. My favourite character was the projectionist – slumped and snoozing against his machine with a half empty cider bottle. In fact, only my insanely incongruous outfit jolted me back to the 21st century (being female and under 18 does NOT necessarily mean I worship the ground Hugh Grant walks on. Hence, not only did I make my appearance at _the_ serious-film-fan local event of the century a point of considerable pride, I also paid more attention to my couture then I ever have or will again – dressing accordingly in my shortest skirt and highest heels. Just to make the point.) They even had that fake film-noise as the films were starting up. They truly lost a bundle by not selling popcorn – I don’t really believe in eating at the cinema, but the atmosphere was so fantastic I felt I deserved a bucket.

Now seeing a couple of “criticise=crucify” classics on a big screen is one thing, but having them accompanied by a live pianist was quite another. You see, children, to cover for the lack of sound in silent movies, they’d have a pianist improvise along to the images. This is the birth of the tradition-cum-bad habit of movie music (which when you think about it, actually makes little logical sense – smothering the characters with tunes they can’t hear – but as it provides such effortless emotion-letting, you can see why they kept it) Our guy was just great – he didn’t improvise entirely, but even succeeding in playing along was impressive. I was particularly fond of the civil war medly he turned out for The General – all the ole favourites, AND some of the obscurer ones like Bonnie Blue Flag and Lorena which at times I think only I’ve ever heard.

Oh yeh, the actual films. They was great too. We sat through the obvious candidates - Sherlock Jr. and The General. Perhaps I just got fed up in the second half of the evening, but I didn’t think The General quite deserves it’s almighty reputation over the former. It was something of a let down after the sheer hilarity of Sherlock Jr.

As a good, pretentious film fan, black and white films are obviously the equal – if not the superior – to anything in colour. That’s the doctrine, but somehow it is hard to believe. Perhaps it’s because in my mental balance of colour vs. B&W, colour will always win because I’ve seen so many. If out of the 4 B&W films you’ve seen, 2 happen to be bad (and bad happened as often back then as now…), that produces a whacked out average compared to 30,000 colour films, 2 of which are bad. So while I hadn’t judged Buster Keaton in advance, I was wary. A nice comparison would be my archaeology teacher who described the British Museum’s collection of Mycenaean relics as “amazing”. We quickly got distracted by the whopping great statues and mummies and gates and carved things, and when we eventually ended up in the Mycenaean room after witnessing all the marvels and marbles of the ancients, we were disappointed to see a few scabby vases with scribbles on the side. Lesson learnt: “amazing” is relative. Especially where archaeology is concerned.

The same applies to serious movie buffs. While I earlier protested there is more to movies than Hugh Grant, I start to become suspicious when people keep running back to hide behind Citizen Kane and yet cannot rouse any more passion for it than reminding me it was made in X, cost X and was His debut film.

Thankfully I can report that in this case, the “Great Buster Keaton” actually is great for normal people as well as movie nerds (though of course, as I may also classify for that description, perhaps in this case my opinion is unreliable…) Perhaps it was just the atmosphere, but Sherlock Jr was hilarious. Particularly to be mentioned – him in the cinema screen frantic as the background keeps changing around him, and him on a bike traveling across a broken bridge which then collapses. If you’ve seen it, you’ll know when I mean. If you haven’t, then that’s really your loss. It must be hosted-in-the-public-domain somewhere. Go find! After that, the General was something of a let down, especially in light of it being “The Big Famous One”. It had some funny moments, but was much more what I had expected to spend my evening watching: a worthy, occasionally amusing film, but nothing on Dodgeball in laughter stakes.


So finally, and just for fun, I've decided to start a new quiz for me blog. It's easier for all involved than doing screenshots. All you have to do is think of five films which fit the random criteria (with a reminder of the scene if it's not too spoiler free)

Five films where a telephone is destroyed
(I can think of three off the top of my head...)

"points for the student to consider"

If you hadn't worked it out already, these next few weeks I'm pretending to revise for me AS levels. My two most recommended revision movies are:

1 Ferris Bueller’s Day Off - adorable, sweet little Ferris. Everybody loves Ferris, the smug git.
And it’s the perfect remedy for work of any kind.

2 Apocalypse Now -“and all the children are insane…” – The Doors. Mysterious journey to the heart of darkness…a cast of characters with varying states of sanity…loud music and terrified people…random, violent death…hallucinogenic substances…surfing…well, possibly scrap the last part. Those adjectives could equally be ascribed to the revision process as the nightmare war in Vietnam. Just listening to the soundtrack, with its crazy crazy soundclips and intoxicating atmosphere makes me feel more focused already…

Anyway, I've got a list here of "points for the student to consider" and I thought I'd answer them meme style, just for a lark.

Does it matter that the majority of films you watch are American?
yes and no. No because a good film will always be a good film, no matter where it was made. And yes...because it increases the power of the USA over the film industry, which isn't something I have a problem with in itself, but it reduces the number of foreign films that even get over here. Foreign films are a treasure which everyone needs to discover, and thus naturally it's depressing that the ones which get over here are only a trickle. The success of Hero, I am depressed to realise, probably has to do with the words "QT presents...". Like Hostel, QT lends his starpower to very effectively get that brand of wushu movie released over here. Brilliant, kudos to him because I love those films, but it's sad that he needed to do it. Of course, one can go out of ones way to see low profile films, but it is harder and I'm lazy.

Do the conditions of reception (i.e. the cinema) matter?
I have honestly no idea what this means . At a guess, I suppose it's how far how you see it influences stuff. YES, resounding yes. Have you tried seeing Hero on a tiny screen? Any of you lucky enough (like myself) to see it on a massive one? I've always dreamed of seing the Sergio Leone westerns with bumper great speakers. Some films need to be seen at the cinema - The Rocky Horror Picture Show and Grindhouse both deserve the big screen experience. At the same time...are there some films which need to be seen on dvd? On video?! Its a Wonderful Life wants to be seen on TV around xmas time, and I've been tempted more than once to get a second hand video version of Pulp Fiction, muzzy quality and all. I feel a lo-quality version would enhance the experience.

Does it matter that studios control many of the means of distribution in our country?
Again, yes and no. I've no problems with it in theory, and I don't have any better ideas. But when studios start a) changing the end of Brazil b) cancelling the series Firefly c) being generally useless about Tideland d) splitting Grindhouse in half, I start to think that possibly it's a bad idea. Studio suits get me really incensed sometimes; so yes, we need another better system.

Are you a fan? Of a star...a writer...a director?
Do you even need to ask?

Are you an "avid"? How often do you go to the cinema?
Well I presume this means an obsessive film fan. Er...keeps own blog CHECK...references film on every occasion CHECK...three movie calenders, ten movie posters and a Middle Earth map CHECK...sewing own huggable Rosencrantz toy *blushes*. OK, I'm an avid! As for the cinema thing, I've seen 300, Blood Diamond, Blades of Glory, Hot Fuzz twice and something else I've forgotten already this year. Which is a record for me - I've usually got a pretty low interest in upcoming film, at least the sort of films which end up at our cinema *adds pretentious taste to the list*

Do you use DVD? What is the impact of this technology on your film watching?
Who doesn't, these days? Most "special features" aren't really that special - the bumper fantastic packages come with films I care little for. The best special features I've ever seen were on our Memento three-disc edition - genuinely interesting details about production, interviews with interesting people, the original short story, the entire film in chronological order and a directors commentary with two different endings (at a certain point, dear Mr Nolan explains either why Teddy is definitely telling the truth OR definitely lying. Cheeky beggar...). It's the mark of a good set because it enhances your viewing experience. I hate nothing more than ones where the cast smile and say what a great time they all had, that the director was talented and wonderful, that they think the movie was really great. This comment aimed squarely at The Mummy Returns. Now the recent Mummy movies are kinda underrated - they're great fun, and I love them - but geez I wanted to die watching the contractually-obliged special features. They didn't even justify why they had 5 canopic jars in the movie instead of the historical 4!
(Mind you...Friend 4's copy of R+GaD came last week. We sat through four solid hours of interviews. And enjoyed most of them too (Tom Stoppard, director/writer/genius, spoke very slowly about interesting things, which stretched his out to about an hour and a half; Richard Dreyfuss really spooked us by randomly falling into the accent he'd used for the film, and was interesting for the first 15 minutes or so; Gary Oldman spoke for a very very long time, but then he's had a long career and can still remember most of it; Tim Roth recounted the same on set stories as Gary had in a slightly different order, then recounted the same on set story about getting hired for Res Dogs as QT does on that disc in a slightly different order, but still came out with the best interview by virtue of only speaking for 45 minutes.)

What exactly is a mainstream audience?
They're a boring, unadventurous menace to society. They talk at the cinema and think Star Wars (or The Matrix for that matter...) is a cult movie. They haven't heard of Terry Gilliam, except possibly as third-python-on-the-left. They won't watch anything in black and white or with subtitles. They need to be culled; or at least locked in a small dark room with nothing but a copy of Videodrome for company.

What, if anything, is wrong with British cinema?
Two things. The first thing is that Serious British Artists want to make films about Britain, when the majority of people don't care. It's the same way there's no "great female directors", because female directors always seem to make films about women's issues (and the predominantly male movie-going audience isn't desperately interested. Hell, I'm not interested!). And secondly (kudos dad for spotting this one) we don't make entertaining movies. All the successful British films I can think of (Lock, Stock, Full Monty, Trainspotting, Hot Fuzz, Ealing comedies, James Bond etc...) are great fun - yesterday I pointed out the British are known for their costume dramas, historical epics and social-commentaries. NONE of those genres are known for their amusement value.

What is Hollywood?
See: mainstream audience. It wanted to cut Brazil and give it a cheesy ending. End. Of. Story.

What do you think your generation should do to contribute to the future of British film?
Nothing. Nobody gives a damn. Except Woody Allen, and he's just taking advantage of the tax breaks over here.

Patience is a virtue...and so's being 18

Every now and then, I watch Blade Runner and wax lyrical about how wonderful it is. Naturally, I prefer the director's cut, on the grounds that a) preferring directors cuts is the pretentious way to go b) general consensus is that cut's better and c) it's, er, the only one I've seen...

I would like to see the original version though, just to confirm I'm right. The exciting news is, we are soon to have a third version of the film to debate.

I know. Take an acclaimed film, recut and release a classic. Take a classic, recut and...where is there to go from here? Are they adding things, taking things away? Is there actually anything left to add? No idea...I've scoured the web, and information isn't really forthcoming.

What I can tell you for sure is it's coming out 2007 to celebrate the 25th anniversary of the film, although they've been working on it since 2000. So far, all anyone will do is talk about it in a vague language that actually means nothing. Links, in case you can make any more sense of it:

http://www.comingsoon.net/news/movienews.php?id=14724
http://www.scifi.com/scifiwire/index.php?category=0&id=36328

While they're claiming this is Ridley Scott's final vision, I can't help but think "marketing ploy!" to sell us new bumper-12-disc-sets. Ridley Scott is, after all, the king of the directors cut - he practically invented it. We've had improved versions of Alien, Black Hawk Down, Kingdom of Heaven, Gladiator...anyway, I know I shouldn't be excited, but I am.



Final note: today has been very un-psychadelic. I've had an utterly awful time. I'm having one of those crying-on-my-own sort of evenings. And the only reason I want you guys to care is that dearest darlingest Bob and Harvey Weinstein have just exacerbated it.

Here's the news: http://www.aintitcool.com/?q=node/32491

And here's the reaction. I usually dislike AICN, but they do get the goss first, and the people who write their comments feel OK with spilling into somewhat fouller language than I'm happy to use on a blog my parents could read:
http://www.aintitcool.com/talkback_display/32491#comment_1486095 But just to let you know. I'm thinking it.


What pillocks - what idiot, twazzock numpties. The people who were never going to see it, are still not going to see it (they weren't put off by the length, but the concept. How many people research a film's running time before seeing it?) and now the natural audience, the gorehounds who're intrigued by the promise of White-Hot-Action-At-3000-Miles-Per-Hour, who have been waiting patiently for the film to come out have been royally screwed and aren't going to see it either.

As I've already said, my dad's not interested, so I couldn't get him to take me anyway. If it was even showing locally, which it won't be. This just compiles the misery of ways I'm not going to be able to see it. I mean seriously, someone needs to get ahold of a proper print and tour it round England in the back of a truck with an open air screen or something. Hell, it'd probably enhance the viewing experience. I mean, jeez, it's a sad world if Tarantino can't get the film he made shown as it was meant to be (no disrespect to Rodriguez, the point I'm trying to make is that QT is virtually as large as modern directors get) - even if you hate him, you can't deny that he's made at least two massively successful and popular films, and there'll be a large cabal of enthusiastic, drooling fans waiting over here. Surely the Brits (who picked Reservoir Dogs up when the Americans missed it, no less. We launched his whortleberry-pie-creaming career!) deserve to see it properly?!

Makes you realise that poor sods like Terry Gilliam have no chance.

movie meme thing

Two things before I start. Adverts, actually. Firstly, check out Emma's upcoming blogathon . Nope, I've no idea who I'm gonna write about...and secondly, check out this blogathon I missed and can't be bothered to rush a reply for today. I'd have picked one of M Night's scripts and gushed unintelligably about it.

And now. I found this on the total film forum - any excuse to talk about me! And it'd be cool if anyone else who happens to be reading this, and wants a go, had a go, because I want to see what other people put. So comment, and try it on yer own blog!

How old were you when you first went to the cinema and watch did you watch?:
No idea. The earliest things I recall seeing are Toy Story and the first Mr Bean film. And, bizzarely, Empire Strikes Back, though that can't possibly be right. I'm not old. Perhaps it's me subconsciously inventing memories for things that should have happened. Did they ever re-release Star Wars et al in the cinema?

Three films about films and/or cinema: Ed Wood and Bowfinger taught me everything about direction. I broken a few moral laws here or there; I've even attempted a giant octopus (no, seriously. With stuffed tights and selective camerawork)

Favourite Actresses: None really...Monica Belluci is pretty...

A film that changed your life and why: The Sixth Sense. Before that, I didn't have any conception of films as art or even anything intelligent.

Great directors but which film of their's is your favourite? Kubrick, Hitchcock, Powell & Pressburger, Kurosawa, Lang. Ach! OK, well I don't get on with Hitchcock and I've only seen Vertigo. Ditto Kurosawa on the strength of Seven Samuri. Powell & Pressburger...heard of them...did they do A Matter of Life and Death? I haven't seen it...Fritz Lang, I have seen Metropolis which is amazing. And my scattering of Kubrick (Full Metal Jacket, 2001:ASO, Barry Lyndon...Spartacus...a bit of Dr Strangelove...). Can't pick. I'm indifferent to them all equally. Not indifferent, perhaps, they're all great. But I don't truly love any of them. Either FMJ or 2001. 2001 I think...

Charlie Chaplin, Harold Lloyd, Buster Keaton, Laurel And Hardy, who's the best?
Erm...gosh, it's a good day for embarassing confessions, isn't it? It'll be Buster Keaton very soon. We're going to see two of his films screened, with a real pianist accompanying them, a la how they would have screened silent movies. He will, presently, be the only one I've seen, and thus favourite by a long shot!

You're remaking a classic, which one and who's your new stars?
Never!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

Miscast actors happens quite a bit, what's the worst you've seen?
The one I can think of which always annoys me is William Hurt in the Village. I love that film, can't stand him. I don't like his voice or face; is it just me or can't he act? I simply don't believe him. Which is a pity since he's playing a character who I'd love in the hands of almost anybody else. Except Kevin Costner.

Most overrated good movie?
At the moment, Pulp Fiction. It's just a great film, get over it! Seriously, I adore it, but it's not what I'd call a classic.

Most overrated bad movie?
Vertigo and Seven Samuri. Two of the greats, eh? Sorry...

Worst movie ever? Heat and Dust and The Odyssey stick in my mind as so insanely boring I couldn't sit through them to the end.

Favourite British films: That's hard, because I don't really notice. But oooooh Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz are great!

Best road movies? Stand By Me. Is wonderful.

Favourite Actors: I'll go out of my way to see things with Al Pacino, Kevin Spacey, Robert Redford and (at the mo) Tim Roth. They're all cool.

Who Would Play You In A Biopic Of Your Life? Sienna Gullory.

Most Irritating Cinema Advert Ever: The trailer for A Good Woman. It makes me MAD. Stuffed with people delivering epigrams in an attempt to be witty (actors seem to think that just speaking Oscar Wilde lines makes them funny. It doesn't. They have to be placed in a particular way to make them sparkle) made worse that, for a two minute trailer based on an Oscar Wilde play, there isn't a single whole line I recognise ("Crying is the refuge of ugly women..." comes from it, but I assure you the original answer wasn't the lame "...pretty ones go shopping"). I just hate people who think they can make Wilde funnier - because they never succeed, and because aside from Importance of being Earnest, his stories are more than strings of clever lines. And lets not get me started on Lord Darlington (originally a decent fellow) being called an "international playboy..." Just when it can't get any worse, cue syrupy music, editing which gives away half the plot and a totally unecessary VOICEOVER MAN, er, voiceover. Also, the Spy Game trailer, which is guilty of criminally misrepresenting the film.

Which Film Magazines/Forums Do You Read? I got an Empire subscription; Friend 3 gets Total Film and we share them both. I haunt the Empire forums, and live on certain imdb talk pages. I'm losseolisia on there...

You Have To Swap Your Life With A Movie Plot, Which One Do You Choose?
Easy. Return of the King - I want to be Eowyn.

A film that scared you at the cinema/home?
Stuuuupid question. Never seen anything scary at the cinema, but at home Sixth Sense and Picnic at Hanging Rock stand as bastions of "approximately how scary I can handle"

Your favourite silent movie? I haven't seen that many. In fact, I think I've only seen two. Shame on me! But Metropolis is absolutely mindblowing.

A crap film that you know is crap but you love? People keep telling me that Lost Boys is a bad film. It's not Kubrick. But it's way better than you give it credit for!!!

Favourite Directors: Terry Gilliam and M. Night. I'm fond/obsessed with Tarantino, but that's mostly because he sounds like a great chap, not because I worship his style. I like Tim Burton (obviously, as I'm a teenager), and Sergio Leone (only seen one film, so it hardly counts).
I'll go out of my way to see Tony Scott films, not because I particularly like them, but just because I do. No idea why. And Warner Herzog is a family in-joke. Never seen any of his films.

Recommend three films that will change the way you view film: Brick. It's clever, pretty, pretty and very pretty. Hero - because there's more to cinema than Hollywood. A Birth of a Nation - it invented the close up, the tracking shot, and by half way through, you'll be greatful that some other, different film, invented the sympathetic character arc and gripping plot. Seriously, I wish I had three really good ideas for this, but I don't.

On Screen Love Stories: This is where I cite Casablanca, right? Grosse Pointe Blank is sweet...I don't do romance very well, because it's rarely believable on screen. Paul Newman said this of Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid - "It's a love story between two men - the woman's just incidental really." He meant it in a platonic non-Brokebacky way, before people start making a fuss. So, platonically, see every film in my top ten for examples of unspoken friendy-love.

Met Any Movie Stars? Nope. I was almost going to meet the Dutch director of the film Nu, but unfortunately my parents think my career would be better served by looking around Cambridge on that day.

What's your favourite period of cinema? e.g. 20s German expressionism, French New Wave etc You kidding?! Seriously...my movie watching, and to an extent taste, is far far too wide to pick on a period. I like lots of stuff.

Favourite Soundtracks: In no particular order - Moulin Rouge, The Village, Spy Game, Lost Boys and at the moment Brick.

What Films Need A Sequel: Unbreakable was concieved as a trilogy, and I'd happily sit through two more films if they were that good quality.

The film you’ve seen the most times Probably something strange like The Addams Family. Could be Fellowship of the Ring, though I'm generally too respectful of it to rewatch it endlessly. In a few years, if things continue as present, it'll be R+GaD or Res Dogs.

The films you can quote ad infinitum The Lord of the Rings, especially Fellowship. I can talk my way through all three hours of it. The Wayne's World movies are endlessly quoted by me and my sister. And R+GaD.

Who’s your favourite cult film hero? Obi Wan Kenobi XD. Seriously, don't get started on what is or isn't cult. Erm...the origami guy from Blade Runner.

Pick one genre and give us five of your favourites from it e.g. Comedy, film noir, romance, musical etc: Again, I can't think of anything...

Two scenes that flood your tear ducts: Only two? I'm an easy cry...The end of Signs...the end of Glory...those are films I've wept over more than once. And Stand By Me made me cry for about 6 hours.

You're an interviewer, who do you interview and about which film? Anyone from R+GaD who, under pain of having to watch Birth of a Nation, will be forced to tell me every minute detail about all things relating to it.

Three great acting performances: Al Pacino in The Godfather. Brad Pitt in Twelve Monkeys. Kevin Spacey in L.A. Confidential.

Who is your sex god/goddess? Ach, I don't know. Looks like I've got through the crushy hormones phase...though Robert Redford is still hot...