BigLens 6.1

BIGLENS THE KENT FILM MAGAZINE | VOLUME 6, ISSUE 1 | WINTER 2009

TO INFINITY AND BEYOND

THE ANIMATION ISSUE

3D: THE NEXT GENERATION? DISNEY VS PIXAR THE IMPORTANCE OF PUPPETS AND MUCH MORE

2

EDITORIAL

COVER: TOY STORY | PIXAR

The Battle Between Computers and Puppetry The writers in this magazine have total freedom over what they choose to write about. As long as it’s about film, it could be anything from early German Expressionism to why they hate Adam Sandler (if someone doesn’t write about this by the end of the year then I’ll be very surprised).

Sometimes, though, mini paradigms will appear and articles will either gently or sometimes violently lap over each other. Within the pages of this issue, a repeated theme has surfaced and revealed itself: technology. From the imagined developments of science fiction worlds to the very real re-emergence of 3D; from CGI to puppets, and from Disney to Pixar. Cinema is, of course, technology, so it seems churlish to bemoan the advancement of computer-based methods, yet many people see it as a showdown and are setting up camp behind either Spike Jonze’s Where the Wild Things Are or James Cameron’s Avatar. It’s homely, endearing puppetry versus a giant 3D computer and people tend to have strong feelings one way or the other. Can there be a place for both, or will there be a single victor after the dust has settled?

Place your bets.

Tom Brown

SMALLPRINT Editor in Chief: Tom Brown Proof Editor: Linzi O’Brien Designer: Hannah Charles

If you have a passion for film and would like to contribute to BIGLENS, please email tb211@kent.ac.uk or visit www.kentfilm. net.

BIGLENS is produced with the support of Kent Film, a society of the University of Kent Students Union. | All information is provided in good faith. | Articles are not necessarily the opinions of the editors of BIGLENS, of the Kent Film Society or of Kent Union. | Everything that is already copyrighted, is theirs. | Everything not, is the intellectual property of the individual writer, so no thieving.

WALL-E | PIXAR

Check out the Kent Film society hub at www.kentfilm.net for society news, BIGLENS movie reviews and all that good stuff.

3

3D: THE NEXT GENERATION? MARTIN JACKSON TO MANY, IT WOULD SEEM LIKE watching a film in 3D at the multiplex is a relatively new experience… not so. The first wave of 3D films came and went in the 1950s and resurfaced again several times in the latter part of the 20th Century. In fact, one of the most innovatory directors of all time, Alfred Hitchcock, made a 3D feature in 1957: Dial M for Murder. Watching films in 3D didn’t catch on with audiences nor did it play a part in the major film studios’ production plans. The recurrence of 3D in the 1980s with Jaws 3D and Friday the 13th 3D was seen mainly as a gimmick to draw audiences in for the novelty of the experience.

One might ask, then: with the failure of these early incarnations of 3D in cinema why is Hollywood now turning to 3D as the saviour of the film industry? The answer is quite simple; the new generation of 3D is nothing like what came before. Most people who haven’t seen a new 3D feature might associate 3D with those awful red and blue glasses, poorly made children’s or horror films and the underwhelming feeling of ‘so what?’ That was anaglyph 3D, a technique using colouration of the film stock combined with two-tone lens to produce a 3D effect. What we now have is Stereoscopic 3D, a process much like stereo sound.

Instead of using one projector to screen the film, two projectors are used side by side with polarised lenses in the glasses, creating the illusion of depth with great clarity.

The new generation of 3D has been around for several years but it is now becoming a key cash-cow for most film studios. To date there has been an onslaught of films using the technique such as My Bloody Valentine 3D, Monsters vs. Aliens, Coraline, The Final Destination, Up and Ice Age 3. All of these films have surpassed expectations at the box office. For instance, My Bloody Valentine was produced for only $15m but managed to take almost eight times that amount at the world-wide box-office.

The main staple of 3D production still seems to be either children’s films or horror films, but all that may soon change with the most anticipated release of the year.

James ‘king of the world’ Cameron has not made a feature film since the multi Oscar-winning, box-office behemoth Titanic back in 1998 and his new film Avatar has got Hollywood watching closely. Cameron’s movie proposes to be the next generation of cinema; first there was sound, then colour, and now there will be an immersive movie-going experience which will bring the masses back to the multiplexes. Or at least that’s what the hype machine has been saying. Cameron has developed a 3D camera system with his work partner Vincent Pace as well as using the latest technology in performance-capture and live previsualisation to create something he thinks will be totally unique 4

AVATAR | 20TH CENTURY FOX

“3D OFFERS A UNIQUE EXPERIENCE FOR A NEW GENERATION OF CINEMAGOERS AND A BRAND NEW TOOL FOR THE DIRECTOR.”

in the marketplace.

Cameron is not directing a kid’s film or a horror film; instead he is making a Sci-fi epic on a similar scale to say, the Lord of the Rings or Star Wars. Some of the leading filmmakers in the world such as Michael Mann, Ridley Scott, J.J. Abrams, Steven Soderbergh and Jon Favreau have all jumped on the 3D bandwagon after viewing scenes from Cameron’s film. In fact Steven Spielberg and Peter Jackson were invited to the set and after Cameron allowed them to use his camera for a day they decided to make the upcoming Tintin trilogy in stereoscopic 3D. If Avatar proves to be successful, then 3D will not only become commercially significant in Hollywood but also in the home entertainment market. Just recently at a Blu-Ray conference in Los Angeles a standard format for Blu-Ray 3D was announced and all the major

HD-TV manufacturers have 3D systems in production and ready for release in 2010. Of course the equipment will be expensive at first but it will follow the pattern of most other technologies and become more affordable and accessible over time. In fact, the gaming industry is also getting involved and it is now possible to play PC games in 3D using a special monitor and shutter-screen glasses.

3D is not only a unique experience for a new generation of cinemagoers and a brand new tool at the director’s disposal, it is what Hollywood thinks will combat piracy and increase revenues. If someone attempts to film a 3D movie in a cinema with a camcorder all they will see is a blurred screen therefore piracy reduction may be a benefit in most studios’ interests. The new technology and cinema experience of course comes at a price.

An additional charge per ticket of around £1.50 is commonplace, with IMAX 3D prices reaching around £13. To some this may be a deterrent to movie-going, but come December 18th when Avatar is released, people may think this is a price worth paying.

If the film fails at the box-office then 3D may just die out as it has done in the past or at least be relegated to novelty cinema, but I suspect this won’t be the case. Imagine the T-Rex chase from Jurassic Park in 3D and tell me you wouldn’t want to see that!

5

PUPPETRY OF THE PEOPLE DARA EDWARDS IT IS DIFFICULT FOR MOST PEOPLE to go a day without hearing about how amazingly unique this current moment in history is. How modern technology allows us to create images and ideas that could never before have been expressed. No doubt, computers have invaded nearly every area of our lives, at school, at work, at home, and nowhere so much as in the cinema. We as a generation have become so accustomed to seeing computer generated images (CGI) in every film we watch, that when kids today experience Star Wars for the first time, the light sabers and space ships look downright comical. If our cinematic lives have become so computer-dependant then why was I so excited to see that Spike Jonze opted not to rely on go-to CGI effects in his film Where The Wild Things Are? I was thrilled to see the costumes for the monsters the first time I watched the Where The Wild Things Are

6

trailer. I can’t remember the last time I went to see a film where the overall art direction truly caught my attention, and excited my imagination. But why on earth would Spike Jonze, with a budget of millions of dollars and the rights to a beloved children’s story, opt not to use the infinite visual possibilities offered by computer-generated imaging?

Perhaps it is because audiences have become so desensitized to the sheer awesomeness of CG images that in order to re-appeal to the modern viewer’s eye and imagination, the long forgotten art form of puppetry was revived. Granted,

Jonze did rely on computer technology to render the creatures’ facial expressions, but real flesh and blood actors are still encased within the giant, unmistakable shell of a costume for the film. This harkens back to the days before computers; yes, films existed even before computers! When filmmakers had to rely on innovation and tactile constructions of costumes and puppets in order to shock and awe viewers.

Some of the most classic films, such as The Exorcist, Planet of the Apes, Alien, and 2001 A Space Odyssey, all rely on striking costumes and puppetry in order to achieve their effects. Granted, at the time these films were created, filmmakers didn’t have the luxury of using today’s complex computer software to enhance their film’s visual content but nevertheless there is a cerWHERE THE WILD THINGS ARE | WARNER BROS

“TODAY, FILMMAKERS ARE FACED WITH A CHOICE: COMPUTERS OR PUPPETS.”

tain tangibility inherent in this costuming and puppetry that made the characters more real. These classic films are proof that filmmakers do not need always to saturate their films with computer images just because they can. There’s no question that CGI can often times contribute much to a film. If The Lord of the Rings trilogy had not used CGI effects, I doubt it would have had the same immense impact on the movie-going public. If Star Wars had not used the same special effects, audiences would doubtlessly have not been as enamored by the timeless George Lucas production. But there are certain qualities inherent in puppetry and costuming that CGI does not have the capacity to replicate and vice versa. Filmmakers today seem to still be struggling to find a balance between the two.

Before computers, filmmakers were forced to rely on puppetry to create images and characters, but today, filmmakers are faced with a choice: to either use computers or puppets (most choosing the later). There are many films being produced today that throw their entire budget into special effects, and invest nothing in storyline or character development. As a result, viewers are left largely unsatisfied, having paid to see a visually stunning film that lacks basic story elements. An easy example is Beowulf, which in 2007 was entirely created using computer generated imaging, but despite its £93,750,000 budget, it wasn’t nearly as big a cash cow as Paramount had anticipated. Although Beowulf may be visually striking for the first five minutes, one thing the special effects cannot hide are poorly developed characters and an uninteresting script. This just goes to show that the film industry is still on somewhat unsteady legs when it comes to using computer technology. Sometimes CGI works, other times it fails and even though anything can be created using CGI many films are still greatly lacking. Computers are not the answer to all of our questions and with a few recently released films it appears as though filmmakers are looking to long forgotten puppetry in order to appeal to the modern viewer.

Where The Wild Things Are is not the only recent film which has refused to rely as heavily on CGI to create its characters.

Wes Anderson turned to puppetry with a more visually striking stop motion animation in his recent adaptation of Rold Dahl’s Fantastic Mr. Fox, and even certain scenes in the Michael Cera, Charlyne Yi mockumentary Paper Heart relied on puppetry to create a sense of off-beat quirkiness. It seems as though more and more films are popping up that maybe have the budgets to incorporate CGI, but have chosen not to. Perhaps these films signal a marriage of puppetry and CGI that has never before had the opportunity to exist. Maybe filmmakers are learning that computer technology may not always be the answer and that using cheaper animation techniques may actually appeal to a computer-inundated society. Or maybe it’s just Hollywood trying to make a buck. Either way, I hope we see this trend continue to persist because, personally, (sorry to all the Michael Bay fans out there [you know who you are –Ed.]) I don’t know if I can handle another Transformers sequel.

7

THE AGE OF THE QUIRKY COMEDY

CHRIS FENNELL

8

“‘QUIRKY’, ‘OFFBEAT’, ‘INDIE’-THE FRESHNESS OF THESE STORIES DEFIES LAZY CHARACTERIZATION.”

JUNO | MANDRATE PICTURES

TO START, LET ME SAY THAT to pigeon-hole anything as ‘quirky’ is as superficial a genre-defining exercise since the term ‘drama’ was coined. Call them what you like - ‘quirky’, ‘offbeat’, ‘indie’ – the freshness and candour of these stories defies such lazy characterisation.

They offer a welcome distraction from the influx of bromantic cock comedies from Judd Apatow and his tiresome troupe.

There are no staple criteria. Indeed ‘quirkiness’ is subjective; even the wacky ideologies of The Royal Tenenbaums may resonate among some, while others may find a common ground with The Squid and the Whale’s ‘joint custody blows’ rhetoric. For me, if there be an encompassing trademark, it surely must come in the crazy, off-the-wall characters. Take Bill Murray, probably to this subgenre what The Duke was to Westerns and Bogie was to Noirs, and the middle-aged misanthropes typecast since Groundhog Day. Grumpy yet identifiable weather man Phil becomes an ever more bizarre creation as we go from Rushmore through Tenenbaums, Lost in Translation, The Life Aquatic, Broken Flowers and The Darjeeling Limited. Heck, see his wonderful cameo in recently released Zombieland, a hilarious self-parody of his own work.

Now after that brief sketch of Bill Murray’s quirkography, it seems necessary to discuss his muse, and mastermind behind four of those films, Wes Anderson. His debut feature Bottle Rocket, star-

ring a young Luke and Owen Wilson, established his infatuation with intelligent humour, a folk/rock soundtrack and broken characters in dysfunctional families. His following films have received widespread critical acclaim (although reviews became more mixed by The Life Aquatic), many reviewers citing his humanism and intertextuality as pertinent qualities. While most may opt for Tenenbaums, for me Rushmore, with its awkward nuances and heartfelt relationships, marks the grand exposition of Anderson’s unique brand of comedy.

However, Anderson is more of a post-modern rejuvenator (if that makes any sense) than a pioneer. To find the roots of ‘quirky’ comedy, you have to bone-up on the cinematic idiosyncrasies of the 70s. Ever since Woody Allen’s Manhattan-set romcoms, filmmakers have attempted to secure a spot in the Annie Hall of fame. His lovelorn tales of emotional disconnection, infused with neurosis and observational gags, inspired equally Jewish comedians like Albert Brooks, whose lesser known films like Modern Romance and Lost in America mirrored Allen’s own selfobsessions. Consider as well Hal Ashby, director of everyone’s favourite film in There’s Something About Mary, Harold and Maude. The film has gained cult status over the years, charting the relationship between a suicidal young man and a septuagenarian – yet it does not offer nearly as much in terms of complexity as Being There – a personal favourite made eight years later, satirising performance and mutual acceptance.

John Hughes’ 80s teen flicks, of which many students probably grew up upon (if not this then Hughes knock-off ‘Saved by the Bell’), grew a shade tiresome by Pretty in Pink.

Although most will agree that Ferris Bueller is as timeless as they come, its ‘quirky’ alternative Say Anything…, does things to the heart

Ferris could never do in his day off, and yet you rarely hear it mentioned in the same breath. Rock journalistcum-director Cameron Crowe subverts the clichéd high-school suburbia which he revelled in so joyously in Fast Times at Ridgemont High to craft one of the most funny, touching and downright sublime adolescent romances ever committed to celluloid. At a glance it’s a ‘boy meets girl’ love story but another look presents the obsolescence of the facile stereotypes and cliquey generalisations so common in high-school teen flicks.

In this sense it shares similarities with Gregory’s Girl, a Scottish coming-of-age comedy from Bill Forsyth (he also directed Local Hero, another favourite of mine) in which the adults adopt the children’s impressionistic naivety and the school kids gain their teachers’/parents’ wisdom.

This dovetails onto the small screen as well. Seinfeld, although now embalmed in mainstream culture (see ‘shrinkage’ and ‘yada, yada, yada’), is a self-confessed show ‘about nothing’. It inverted expectations of the sitcom formula, offering little in the way of pathos. Of course, the television is now aghast with Seinfeld-inspired sitcoms, such as the fantastically original Arrested Development (a movie of which is in pre-production) and Larry David’s semi-autobiographical Curb Your Enthusiasm.

There is so much to see here, and so much fun to be had doing it. The trend has only been getting stronger in recent years with modern classics such as Juno and 500 Days of Summer. No one is receptive to every type of humour but with the variety available here, I like your odds.

FERRIS BUELLER’S DAY OFF | PARAMOUNT PICTURES

9

LAST WEEK, someone told me they hated narration in films- all films. I was surprised, not least because some of my favourite films depend on voice-overs to complete their stories. What would The Shawshank Redemption be without the droll tones of Morgan Freeman’s Ellis recounting his kinship with Tim Robbins’s Andy Dufresne? Fight Club would make no sense without Edward Norton’s narration, which guides us through the unanticipated twists and turns of the turbulent story. Lester Burnham’s commentary throughout American Beauty forces you to, as the tagline insists, “look closer”.

The voice-over can become an inextricable part of a film, the glue that holds it together- an irreplaceable ingredient that completes the piece. Despite this, narration is a tricky device. Many do not hold it in the same esteem as I do, it can easily be poorly used, overly sentimental or a badly veiled method to tie a fragmented and incomplete story together.

The interesting thing about narration is its flexibility.

Directors from Hitchcock to Spielberg, and everyone in between, have used it in almost every genre, in many different ways and with countless types of narrators.

10

The decision to make use of a voice-over is also made for diversely different reasons.

In book adaptations it becomes a way to condense vast amounts of material into a two-hour film, often also maintaining the unique voice of the narrator that exists in the novel.

Modern period dramas also habitually take the route of the voice-over, seizing it as an opportunity to include large chunks of the original text just as they are written on the page. For films that jump back and forth in time, such as The Notebook and Titanic, the voice-over is a beautiful addition to the story. Both films have an older version of the character telling their own story, adding a personal touch to the narrative that could not be replicated with any other device.

Narration can be such an extraordinary technique as it allows the audience to connect to a character in a way that otherwise might not be possible. It reveals their inner

“THE VOICE OVER THREADS ITS WAY EFFORTLESSLY INTO FIGHT CLUB OR THE NOTEBOOK...”

IS VOICE OVER?

THE SHAWSHANK REDEMPTION | CASTLE ROCK ENTERTAINMENT

JESSIE HALL

thoughts, gives them a voice and allows the viewer to discover exactly who they are.

In the previously mentioned films, the voice over threads its way effortlessly into the film, it is woven into the very fabric of what makes Fight Club or Titanic such a classic piece of cinema. We can agree that when it’s done well, it’s perfection, but narration doesn’t always complete a film with such ease.

In 2002’s Tuck Everlasting, the narration comes off as overly sentimental, a familiar tool used to move the script along and create a satisfying connection with Alexis Bledel’s Winnie without much creative exertion.

Similarly, My Big Fat Greek Wedding, although a perfectly passable romantic comedy, is not improved at all by the narration of its main character, which, quite frankly, tells us nothing we couldn’t have picked up from the not-too-complex script ourselves.

It seems the most important detail in achieving a successful voice-over lies in the choice of narrator. Focus Morgan Freeman or Kevin Spacey’s voice across the screen and it’s cinematic gold, but force the audience to listen to several hours of the awkward inflections of Alexis Bledel, the tiresomely cheery nuances of Nia Vardalos or the lethargic- and always American- drawl of Kevin Costner (Dances with Wolves) and you can’t help thinking the film would’ve been better off without the narration.

Undoubtedly, voice-overs can be used very unsuccessfully, but in the hands of great and creative directors like the Coen brothers and Sam Mendes, they are flawless, and pertinent. There is always the largely debated issue that they can take something away from a visually based narrative, but watch The Assassination of Jesse James or Road to Perdition- both visually stunning and voice-over guided films- and you can’t maintain that argument for long.

When it comes down to it, perhaps narration is simply a matter of preference. To me, at least, it remains a great instrument in a filmmaker’s arsenal, the most effective way to truly connect an audience to a character and, in the right director’s hands, the element that always ends up drawing me completely into a story.

11

THE LION KING | DISNEY

BEAUTY OR THE

BEAST? DISNEY LEAFIA DARKO IN AN AGE WHERE dizzying computer generated images zip across the screen so fast as to make your head spin and your eyes bleed, maybe it is time to rediscover what animated storytelling on the big screen is really about. Cue Mickey Mouse and Mulan, the Seven Dwarfs, Jasmine, Ariel, Simba, Pinnocchio...oh you get the point. This is largely because there is a real point to get: stories with magic and characters and lullabies. So toss away your 3D specs and listen. Once upon a time there was a group of animators who would paint lovingly by hand more than 250,000 pictures per film, with the sole aim of bringing story books and fairytales to life.

This clever bunch of people exhibited the art in craft and demonstrated the craft in art using passion instead of gigabytes and all for our viewing pleasure. The emphasis here was not to induce migraines and make your eyes water, but to thrill the senses with sights and sounds that managed to provide a truly three-dimensional surround-sound experience .With barely a couple of clicks of a mouse.

Although beautiful in composition and sophisticated in execution these ‘masterpieces’ would be simply ‘great movies’ were it not for their scores. Disney animated features have added a plethora of songs to the International Songbook which resonate with children and adults alike. So between pondering what happens ‘When you wish upon a star...’ and

reliving the adventures you indulged in ‘Once upon a dream’, you haven’t the time or the need to worry about the anonymous group of smart technicians more concerned about converting make believe into a science than relaying a tale from the heart. No: instead, in the origins of animated storytelling and its welcome resurgence lies pure unadulterated soul in all its colourful guises. This is because via the seemingly visual simplicity, arrives the complex analysis of many themes: love and hate, good and evil, bravery and fear, brutality and friendship... these in turn allow the Disney features to transcend time, generation and genre. They create an entire cinematic world of their own as vivid today as with the release of their first full length feature Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs in 1937.

Isn’t it about time that the people at the top of this industry today, the men with the magic, the women with the wonder, began once again to focus more on tugging at our heart strings and less on our purse ones?

THE LITTLE MERMAID | DISNEY

12

UP | PIXAR WALL-E | PIXAR TOY STOY | PIXAR

PIXAR TOM BROWN BEAUTY OR THE BEAST? Of course, in my mind, there’s no question that Pixar is the Beauty and Disney very much the Beast, an antiquated dinosaur that monopolised a market and as the years went on sucked dry any true imagination or storytelling. Not only that, but they then had the audacity to buy out Pixar because they realised they were onto something better. John Lasseter, Pixar’s irrepressible face, initially joined Disney as an animator but was soon kicked out for questioning their practises and trying to take them in a new direction. Since the buyout, incidentally, Pixar have been in such a strong position that Lasseter has become the Chief Creative Officer at both Pixar and Disney. So the joke’s on you, Disney! Haha.

Leafia does make some valid points in her defence of Disney, but the simple facts glare us in the face: all the films listed are old. In fact, Disney is like Mickey Rourke: once beautiful but gradually ravaged by the unforgiving sandpaper of time. (In a similarly ridiculous analogy, Pixar are like John Barrowman – timeless and never ageing. But less annoying.) I’ve nothing to say against classics such as 101 Dalmatians and Pinoc-

chio, but name one truly great Disney film of the last ten years. Did you hear that awkward silence? Exactly.

Disney was dead, out of ideas, and their own hubris led them to the assumption that no one would step in to fill the breach. Enter Pixar. How many truly great Pixar films can you name in recent years? Toy Story, Finding Nemo, Toy Story 2, Ratatouille, WALL-E, Up. They are, quite frankly, genius.

Yes, they embrace new technology and yes, it invariably looks astounding. But you never get too caught up with it, and for one simple reason. In countless interviews with Lasseter or any of the other Pixar crew, all they ever talk about is the most important thing to them being the story and character. It doesn’t matter how many flashing lights and impressive visuals they have, if we don’t care about what’s happening within the narrative, it’s all pointless. Take Up as a case in point.

It’s 3D. Which, if you didn’t know, is amazing. But it’s not a gimmick: it’s subtly and lovingly massaged into the film to enhance the emotions of the characters, unlike cruder productions such as, say, Disney’s new A Christmas Carol which grabs 3D and smears it around in your face until it seeps into your brain.

I’m not saying there’s no hope for Disney. With Pixar’s crew taking their reins I’m expecting to see an increase in quality – Bolt, for example, wasn’t too bad – though I had the familiar feeling that I’d seen the same story told before (a character who thinks they’re a superhero but has to come to terms with the fact that they’re not... Buzz Lightyear, anyone?). So there it is. Beauty and the Beast. And the Beast is in need of a serious makeover; let’s hope Pixar can give it to them.

13

WHERE ARE ALL THE WOMEN?

HANNAH CHARLES

HOW MANY FEMALE FILMMAKERS can you think of off the top of your head? I come up with three: Sofia Coppola (because she’s Francis Ford Coppola’s daughter), Andrea Arnold (because I study British film), and Catherine Hardwicke (who did Twilight, hardly something to brag about). There are definitely a few more out there, but the fact remains that the amount of women making films in Hollywood is significantly less than the amount of men.

This strikes me as strange. It’s 2009: women are supposed to be completely equal to men. Yet when it comes to the film industry, it seems almost as though attitudes are practically Victorian. The Oscars are in their 82nd year and, to date, only 3 women have ever been nominated for Best Director: Lina Wertmüller (1976, Seven Beauties), Jane Campion (1993, The Piano) and Sofia Coppola (2003, Lost in Translation). Roughly, that’s 3 out of 405 nominations. There have been no female winners.

Why are there so few female filmmakers? Where are the female Scorsese’s, Tarrentino’s, or Hitchcock’s? Do they exist, or, as much as I hate to raise the possibility, are women simply not as good at making films as men?

With regards to the question of talent, I believe that gender is no issue when it comes to making a cinematic masterpiece.

Let’s refer to my three lady directors above. Coppola won a best screenplay Oscar for Lost in Translation along with best

14

director and picture nominations. Although sometimes it may seem like it, you don’t win an Oscar for just any piece of rubbish. Andrea Arnold also has an Oscar amongst several other awards (the Oscar is for her excellent short film, Wasp), and as for Catherine Hardwicke, after the fiasco of Twilight it’s difficult to remember that her debut feature was the pretty decent Thirteen – but it will take more than that for her to be forgiven... Women are more than capable of playing with the big boys, making films that, although there has yet to be a best director win, still gain critical acclaim and recognition from judges.

Perhaps, then, there are fewer women than men wanting to enter the film industry? I don’t have any way to test this except from my own experience and people I know, which suggests that this, also, is untrue. Being a film studies student I know a lot of people of both sexes who aspire to

THIRTEEN | FOX SEARCHLIGHT PICTURES

should make her more determined to succeed where the others had failed! “Yes,” she replied, “but it’s so difficult; the men don’t respect me as much as they do a male director.” From this account it seems that the male dominated world of films is resisting women entering it, making it so much harder to achieve.

My third reason comes from an article I read online a couple of years ago. It was written by a female director who went to speak to a group of aspiring women directors. As I remember, she was struck by how quiet they were, how they practically whispered their dreams of directing as though ashamed or scared someone would yell at them for it. The director in question wrote that they would never succeed with such attitudes as that. This point, however, strikes me as problematic: I know plenty of ballsy women more than capable of shouting about their ideas and dreams. Moreover, I know of several successful yet allegedly softly spoken male directors: uncommon perhaps, but still out there.

However depressing the lack of females making it into the world of filmmaking is, there is hope yet. Earlier this year, Twilight became the highest grossing film ever directed by a woman, making almost $400million (about £240million). A celebration, perhaps, of an achievement by a female filmmaker, but more likely a catalyst to induce severe depression about the state of Hollywood cinema and the tastes of cinemagoers.

LOST IN TRANSLATION | FOCUS FEATURES

work in the film industry, and the ratio appears to be more or less 50:50.

It seems to me that there are quite enough willing and talented women to take on the boys, yet so few actually seem to be succeeding in doing so! There are a few reasons I can think of as to why this might be, but it is mostly, I am afraid, pure speculation.

The first thought that occurs to me is an issue of family: even in this age of career women and men with maternity leave it still seems (to my albeit limited knowledge) that women are far more likely to sacrifice a job to be with their children than men.

Although this might not be so true for people with 9-5 jobs, filmmaking is unquestionably a demanding process that keeps long, irregular hours, moves around a lot, and is incredibly tiring. However amazed I am at what some mothers with young children can achieve, I have no doubt that balancing making a film and bringing up a child is a very difficult task indeed.

A second reason comes from a conversation last year with a young woman on a film production course, who told the group I was with that she was the last female on the directing section. She was considering giving up directing for something else.

We told her that far from being a deterrent, being the last girl

15

ELSIE ROBERT GOOD NEWS FOR YOU, cartoon lovers who’ve been hiding in the closet for so long, loving animated movies is cool now.

A few years ago you were probably seen as a total geek, but now it’s fine, you can take on your love for Coraline, your eagerness to see the next Shrek, and you don’t even have to use your little sister as an excuse to go and see the new Pixar movie anymore. Yes, it is now a truth universally acknowledged that animated movies are not only for children. And that they’re good.

Most of the time REALLY good.

The phenomenon more or less started ten years ago. At this time there seems to be only one leader in the occidental part of the feature-length animated movies world: Disney. Of course, a lot of countries had their local attempts to make animation, but the successes rarely crossed the borders.

For example, as a Fench girl I don’t really know about British animation at that time, but I can tell you that until the mid-90s the best French animated film remained The King and the Mockingbird (Paul Grimault, 1980). A movie that, sadly, never really got a proper release in the English-speaking world, which is a shame as it’s basically one of the most beautiful movies ever (and even Hayao Miyazaki says so, so it has to be true).

So animation was not really the most flourishing part of the occidental cinema, and it was basically considered by most of the film critics and the audience as some16

thing designed to do nothing more than shut the kids up at Christmas. But at the dawn of the 21st century, Disney started to lose it. The adaptation of fairy tales thing didn’t really work anymore, and they didn’t know how to deal with the rise of computer animation yet. Who remembers the Disney movies from this era? Fantasia 2000? Dinosaurs?

Atlantis? Yes, they’re not precisely de most famous ones....

Nor the best ones.

It’s interesting to see that the time of the fall of Disney more or less coincided with the moment when we started discovering that the famous American studio was not the only one that could make animated movies that combined quality and success. Pixar started to become what it is now, offering original and smart universes far away from the naïve princesses and the cheesy songs (let’s get this straight, I’ve got a huge respect for the Disney movies I grew up with, it’s just that, sometimes, it’s nice to know that it’s not the only thing around….). DreamWorks openly chose to play with those stereotypes with the Shrek series, and helped starting this era of computer generated movies mixing successful use of new technologies with inventive scenarios, emblematic characters and multiple levels that could pleased both children and adults.

But the good use of CGI doesn’t do everything, as stopmotion animation is also now in a pretty good shape. Henry Selick (The Nightmare Before Christmas, Coraline…) is more respected than ever, and the praises received by The Fantastic Mr Fox (Wes Anderson) and yet to come Mary and Max (Adam Elliot) shows us that this gorgeous media is still very much alive.

What’s more, animated cartoons are not dead too, and becoming more and more different and inventive. In 2001 the occidental audience discovered Spirited Away, and with it the genius of director Hayao Miyazaki, who had been entertaining Japanese viewers from every generations for al-

THE GOLDEN AGE

CORALINE | FOCUS FEATURES

OF ANIMATION

most two decades. Why did we have to wait so long to, at last, give proper releases to his masterpieces, mixing adventure, humour, crazily imaginative but also dark worlds, and messages in favour of the environment and peace?

Spirited Away even won a well deserved Golden Bear at the Berlin Film Festival, which started to bring about quite big issues: what do we do with animated movies of such a quality?

In the world of the film awards, the animated films have always been a bit neglected. And when they haven’t, they have been, most of the time, clearly separated from the live-action movies. The Academy Award for Best Animated Short Film has been existing since 1932, but we had to wait 2001 for the creation of an Award for Best Animated Feature. And it is the same for most of the big national film awards, including the BAFTA. But when there’s no separation, especially in the important international film festivals, the animated movies tend to sneak in the competition, “stealing” awards away from live-action films. There’s the example of Spirited Away, but we can also think about Persepolis (Marjane Sartrapi and Vincent Paronnaud, 2007) which won the Jury Prize at the 2007 Cannes Film Festival, and Waltz With Bashir (Ary Folman, 2008) which was nominated the year after in Cannes and won a lot of awards all over the world. This were victories for the world of animation, showing that animated films deserved more attention, and that they can deal with important cultural and political issues, in ways that live-action films probably can’t.

So the border between the two types of movie is beginning to become shaky, but we probably will have to wait a while before an animated movie can win an Oscar for the best picture… Isn’t it unfair? Especially when we see the extremely laudatory reviews that most of these films are getting, often more unanimously positive than for most of

“A FEW YEARS AGO YOU WERE PROBABLY SEEN AS A GEEK, BUT IT’S OK, LOVING ANIMATION IS COOL NOW...” the live-action movies. The problem is that it’s difficult to judge those two types of film in the same way. Why are animated movies so good these days? Because they’re allowed a freedom and a resourcefulness that you can’t have with live-action (obviously you can animate anything, in any style, whereas in live-action you always have the actors-evolving-in-a-setting basis), because they take so much time to make that you’re not allowed to screw the thing up or make mistakes, because they’re made in peaceful environments were everything is under control. Well, basically, because in live-action you never really know what can happen, which can be good, but can also bring a lot of terrible stuff, from bad weather to the absence of chemistry between the actors. In animation everything is under control. In live-action, preventing the whole thing from falling apart is an everyday challenge…

Yes, we can’t really judge them by the same criteria, so what can we do? Wait for the Academy to wake up and accept the animated movies in the Best Picture category? (After all they can always keep the Best Animated Feature one to judge them in their own field, but also accept the best ones in the general competition). Before that, we can also just follow the film critics, and our taste, and hope that this new golden age of animation isn’t going to end too soon.

17

SCIENCE FRICTION: HOW THE FUTURE LOOKS FROM THE PRESENT TO BE HONEST with you, dear reader, we both know very well that the topic discussed in the following article has already been spoken about and looked at by a great number of people. I am not just talking about some simple science fiction fans, but also professional writers, film makers, and producers. Today, rapidly developing science and technology finally allow people to freely portray and show others what we imagine our future to be. Let me just say that I am a huge science fiction fan myself – I guess you could count me in the so-called sophisticated fan group – and what I really wanted to discuss in this article is how science fiction cinema has, so far, portrayed the future of human kind, technology and everything else in between.

First of all, if we really think about it, we should realise that as we are talking about an international genre: different writers, directors and nations as a whole have varying interpretations and points of view, often dependent on their time and their surrounding culture.

As such, the images of Hollywood sci-fi, both old and new, would be completely different, even opposite, to what Russian filmmakers came up with. At the same time, some science fiction films are not actually looking at how human technology has advanced but rather at how humans themselves have ‘evolved’. As of now, let’s refer to the technology concerned films as the 1st category and the other as second. Finally, in my mind, there is what I like to call ‘The 3rd category’. Now, this category of futuristic films is something very different to the first two. These are films which deal with neither technology nor human evolution, but things that humanity have managed to discover and that lie beyond what our scientific progress allows us to know at the moment. This kind of films may be talking about new creatures, new planets or space, anything that people found in places that we never heard of. But enough talk, let’s get specific and look at some shining examples of the greatest international films that kept us sci-fi lovers so interested in this genre all these years.

Event Horizon, Red Planet, I, Robot, Lost In Space, and Sunshine are only a few of, in my opinion, the greatest Hollywood sci-fi films, where the main ideas of the films were to actually discuss how scientific advancement affects lives and its consequences thereafter. Oh, and these consequences... they usually go very wrong! Anyway, although I, Robot does not technically take place somewhere in space, as the other three of the above films, it is still generally considered as very sci-fi, probably because of all the robots...right?

Well, to make my point, as I have mentioned before, apart from showing Will Smith’s artificial lung and arm in I, Robot, the other films do not actually concentrate so much on people but rather the technology. Who wasn’t fascinated by the beautiful Even Horizon 18

VADIM A. MILE

SUNSHINE | DNA FILMS

EVSKIY

ship that Sam Neill brought his search team to in the 1997 film? Judge for yourself, but for me, those were really great cinema moments.

Now, look at Push, The Inhabited Island, The Chronicles of Riddick and more; these are the films that you could probably refer to as, in my definition, the 2nd category, where, besides some space travel, the theme revolves mainly around how people have developed and improved their bodies and lives. In the Russian 2008 film The Inhabited Island, the protagonist of the story talks about how combining advanced medicine and the power of human subconsciousness may not just prevent one from being hurt but could also prolong your life up 150 years. Another example of human evolution would be Riddick’s ‘specially polished’ eyes that gave him the ability to see in the dark.

Lastly (bear with me for a moment) why not look at the following: Alien, 2001: A Space Odyssey, Starship Troopers, War of the Worlds, Solaris (either version), District 9, Minority Report, Avatar. These, in my opinion, are all a completely different story, a complete standalone 3rd category. I should probably admit that this category of sci-fi is the most interesting one, because these films really are like a box of chocolates: you never know what you’re going to get. You may think you know all about it, but no, there will always be something to knock you off your feet. When District 9 came out, I thought: ‘Oh, not another soldiers-fighting-aliens film!’, but after watching it I thought to myself: ‘I love it!’ If you

haven’t watched it yet, then do it, and do it now. [Agreed – Ed.] Stanley Kubrick’s Space Odyssey was quite a confusing one for the audience, but it did make everyone think about the fact that we really have absolutely no idea what is out there. Starship Troopers and the Alien films were standard alien adventures, but I think we all enjoyed watching Casper Van Dien’s and Sigourney Weaver’s attempts to kill those outer space things, right? And last, but not least, Solaris was a slow but an amazing film! Originally written by a Polish writer, this concept of the future has been reproduced by many, beginning with the Solaris (1972) Russian version and ending with George Clooney’s attempt which I think he negotiated admirably.

Ultimately, I think science fiction is all about our own personal imagination and fantasies. I suppose science fiction really is, for me, the most free art genre where absolutely anything is possible; because, let’s face it, none of us have any idea what the future will bring.

CULT CHLOE ROBBINS

DONNIE DARKO | PANDORA CINEMA

CULT FILMS ARE GENERALLY controversial and contain elements that are both striking and adverse from common generic films. Despite a shared sense of some common cinematic devices, the concept of a ‘cult film’ does not mean it is bound or restricted by genre. Instead, one might suggest that a cult film is reliant on the stylistic approach of its individual director.

For instance, in Kubrick’s A Clockwork Orange, his use of varying camera angles is extremely effective, such as the use of low angle shots to symbolise power and the authority of Alex and his gang in relation to other victimised characters. His desire to shock the audience is enhanced by his use of steadicam throughout, for example the graphic rape scenes. It is fair to say that generally, the scenes showing use of violence or disturbing imagery would only be shown for a split second, which enforces the shock as it leaves the audience in disbelief of what they have just seen. Kubrick’s camerawork in scenes such as these combined with the use of classical music being played in the background, for me, acts as a juxtaposition between the mindless violence taking place on the screen and the relatively calming sound of the likes of Mozart.

It could be argued that Richard Kelly’s Donnie Darko is perceived simply as a psychological thriller. Starting off as a small independent film, the degree of its success was not predicted, and it did not really take off until sometime after it had been released. Some thought that the famous Hollywood cast would somewhat spoil the controversial element, yet this was not the case. The unpredictable, complex plot of Donnie’s time-travelling visions screamed for interpretation from the audience, so we could even say that the more people didn’t understand it, the more people wanted to watch it.

The element of not being immediately popular is also proved in Alex Proyas’ The Crow. The central character, Eric Draven, is played by Brandon Lee who died in a tragic accident whilst filming on set. The film was not finished at the time of his death, so his stunt models and deleted scenes from prior to the accident had to be used to finish the film. Once the audience were aware of Lee’s death, the audience were of course curious to see how Proyas was able to finish filming. The emotional depth portrayed by Lee’s character lead to sympathy and respect from the audience. The typically ‘gothic’ soundtrack accompanying the film is a factor of the ‘cult’ aspect; only appealing to certain people, including bands such as The Cure, Nine Inch Nails and Pantera. The supernatural attributes of Eric’s character is somewhat unnerving, yet the audience cannot help but be on his side. His violent acts towards his wife’s rapists and killers is completely justified in the audience’s eyes; in opposition with the mindless violence portrayed in A Clockwork Orange.

“CULT FILMS ARE NOT BOUND BY GENRE, INSTEAD RELYING ON THE DIRECTOR’S STYALISTIC APPROACH.” Another subjective film to discuss is Lou Adler’s The Rocky Horror Picture Show. Its unusual mix of sci-fi, horror, fantasy and comedy all help create a unique atmosphere. As well as film adaptations, the film has been turned into an interactive show for audiences to sing along and dress up in suspenders, corsets and heels – not everybody’s ideal night out! The catchy tunes sung by the audiences, the tongue in cheek comical imagery, like that of Tim Curry killing the character of rock star Meatloaf for dinner, all come together to combine a thoroughly entertaining, atmospheric cult film.

Last but certainly not least is Gilliam and Jones’ Monty Python and the Holy Grail.

With the help of the two directors, the cast, including John Cleese and Eric Idol, collaborated to write the hilarious script. Unlike the other films mentioned, this was recognized instantly as a cult classic. Its extremely random humour is typical of Monty Python, with scenes of the Knights of the Round table searching for the Holy Grail on foot, with their followers making the noise of a horse with coconut shells. Its shameless script includes a French Military Officer saying: “I fart in your general direction” providing the audience with classic one-liners and priceless, irreverent scenes, such as when a group of monks hit themselves over the head with planks of wood.

Due to its obvious simplistic comical value, the Monty Python films perhaps have a vaster fan base than other cult films, but at the end of the day it comes down to how the audience choose to interpret a film. The final factor is simply to decide which style of ‘cult film’ appeals to you as an individual.

21

STRINGS VERY MUCH ATTACHED SUSHAN MANSLEY IF YOU HAVEN’T HEARD OF The Jim Henson Company then I can only assume your childhood was unfulfilled and frankly, sad. The genius behind The Muppets, Labyrinth, Dark Crystal and that TV show with the talking dinosaurs (inspiringly called Dinosaurs) created some of my fondest childhood memories. Not only that, but the company is also responsible for the single best music video of all time: Blur’s Coffee and TV. When I first decided to write this article it was, admittedly, just an excuse to indulge my unhealthy nostalgia for 80s and 90s films. Yet despite my unyielding love for these masterpieces, I realised that during the late 90s The Jim Henson Company practically disappeared from sight. I can only assume it was this gap in the market that allowed twelve Land Before Time sequels (not an exaggeration) to sneak in.

[Land Before Time is awesome! – Ed.] I didn’t notice the company’s fade from popularity at the time, but now with my taste for Henson creatures refreshed, I’m outraged that I have such a limited backlog of films to choose from. Sure, there are the few hundred or so Muppet films. But I need more than Kermit and Co. to quench this thirst.

So what happened to The Jim Henson Company to prompt its sudden fall from grace? Is the surge of CGI to blame? Probably. Teenage Mutant Ninja Turtles is an easy choice for comparison. Whoever decided a digitally animated awesome foursome trumped men in costumes is a fool, and should not be allowed children. Okay, so there are imperfections when using puppets; the occasional puppeteer’s hand or visible wire. Who cares? This only adds to the charm. CGI simply cannot replicate the enchanting world that a child (or nineteen year old) finds so immersing. This is not to suggest that I’m completely against CGI, I loved WALL-E and am desperate to see Up. But when you have a formula that works so well, like the original TMNT films, why resort to computer graphics? Maybe as a film student I simply appreciate the effort involved in using puppets over CGI. Everyone’s tastes differ, so I’m not going to sit here and argue with you which is the best Jim Henson Company film. It’s Labyrinth. From tiny talking, scarf-wearing worms to a village of battling goblins, Labyrinth is a great big hug-in-a-mug example of 22

“I’M NOT GOING TO SIT HERE AND ARGUE WITH YOU WHICH IS THE BEST HENSON COMPANY FILM. IT’S LABYRINTH.”

Henson handiwork. And if the creatures themselves aren’t enough for you, you always have David Bowie and his dance moves. Upon re-watching (over twenty years after its initial release), there is only one scene which hasn’t stood the test of time: a blue-screened background behind the dancing fire gang. Most CGI is badly dated within five years and this is all the evidence I need. Puppets trump CGI once again.

Clearly, I’m not the only one missing the wonderful world of puppetry. I have glimpsed the phenomenon that is The Jim Henson Company again. Rejoice! Spike Jonze has restored my faith in filmmakers with his upcoming adaptation of Maurice Sendak’s Where The Wild Things Are. The sight of the giant furry beasts (instantly recognisable as Henson inventions) is enough to warm any functioning heart. The puppet deprived youths of today will be unprepared for the joys that lie ahead. Sadly, IMDb informs me CGI couldn’t be completely abolished. But fear not!

Its usage has been restricted to enhancing, not replacing. A compromise I reluctantly accept. Maybe if Tim Burton’s Alice in Wonderland had shown as much

restraint, I wouldn’t be so underwhelmed with the trailer. Would an animatronic white rabbit be so much to ask for?

It’s not purely the creations themselves that I love - although who wouldn’t want Hoggle as a best friend? It’s the authenticity they generate in a film. Their presence allows location shooting instead of green screening and actors can interact with each other rather than a tennis ball.

But even more simply than that, it’s the escapism they provide. The hope that a Wild Thing will come and carry me away is so much stronger when I can see it’s really happening on screen. Isn’t that the purpose of film? Alas, the majority of film companies are going to work with whatever saves them time and money. But as long as The Jim Henson Company continue to work their magic, I live with hope.

THE MUPPETS | THE JIM HENSON COMPANY

23

FIND US ONLINE AT www.issuu.com/biglens

WANT TO JOIN THE BIGLENS TEAM? EMAIL: tb211@kent.ac.uk