Contents
March 2013
March Features
Reviews Section
Page 4: The Perfect Kiss
Page 19: The Croods
Page 8: Kubrick and his Camera Page 13: Ben Crowe
Page 20: This Is 40 Page 21: Silver Linings Playbook Page 22: To The Wonder Page 23: Jiro Dreams Of Sushi Page 24: Oz: The Great And The Powerful Page 25: Side Effects Page 26: Mea Maxima Culpa Page 27: The Place Beyond The Pines Page 28: Spring Breakers
Contributors Editor’s Note Editors
Joshua Hammond: Editor-in-Chief joshua@pictureshow-magazine.com
Dale Pearson: Editor
dale@ pictureshow-magazine.com
Words
Joshua Hammond Alice Sutherland-Hawes Ben Schwarz Katie Driscoll Daniel Grant
Online
Find us at pictureshow-magazine.com Like us on facebook Follow us @PictureShowMag
Welcome Back to PictureShow Magazine! Wow, it has taken far too long to get this issue to you all. Thank you for waiting so patiently. There has been such a flurry of action around these parts since the last bumper issue we sent out in February. We are getting more and more people involved in writing our articles, this month sees the feature debut (geddit?) of Katie Driscoll who looks at the grand tradition of kissing on screen. Cal Hudson, who you may remember from our Anime article a few months ago, has written a fantastic article on Stanley Kubrick and his photogrpahy. Pictureshow regular Chris Binding undertook another fantastic interview assignment and interviewed the Palme D’Or nominated director Ben Crowe, who’s feature film Verity’s Summer is now in cinemas. Oh, and we’re going to Cannes. Not just on holiday, for the full festival. How mad is that? Joshua Hammond Editor-in-Chief
KATIE DRISCOLL
“A kiss may not be the truth but it is what we wish were true” L.A. Story Katie Driscoll explores the world of Kissing in the Movies and why it’s so important.
I
It’s a Wonderful Life, and the infamous scene where John Wayne takes control of Maureen O’Hara in The Quiet Man, then in Spielberg’s E.T (also, of ngrid Bergman stated that “A kiss is a lovely trick course, Sixteen Candles, or any John Hughes enddesigned by nature to stop speech when words be- ing) . (If you want proof, type any of his films into come superfluous”. Mae West had another idea that Youtube and see which scene comes up tops). it is, “Men leaving their signature”. Diderot comes to mind when reflecting upon the art of kissing in Audiences reactions over the decades have changed movies, “Bring your lips to mine so that out of my dramatically, a throwback to the times when it was mouth my soul may pass into yours”, something that practically indecent and outrageous to show a couwouldn’t sound out of place in a 1940s romance. ple indulging in the act, to a time now in modern Whatever your opinion, onscreen kisses have been society where actors have been known to ‘bare all’ a stipulation for film-goers hankering after passion in film and no one bats an eyelid. This in turn, begs and romance since the dawn of cinema. Since the the question: are the good old fashioned fade to first onscreen kiss was seen in 1896’s “The Kiss”, black kisses outdated? Have they lost their spark? countless films have even involved kissing in the Or is it possible that we’re beginning to yearn for title: “The Long Kiss Goodnight”, “Shangai Kiss”, the days of ambiguity, where a kiss was the be all “First Kiss”, “Never Been Kissed” and even War- and end all, the climax? Films as a whole tend to hol’s contribution (aptly) “Kiss”. There is even an reflect the nature of society, and so throughout the MTV Movie Award for ‘Best Kiss’. Some films can, decades more and more have become acceptable however, boast steamier scenes since the 19th cen- with regards to what can and can’t be shown. tury début of on screen kissing, which at the time was hailed as “absolutely disgusting” by defenders Key scenes in earlier films such as the kiss between of public morality, something which is both difficult Vivien Leigh and Marlon Brando in A Streetcar Named Desire and Burt Lancaster swept amidst the and easy to believe today. tide with Debra Kerr in From Here to Eternity, along It seems that much emphasis is placed on a kiss with Hitchcock kisses: the 2 and a half minute long scene, it can transcend the film as a whole - marked kissing between Ingrid Bergman and Cary Grant as its pivotal and even iconic moment. Think of in Notorious, that kissing scene in Rear Window, Audrey Hepburn and George Peppard with the cli- where a silhouetted Grace Kelly wakes up Jimmy matic clinch in the rain in Breakfast at Tiffany’s, the Stewart, which all beg to differ. They still get us fish-tank scene in Baz Luhrmann’s Romeo and Juli- hot under the collar without resorting to any explicit et, Jimmy Stewart smacking one on Donna Reed in fleshy displays.
It can be said that the very fact that kisses were as far as films were allowed to go with regards to censorship, is that it resulted in kisses becoming intensified: crazed, sweeping acts of white-hot passion and indulgence, full of vigour and feeling, topped off with a witty remark that made an audience melt at the knees (and still does), all hinting at sex, the intense, mad immediacy of it, without...actual sex. The euphemistic values of revealing a kiss can often be underestimated, for example, the raunchy game of chess between Steve Mcqueen and Faye Dunaway in 1968’s The Thomas Crown Affair. But is it better to let the imagination take an audience over? However, these decadent proclamations of love are a thing of the past (at least, outside the “chick flick“) mainly due to the fact that not only is censorship redundant- but realism has become far more ingrained in modern films, where sex and romance are separated, and sex a casual thing, nudity onscreen practically everywhere. If there is one thing modern cinema does well, it is leaving very little to the imagination. A remake of 1945s Brief Encounter would see a lot more than the coy stolen glances between Celia Johnson and Trevor Howard. On the other hand, our more relaxed attitude to displays of affection on screen, (with kissing and sex coming under that title) only serves to reflect the looser and more subversive – some may argue, more immoral - changing attitudes to sex over time.
A kiss may have shocked then, caused more uproar, but now it is a signature of many films, not something to cause controversy. Despite this, we are still getting over certain stigmas- the on-screen gay kiss between Peter Finch and Murray Head in 1976’s Sunday Bloody Sunday, caused outrage while also paving the way for a less prejudiced attitude towards gay couples. A slew of “forbidden” kisses have been utilised in films - saliva swapping between sinister older ‘should know better’ Peter Sarsgaard and Cary Mulligan in An Education, Keira Knightley pushed up against the bookshelves in Atonement, Heath Ledger and Jake Gyllenhaal stealing tender moments in Brokeback Mountain, Cher kissing her fiance’s brother, Nic Cage, in Moonstruck, even 1950’s A Place in the Sun, where Montgomery Clift and Elizabeth Taylor kiss away from prying eyes. This element of “furtiveness” is something which the film critic, Carrie Rickey, has explored, stating that, “The result leaves the audience as breathless as the characters.” When it is all a touch hidden and rushed, in the moment- it’s this mixture of desire and the subversive nature of breaking conventional rules of society that gets hearts pounding-the novelty of a kiss that shouldn’t be happening, the “stolen kiss” . As with many (most) things, kissing in movies is always better than in reality. It can fill an audience with an optimistic amount of exuberant hope, or satiate their desire for excitement and wild passion.
The joy in a film kiss is how they transcend the mundane of everyday life. No one can top a kiss that happens in extreme situations (From Russia with Love, Top Gun, Pretty Woman) upon death (Titanic, Love Story ), at sunset or amidst crashing waves (From Here to Eternity). The majority of us have, however, experienced a first kiss (My Girl, E.T, Casper), even a forbidden one. With back stories tightened into a 90 minute slot, the tension for two characters is increased as their love story intensifies; the kiss is never meaningless; and by the time it takes place the audience are bursting at the seams. The kiss, then, also seems to symbolise two characters and their journey towards one another. Great onscreen kisses seem to be delivering what the audience won’t expect, something that takes them out of dull reality: kisses with elements of surprise, intensity, ardour, a little bit of sexual zeal. Something a touch transgressive, toeing the boundaries of real life. Film acts as escapism and this mixture of something relatable (the act of a kiss) transferred onscreen to create a spectacular, unimaginable moment, is what makes the experience so unforgettable- and there are those famous embraces that audiences throughout the years have nevertheless had their own sentimental attachments to, which still excite and entertain decades and countless re-watches later. Those kisses that transcend the boundaries of cinema and stick fervently in an audience’s mind for decades.
Katie’s Top 5 Kisses 5. Manhattan (1979). Woody Allen and Diane Keaton in a planetarium, all shadow and sexy silhouette. 4. Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strikes Back (1980) . The sexual tension was unbearable to watch as the Harrison Ford, Poster Boy for Scoundrel Behaviour backed a young Carrie Fisher up against a wall, “ I happen to like nice men.” “I’m a nice man”. Even she couldn’t resist. 3. The Quiet Man (1952) An almost violent clinch in a storm between John Wayne and Maureen O’Hara is one of the most passionate displays ever put on film. 2. Notorious (1946). Hitchcock got around the established Production Code by having Cary Grant and Ingrad Bergman come up for air every so often. The result paid off, with this steamy, sensual scene, Bergman practically smothering Grant with slow-burning kisses. 1. Cinema Paradiso (1988) A montage abound with kissing from all the films the Patron had never got to see, because the Priest had banned it all from the cinema. Passionate AND romantic.
Kubrick CAL HUDSON
“Photography certainly gave me the first step up to movies. . . . you may not have to know very much about anything else, but you must know about photography.” - Stanley Kubrick, Eyes Wide Shut
You could walk into any gin joint, in any town in the world, state that “Stanley Kubrick was a visionary director and all time great”, and be met by mass agreement and approval. You might first have to explain who he is, and perhaps even name a few film titles (“Oh yeah, the one with the hotel and the freaky little girls?”), but the point is that his legacy is one of universal critical acclaim. What many people don’t seem to think about, however, is how he achieved his place in the pantheon. When you mention Kubrick’s name the obvious tends to pop up: The Shining, A Clockwork Orange, 2001: A Space Odyssey, and rightly so. These films represent some of the finest work of the Twentieth Century- helmed by a director who was the master of his art. But just how did he attain this level of mastery? The short answer is he took pictures.
Before the advent of moving pictures we had something known as ‘still’ pictures, or ‘photographs’. Sarcasm aside (being the lowest form of wit and all), in a world where YouTube allows anybody and their dog to become directors, and even kittens come with a factory installed camera, it is easy to take the ideas behind moving pictures for granted. Because they are just that. Photographs that move. Many thousands of individual photographs go into the making of today’s feature movies, and each one is a piece of the puzzle, and has the potential to be a work of art in its own right.
Photographer As a fairly typical child, Kubrick much preferred picture taking and movie watching to school going. This was to become key in his development into the lauded filmmaker he would eventually become, for several reasons. His sole focus as a childhood photographer was people: he would take snaps of anybody anywhere, a habit which he credits as important in developing his ideas of identity, both his own and others. This, coupled with his tendency to skip school to attend double-features at the local cinema, left him in a difficult position nearing graduation. Average grades and an influx of returning soldiers made further education nigh on impossible, and the job roles available held no sway for him at all. So he began to try and sell some pictures.
It was this move, and the success of a particularly poignant shot of a New York newsstand, which saw him become LOOK magazine’s first ever apprentice photographer, aged nineteen. This was a very important move, as the demands of the industry forced him into quickly learning how to capture not only a moment, but also the narrative inherent within that moment, all in a single frame. He would later explain that the skills learned during his time as a professional photographer (the importance of pre-production, the capturing of a story, and the originally darkroom based editing process) were the driving force behind his infamous thirst for perfection which was the hallmark of his illustrious career. After his tenure in the post of senior photographer at LOOK magazine, Kubrick needed a stepping stone to enter the film industry. Almost appalled by the amount of money a local newsreel production company was paying for short-movie pieces, he decided he would enter the fray with his debut feature Day of the Fight, a documentary piece about the plight of professional boxer Walter Cartier. This was another hugely pivotal moment in the Kubrick rise to prominence, as he sought to learn all he could about the filmmaking process. He spoke to friends, colleagues, industry professionals, rental houses and gleaned all he could before renting a camera and starting the shoot.
The importance of this experience was not lost on Kubrick, who later explained his role in the production: “I was cameraman, director, editor, assistant editor, sound effects man–you name it, I did it. It was invaluable experience, because being forced to do everything myself I gained a sound and comprehensive grasp of all the technical aspects of filmmaking”. He applied his knowledge and experience accrued from making photostories- and even cherry picked many of the themes that had run through his pictures of New York City- to create emotional and gripping narratives in his early documentaries and feature films. When combined with the perspicacity gained from his first documentary venture, it is clear to see the seeds of such stunning later cinematography being sown.
Filmmaker After production it was soon apparent that Stanley Kubrick’s first fifteen minute film would not be a commercial success: costing close to $4000, and making a little less than $100 profit. This did not matter to its creator (although he later trashed the film, as he did much of his early work, as amateur). Kubrick soldiered on, creating several more documentary pieces before attempting his first feature film Fear and Desire in 1953.
The embryonic form of the latter day Lolita era Kubrick is definitely hidden somewhere in this film, however difficult to see. From this point Kubrick worked hard on directing several feature films and slowly began to gather industry acclaim with films like Paths of Glory. This came to a somewhat surprising head when the director of the mega-budget Spartacus was fired, and Kubrick brought in to helm the rest of the film. As a young and relatively inexperienced director, however, he was not allowed total control of the film. Although this caused many issues and disputes (which have been documented and discussed well enough in the past), it is the relationship between director and cinematographer Russell Metty which interests us. Kubrick constantly battled with Metty throughout filming in an attempt to assert the level of control he was used to over the cinematography, but it was a hard fought battle every step of the way. Although Kubrick was never allowed the total control he wanted, his fingerprints can be seen in the style of filming and throughout many of the scenes. Interestingly, these disagreements were swiftly forgotten when Metty was awarded the Academy Award for best cinematography after ‘his’ (what implication?) work on the historical epic. The Spartacus experience clearly stayed with Kubrick, as- at his firm insistence- all of the cinema-
tography in his subsequent films (even those with accredited cinematographers) was under his control. This was a hugely positive move in the film industry, as it is from this point on that Kubrick really came into his own as a filmmaker. Anybody familiar with his films will have seen his attention to composition, both in the still images and even throughout entire scenes, and the beauty he could create. The overhead tracking shots in The Shining, his use of one point perspective in Paths of Glory, the clever use of lighting in black and white for Dr. Strangelove, that candle-lit section of Barry Lyndon: all considered landmarks in modern cinema.
Artist These landmarks aside, it is his photographic innovations which really sets him aside from other filmmakers of the time, and led Stephen Spielberg to refer to Kubrick as the ‘big bang’ of cinema. And these are comments which could have been referring to his 1968 masterpiece 2001: A Space Odyssey alone. His use of slit scan photography and front screen projection changed the way that the film industry thought about special effects, and pushed the boundaries for what was possible. In fact, the only surprising thing about his 1968 Academy Award for the special effects in 2001: A Space Odyssey is that it was the only Oscar Kubrick ever won.
As well as the new innovations he brought to the table, his ability to adapt existing technology was just as impressive. The iconic maze scene from The Shining is a perfect example of this, the technical difficulties and improvisation involved in the creation of this winding chase are not to be taken lightly. Kubrick also drew on his photography background to tinker with cameras, and particularly lenses, in his pursuit of perfection. This is something too few directors today would have the capacity or ability to attempt.
Day of the Fight The true measure of any artist worth their salt is their standing legacy. Stanley Kubrick was listed as Empire magazine’s fourth greatest director of all time and he has nine movies in imdb’s top 250 (only Hitchcock has more). His photographs are closely guarded by his wife and LOOK magazine as valuable commodities and he is generally considered one of the greatest cinematographers of all time, both in terms of composition as well as technological competence and innovation. Many of his films have today reached the status of classics, in fact it is harder to find one of his films without any credentials. This all started with a boy and his (relatively cheap) single-shot Graflex camera.
“A film is - or should be - more like music than like fiction. It should be a progression of moods and feelings. The theme, what’s behind the emotion, the meaning, all that comes later.” Stanley Kubrick
Ben Crowe
CHRIS BINDING
N
ot many filmmakers can boast to receiving a Palme D’Or nomination from Cannes Film Festival on their first short film but then again Ben Crowe is no ordinary director. Hailing from Whitley Bay and studying political science at Cambridge, the director’s style has been praised for its mixture of visual lyricism, superb storytelling and political undertones; and the case of his first feature Verity’s Summer these elements come together to create a powerful cinematic experience. Coinciding with the opening of a new enquiry into British allegations of torture in the Iraq War and the decade anniversary of the same conflict, Verity’s Summer explores the emotional fall –out of soldiers and middle – class families coming to terms with the atrocities committed. Focusing upon free – spirit Verity challenging her fathers actions during the war as an Officer, Crowe explores the complex issue of new generation breaking away from patterns of history, using all of the tools of the art-house to produce a deeply poignant, strange and affecting cinematic experience.
I studied political science at Cambridge University and did a MA in development and I always wanted to get into human rights work. I was writing short stories and was really disillusioned with my job and liked photography and film. So I thought I should put the two together so there was a moment early twenties when I realised that film was something I wanted to try my hand at. I got a DV camera and made documentaries and then I got an idea for ‘The Man Who Met Himself’ […] I wanted to go back to fundamentals. And I really liked the original 35mm XLR’s. The closest I could get to that on the budget I had was super 9mm. I bought one second hand and started experimented. No formal training at all. All self taught. The Palme D’Or nomination on your first short is an incredible achievement, with only a budget of £400. What was the process of making the film to getting it to Cannes.
The money paid for the film stock an hour or two in a tele – cine suite. Nobody got paid as it was a passion project. Its free to submit short films and it goes through a selection from 3,000 to 8,000 submissions and they bring it down to twelve. It was quite a crazy phone call finding out we had been selected by Cannes. What it does is give you a foot in the door and producers and distributors will listen to what you have to say for future projects. It In what channel did you actually get into doesn’t bring any financial awards and it doesn’t filmmaking? Did you have prior techni- bring immediate projects, or it didn’t with me at cal experience before making your first least.’ short? Catching up with the director in the Tyneside Cinema at one of the first UK screenings of Verity’s Summer, Crowe was calm, articulate and honest in describing his slightly unconventional path into the world of filmmaking. From a self – taught filmmaker to an engaging political artist, his latest features exploration of the emotional scar tissue and moral accountability of the last decade is a powerful slow – burner and undeniable calling card for a visionary new British talent.
As this opened you up to world exposure as a filmmaker early on in your career, what do you think about the politics of awards culture in general?
detainees. However the officers normally get off as they are not involved in the day to day activities. It does seem from the evidence that that pretty serious human rights abuses were routine practice and the lawyers for a lot of the Iraqi witnesses argue that I think festivals and the competitive selections pro- it was policy and practice and I think that was an vide a bit of hope and can be a motivating factor, issue that should be explored and was the kernel of especially for getting short films before a wider au- the idea. dience alongside the internet. They are important As it indirectly explores the human scar as you can get picked up and get distributed on tissue of British involvement in torture in cable and potentially get income back but you also Iraq, how did you research the issue and you get to meet agents, distributors and filmmakers what sparked your interest? who can plug you in a wider network. Whilst there are online networks and film school can be a first ‘I come from a background of making documentanetwork, festivals can put you in touch with a wider ries for international NGO’S on human rights isgroup of people and creates friendships that can sues and travel quite widely doing that, I chose Iraq facilitate future projects. As a filmmaker said at a in particular because of the ten year anniversary of Q and A at Raindance, just because your film is not the Iraq War and there was a parliamentary vote selected for a film festival it does not mean it isn’t and a million strong mobilization opposing the war any good, it boils down to the individual prefer- in London amongst that ten years ago which I was ences and to the people making the selection pro- involved in in my early twenties. That led to quite cess. I certainly think people should aim for the top a wider distribution amongst British society with a but also be realistic, take into account genre and lot of people feeling Britain has been taken to war regional emphasis. The reason that the ‘The Man on a lie, which has previously been proven. That Who Met Himself’ was so crazy was that it was a shaped my political outlook because when a nation tiny budget film competing against short films that like Britain goes to war in that situation it will have had budgets of up to 70,000 pounds (that’s what on-going implications in that country for generaI made my feature Verity’s Summer on). The com- tions. You also have tens of thousands of soldiers petition were all the cream of the best film schools returning and they typically don’t get the support in their countries, one of them even had famous that they should receive from the British State. I opHungarian filmmaker Bela Tarr as an executive pose war largely and people that you do send over producer, so there’s a level that your film will find should be looked after as they end up coming back and you may find that your film can’t compete on with physical and psychological trauma.’ that level as they have loads of money behind them. I certainly think people should try and aim for the As you have previously stated Verity’s biggest film festivals. Don’t spend too much money Summer could be considered a ‘midon it either , establish a budget and stick to it. dle class’ response to working class exsolider narratives in film. From the officer Your latest film Verity Summer: could class of ‘policy makers to the scapegoatyou tell us a bit about the film what it is ed ‘bad apples’, do you think class mediabout and how it linked to the Iraq War ates experiences of war? and the Al Sweady Enquiry? The British films that I have seen that have looked at ‘I wanted to make a story that looked at the legacy this look at working class soldiers with post - trauof the Iraq war from the perspective of a middle matic stress, they are normally agro people, prone class family as British films in the past have looked to excessive violence as individuals and they come at working class approach. At the time of the Baha from dysfunctional backgrounds etc. This is used Mousa enquiry, a investigation into the death and to explain the ‘Bad Apple’ idea and is used as a detention of hotel worker Baha Mousa, one person means of scapegoating. The officers who are supwas convicted of a war – crime (the first British per- posed to be managing the military bases and passson to ever have been convicted) while about twen- ing down orders in the chain of command, their ty soldiers of different ranks were criticised for their defence in my mind is that they didn’t know about inability to stop the legalised killing and torture of it and its incredible and ‘not – credible’.
It got me thinking about these people who come back who have been involved in these things or witnessed them, is there an overwhelming sense of guilt and a desire to admit wrongdoing? I was interested in looking at it psychologically and emotionally from a family perspective. It must be a nauseating thought to think that someone that you love may have been involved in torture or witnessed it and been a moral coward, that in itself was a interesting psychological conflict.
As the founder of ERA films ‘using film and video as a social development’ do you want to push projects that tackle the issue of torture from a less spectacle driven angle?
I think American films use torture as ‘spectacle’ and although films have liberal American agendas they are still very patriotic, and there is still certain thing directors presumably feel they can’t do in American Cinema if they want to make enough film. Its deeply political filmmaking at that level, if you make the wrong kind of film you could be cut of from making anything ever again. There are some more realistic examples such as Valley of Elah that handle the subject of torture poignantly with the ‘we have let our soldiers down rhetoric’ but still wrap the narrative (almost literally) in the American flag. There must be low budget American indie films dealing with these issues but if they don’t get distribution they might never get seen.’
‘This was her first film and she was ideal for the character as she was one year older. In some respects the actress was going through the same process as Verity learning about at Iraq. She is a very natural actor, sensitive and great to work with. I was relieved as the wrong actress would have negated the whole power of the film. I hope she goes onto bigger and better things.
‘ I founded that as a way to make some income and to make films […] although NGO commission me to do videos, I’m still doing that and going back to East Africa to work on a number of projects. Its starting to feed into my fiction writing because the Did the psychological aspect tie into a next script draws upon some experiences I have decision not to reveal the details of what had in the Congo working with journalists.’ Verity’s father actually did in Iraq? As a filmmaker who uses a mixture of In Verity’s summer there is no flashback and there experimental lyricism, social realism and is nothing set in Iraq, we never tell what the father politics, do you influences step from both Jim has or has not done or seen, some people don’t the visual and the ideological when it like that ending and think it lacks a certain emo- comes to your filmmaking? tional punch. In a way I felt I couldn’t write it as I had read so much of the testimony and every time Mainly the visual, some of the filmmakers I have I thought about how you could convey it dramati- been influenced by include John Cassavetes , I think cally it didn’t match up to the real horror of what his ideology in films such as ‘Killing Of A Chinese Bookie’ uses handheld cameras in a attempt people have actually done.’ to capture the energy and flow of people alongside How do you think American films rep- authentic performances and real locations. Another resentation and ‘justification’ of torture is Hungarian filmmaker Bela Tarr. I love the way he has changed over the last ten years? lets activity happen in the frame and the camera There are interesting films such as Un- movement is structurally connected with the theme thinkable, Rendition and even Zero Dark and the content of that scene. There is a very clear Thirty that have explored the thin line visual philosophy. This transferred to Verity’s Sumbetween justifying it as a means of na- mer in the painterly still shots which linger and lend tional security. Do you think there has themselves to symbolism. been any real exploration in narrative film or is just another form of Hollywood With such a complex and interesting lead character, was it difficult casting Verity? spectacle?
Why did you choose to shoot locally? Did the dramatic locations lend to the meaning you were trying to achieve in the finished product. The dialogue ‘the coast is the beginning and the end comes to mind.’
‘I grew up here and I knew the locations very well so I had an idea where I wanted to film everything. I mainly wanted to explore the idea of the forces of the environment shaping people, (social, army, boarding school, middle – class families) and while the ‘environment’ shapes us there is also something present in the parallels between ‘ nature’ and society, in that all people have the capability to inhumanity. I was interested in exploring whether violence is intrinsic to human beings and whether civilisation can be considered as a veneer. If you could have made any previously made film (or had the chance to remake any film), which would you, choose. ‘ That’s so difficult because it means that the film you really admire you think you can do better. Actually you know what, it’s a shame Slumdog Millionare didn’t depict a different kind of India. It was a Academy winner and a great film in many ways but I would love to make a film set India that looked at some of the issues of class, poverty and corruption from a more realist perspective.’
ficult as it takes you longer to learn stuff and you don’t have a network. If you can afford to do film training its important to get a network but you eventually have to go out and find you own feet. The main obstacles at the moment are the type of films you want to make vs the types of films money are around for. ‘‘Verity’s Summer was self – distributed and was a hard slog as its going to be 5 – 6 months before we start making money on it. Every film you make is back to square one and unless there is a system in place you are constantly fighting to get the next film done. There isn’t the support from public funding and there isn’t access to private equity that you have in America, they have to find experienced producers to access the money for them. Half the budget went on paying the cast and crew, I waved all my fees as a producer and director and that is difficult to do’ What is next on the horizon after Verity’s Summer? Are you planning to make more political material.
Two films actually. The first one is a film drawing on experiences of journalists and rebels and how What would you say the golden rule is journalists represent the Congo, tying into political for getting involved in film in the UK to- and ethical thinking, the nature of representation. day, what are the main obstacles for as- The other film is set in the North East and because I really like thrillers, It is kind of like a revenge story , piring filmmakers. ‘a feminist Get Carter set in the North East.’ ‘ I entered from the self – taught route which is dif-
The Croods The Croods is a harmless safe bet from the studio that brought us one of the greatest animated films of the past decade (How To Train Your Dragon). Using the standard tale of journeys and self discovery, it wraps up a tired story in a wonderfully colourful prehistoric package. Eep (Emma Stone) is a scantily clad cave-teenager desperate to get out of the cave her dad (Nic Cage) has physically and metaphorically trapped her and her family in. After a chance meeting with Guy (Ryan Reynolds), the world around her begins to crumble and she and her family are forced to leave the darkness of their cave and venture into a new world. The main selling point of this is hearing Nic Cage utter his best and most fitting line to date - “big words anger me”. Perhaps it was added in after a particularly trying rehearsal. Just kidding. Visually this is a gorgeous film, and even though some scenes are lifted straight out of Avatar, it’s hard not to stare in wonder. The transformation from the brown world of the cave to the technicolour wonder that is the jungle might hammer the change in the family’s life home, but it’s still a decent and effective trick, and it does look very good. It’s just enough to stop the story becoming boring, because the story has been told over and over, and they haven’t done a great job of hiding it. Dreamworks is usually pretty good when it comes to exciting ideas, but this is sub-par and only saved by the visuals. The characters are fairly irritating; if you want a lesson in how to be needy, just look at Eep. One of the best characters is quite furry and doesn’t have a single line, but that’s nothing new from Dreamworks. A lot of their best characters aren’t human. There’s not a whole lot for the adults to get involved with here, bar a joke that quickly becomes tired about a mother-in-law. It’s a shame since Dreamworks have been so brilliant in the past, and if adults are going to be dragged along to these things you need to give them something. Anyway, the only real laugh out loud moment comes when a dog-like creature is asked to roll over, and that’s all that’ll be said on the matter. Suffice to say no one stopped laughing for a good few minutes. The rest of the film is relatively amusing and sometimes sweet, but it’s all a bit purile and just lands itself amongst the Easter holiday fodder.
The Croods might not be Dreamworks’ best film but it’s certainly not their worst. They’ve come on leaps and bounds since that godawful Antz but compared to recent releases, this isn’t as brilliant as it could have been. The idea and the characters are there but it’s let down by the characters being just a bit too irritating and jokes being used repeatedly. It might be because the work went into the visuals, and granted they are stunning, but without a decent story to accompany them, the film is just another piece of cinematic fodder for parents to shut their kids up with. ASH
way, this lends a sense of passion to the film which is almost palpable. The supporting cast holds captive some big names in the film industry with Jason Segel as Jason, Debbie’s personal trainer, Megan Fox as Desi, one of Debbie’s employees, Albert Brooks as Larry, Pete’s father and John Lithgow as Oliver, Debbie’s father. Additionally, Melissa McCarthy (Bridesmaids, Mike and Molly) stars as Catherine, the mother of one of Sadie’s classmates who has a hilarious run-in with Pete and Debbie. In fact, this scene appears in the gag-reel at the end of the movie and is probably McCarthy’s funniest scene to date. Cameos from Seth Rogen and Katherine Heigl could’ve been a pleasant touch. As previously mentioned This Is 40 is hilarious and can be likened in some ways to Funny People (2009), also by Apatow, especially in the way This Is 40 it dwells on the theme of an impending mortality Life begins at forty! Well, it seems as though this which, for some viewers, might prove to be a little popular adage is truly put to the test in the intel- heavy. Also, the film is a little longer than it needs ligent and rip-roaringly funny film that is This Is 40. to be (a recurring theme in Apatow’s work) weighDubbed the ‘sort of sequel’ to Knocked Up (2007) ing in at a stodgy two hours and fourteen minutes. This Is 40 centres on the lives of married couple One hour forty would’ve sufficed. Debbie and Pete as they approach their fortieth birthdays (or thirty eighth in Debbie’s case!) and This Is 40 acts as a sort of film sharing platter; those how they as individuals and as a couple cope with who are after laughs will get them, those who are it all. Including the somewhat clichéd themes of fi- after a certain poignancy will get it and those who nancial instability, a relationship in a rut and com- are after a steady mix of the two should leave the ing of age This Is 40 works on many different levels. cinema satisfied. Not one of Apatow’s best projects It is written and directed by Judd Apatow who at- but definitely worth the price of a cinema ticket. OS tempts and succeeds in shining a comedic light over what one can only imagine must be a trying time in anyone’s life, especially with a family in tow. One of Apatow’s greatest successes has always been his ability to select a cast and in the case of This is 40, the cast makes the film! Paul Rudd succeeds massively as Pete and easily manages to portray his usual sort-of-under-the-radar-yet-still-hilarious character. Leslie Mann (Apatow’s wife) excels as Debbie, a neurotic, age-obsessed part-time mother, part-time business owner and together, Rudd and Mann’s onscreen chemistry should prove worrying for the director. With Mann and Apatow’s daughters Maude and Iris thrown into the mix as Sadie and Charlotte the whole family connection appears extremely realistic. One might wonder how Apatow, one of the best comedy writers of the last ten years managed to successfully direct his own family in the film without any personal clashes. Also, in a
Silver Linings Playbook Alright everyone, calm down. Let’s be honest here, after a lot of hype, some rave reviews and a little more hype, Silver Linings Playbook was never going to live up to the expectations that had been set for it. On that front, it doesn’t disappoint. Patrick (Bradley Cooper), fresh out of a mental hospital, moves back in with his parents to get his life and marriage back together. After meeting the unstable Tiffany (Jennifer Lawrence), he forms a plan to get in contact with his wife through a series of bargains, and an inability to focus on any other goal. Bradley Cooper’s roles have been getting much meatier and interesting recently, and this is no exception. Patrick is a clearly troubled and unstable person, who is struggling to come to terms with the damage his eight months away has done to his life. Unaccepting of his wife moving on he is permanently distracted by the idea of reconciling with her, despite a fairly heavy restraining order. Everything he does is motivated by his marriage, to the point where he starts handing out advice to a friend about his own messy marriage. In an almost sinister way, he uses Tiffany and bargains with her in a desperate attempt to get in touch with Nicky, all the while oblivious to Tiffany’s condition and her feelings towards him. Cooper does a pretty good job of it; his issues are underlying but ever present and he manages to tread the careful line between being really genuinely irritating and a decent enough person to be likable. On to Jennifer Lawrence. After some excellent performances including The Hunger Games and Winter’s Bone, hopes were high for this performance as a woman at least a decade older than her actual age. Disappointingly, she doesn’t manage to pull it off. There’s no amount of eyeliner that can age a woman and her hair is alarmingly similar to that of Vanelope in Wreck-It Ralph. On top of that, she just doesn’t have the demeanor of an older woman; it’s very obvious she’s still in her early twenties. Remember Emma Stone in The Amazing Spiderman? It’s like that but the other way round. Her performance is made up of her shouting a fair bit, looking a bit sad and dancing, none of which meld together to make it the performance it’s been hyped up to be. It’s a shame because she’s a genuinely talented actress who should have been able to do an excellent job here.
Not enough is made of the supporting actors and their characters, for instance Robert DeNiro clearly has some issues but the film never goes into detail. Aside from Tiffany and Pat, everything else is just hinted at but never explored, and the two central characters aren’t interesting enough to hold the film together. There really isn’t much that’s special about this film. It’s just another romantic drama with the additional storyline of mental health issues, which is sad because the additional plot has a lot of potential. ASH
resembles a dream, demonstrating character’s feelings through manipulation of light and shadow in favour of dialogue. Olga Kurylenko is captivating in front of the camera implementing a mixture of childish wonder and infectious spontaneity. Her co–stars don’t fare as well, Ben Affleck’s ‘muteness’ takes away his best asset as an actor and Javier Bardem is significantly under–used. Rachael McAdams spends most of her time over–dressed, wandering in a mythological American landscape. The strongest asset of the film is its sound production, including sweeping orchestral pieces from composer Hanan Townshend alongside the often parodied voiceovers. The overall result of the film is one filled with visual metaphors (including prisoners as witnesses at the couple’s wedding) that becomes repetitive, yet presents the world in hyper–stylised way that is both hypnotic and soothing, bringing a suprising sense To The Wonder of visual grandiose and urgency to even the most It is Terrence Malick’s unique mix of stylized aes- banal settings. thetics and vague adjectives that have characterized his filmography. His elusive injection of phi- While Malick’s abstract style leaves his films open losophy, experimentation and a non–conformist to easy surface criticism, the inability to construe attitude, have made him a director that most people immediate meaning from the film fits the psychoeither adorn or hate. Decade long waits between logical themes of ‘love’ and ‘faith’ with style matchprojects defined his earlier career and were frus- ing substance. Although many of Malick’s cinemattrating to say the least, his latest film comes just ic tools can fall into cliché and be easily replicated, two years after the colossal Tree of Life and fol- the construction of these features into a cohesive lows in a similar vein, shrouding a simple relation- whole is what distinguishes Malick as an incredible ship in the gauzy blur of beautiful cinematography, artist of the medium, allowing viewers to make their ghostly voice overs and abstract storytelling. Stock own conclusions and associations through intelleccriticisms of Malick often reduce his cinema to ‘pas- tual montage and innovative storytelling. Although sionless, without risk and achieving nothing’. That his work takes an intimidating amount of patience To The Wonder shuns dialogue and didactic sto- at the best of times, seeing To The Wonder in a rytelling in favor of imagery and music, does not cinema was a unique and arresting experience and even if only for minute, will leave you processing leave it bereft but instead enhances its power. the outside world in a profoundly different way. CB The main narrative involves a love - struck American (Affleck) who brings his free- spirited Parisian girlfriend (Olga Kurylenko) over to the U.S on a tourist visa and follows their relationship across geographical and emotional boundaries. As a subplot also includes a priest (Javier Bardem) struggling with his faith in a parish consumed by poverty and addiction, the separate story–lines explore the daunting search for ‘love’ and ‘faith’. Malick’s images suggest the destructive influence of circumstance and institutions upon individuals and ‘love’. With a large majority of the film shot at the ‘golden hour’ between dawn and dusk with hand-held cameras in beautiful locations, the cinematography
Jiro: Dreams Of Sushi From the cinematic Anime explosion in the 1990s to (dare I mention) Gangnam style, the Western world has often gobbled up tasty morsels of Eastern culture and in no instance is this more pertinent than the Japanese culinary delicacy sushi. While my own experiences with sushi range from exploitation films (Dead Sushi) to bland ‘all you can eat restaurants, Director David Gelb’s documentary Jiro: Dreams of Sushi transports you into the tiny domain of world renowned sushi chef Jiro, exploring his philosophy, family and the workings of his Michelin star winning restaurant. Taking a comfortable personal approach previously characterized by other character studies such as Ai Wei Wei: Never Say Sorry, Gelb’s doc is a charming fishy voyage, exploring elements of human drama, personal legacy Sushi is unashamedly superlative but with undoubtand fame over a backdrop of exceptional food. edly leave you wanting to meet the man and taste Predictably the film is all about Jiro and his culinary his food. CB influence all the way from the customer to the meat trader, with his name used in general conversation throughout as a pointer of quality and influence. Although Jiro’s long winded and pretentious statements on the ‘art’ of sushi are expected fare for a Michelin Star chef, the most interesting dynamic is explored in his relationship with his eldest son, already sharpening his knife to take over. Although Jiro’s perfectionism could present him as a miserable old pedant who needlessly victimizes his apprentices, an exploration of his childhood (abandoned by parents) justifies his professional attitude, while light interviews and interactions with his peers present him in a positive light. With director Gelb taking the camera everywhere from the tuna auctions of the huge Japanese fish markets that source the restaurant to quaint family gatherings, the gargantuan effort that revolves around the tiny eatery is hard to fathom. However the greatest asset of the documentary is its minimalist style creating a serene tone that matches the culture of sushi with talking heads and classical music, drizzled with the high resolution induced ‘food porn’ of some of Jiro’s most exotic dishes. While working as an ingenious marketing exercise for the future of Jiro’s restaurants Jiro Dreams of Sushi defines the ritualistic, methodical essence of creating and consuming sushi while staging typical Japanese melodrama of duty, honor and family lineage. Although one mans ‘artful cuisine’ is another mans raw fish, Jiro Dreams of
other than “please god let this finish soon”, and yet it drags out into the most offensive homage/ parody before, finally, ending in horrible Disney style. Worse than that, they feel the need to create the characters in the next story including the lion and scarecrow. As Oz shouts “run you coward” at the lion, you can’t help but think he’s got the right idea in getting as far away from this film as possible. The only decent thing is China Girl, a very sweet character made entirely from china who would have made a great film on her own. Thankfully she’s given a fair bit of screen time, but even she can’t save this mess. Such is the level of bad in Oz that the laughs and jumps don’t even register as it numbs your brain. The best way to get through it is to either have a nap (when they arrive at Glinda’s kingdom is the optimum time) or let it blur into a colourfully forgettable tornado of rubbish. Obviously set up to lead Oz The Great And The Powerful into the original film, the scariest thing about this We’re off to see the wizard, the frankly god-awful is the prospect of a sequel/remake. For the love of wizard of Oz. Whoever green-lit this latest travesty all cinema please don’t waste any money on this, from Disney needs a good talking to, and needs to it’ll only encourage them. Having said that, it’s just write a grovelling apology to Baum. It’s depressing been reported that a sequel is already in pre-prothat Oz: The Great and Powerful will forever be as- duction. All that’s left is the hope that terrible box sociated with the wonderful Judy Garland film and office figures will put an end to this nightmare. ASH the original books. Starring James Franco, it tells the story of how Oscar (Franco) went from being a lowly circus magician to the saviour and wizard of Oz. You could look at this as being one of the most colourful con films of all time, because that’s essentially what it is. Whilst feminism dies a slow painful death thanks to the three witches, Oz gives a masterclass in how to con hundreds of people. It’s a shame his tricks don’t work outside of the screen, maybe then people would be nice about the film. Franco’s performance is as confused as the film because he can’t decide whether to play the funny farce aspect or the Disney peril. So he switches between the two with a smile and raised eyebrow leaving his character looking like a bit of a pathetic tool. The three witches don’t help either with Mila Kunis playing the classic damsel (albeit in a gorgeous hat and coat) getting alarmingly needy before taking a turn for the wicked. By the time the supposedly stirring pep-talk comes, the deadly poppy fields have worked their sinister magic and sent the audience to sleep. Not even the “performance of a lifetime” can stir up any feelings
Side Effects Fresh from last year’s Magic Mike, Steven Soderbergh is back with Side Effects, apparently his last film. Or so he says. If it was me, I’d want to go out in better style than that. Anyway, Side Effects is the reasonably good film about a severely depressed woman (Rooney Mara) whose life takes an unexpected turn when her therapist (Jude Law) prescribes the latest drug, Ablixa. Having tried pretty much every other anti-depressant available, Ablixa has positive effects on her, her life and marriage but simultaneously, more sinister effects rear their ugly heads turning everyone’s life upside down. The main thing this film suffers from is from being overcomplicated. There’s a brilliant story to be told here, but Soderbergh has decided to go down the thriller route and as a result the film feels a lot longer than it is and almost gets boring. The first half hour is rendered pretty useless by the rest of it, which is a shame because Mara’s performance is nothing short of excellent. Her portrayal of a depressed, anxious woman trying to regain some form of control is bang on, but it’s wasted with the rest of the film. Channing Tatum, a man who thanks to Step Up will never be taken seriously, doesn’t make much of an impression as her husband. In fact he’s downright forgettable. At least there’s Jude Law who for once is actually decent if not surprisingly brilliant as the psychiatrist-turned-investigator who begins to show symptoms similar to those of his patients. Having put up with him being pretty dreadful in the majority of his roles, Contagion included, it’s nice to see he actually has talent. Hopefully we’ll see more of it in the future. There’s something in Soderbergh’s brain that leaves him unable to leave a story alone. With Contagion, humanity’s redemption was the nail in that coffin and here the slaloming storyline has the same effect. Despite being just over an hour and a half in length, the film feels at least two hours long and seriously drags towards the end, at least until the final scene. The characters become a little hard to care about and it almost, not quite but almost, gets boring. However, it’s worth watching the film just for those final ten minutes which are just delicious and an excellent way to wrap up a slightly absurd but entertaining film. It’s not a bad film, it just has some issues. If you get past them then it becomes a decent way to hide from
this freezing weather for a couple of hours. With a cast of just four (Catherine Zeta-Jones appears for a bit), give or take a few three minute characters, Side Effects tells a relatively interesting story in a slick way. Had Law’s performance been his usual rubbish, the film would have suffered but between him, Mara and the alarmingly steely Zeta-Jones, they just about manage to carry the film through to those last few minutes. That said, it would be a shame for Soderbergh to end on an average note. Surely he can do better than this? ASH
way these structures failed, with known pedophilic priests being re – circulated amongst local clergies, hidden behind the masquerade of Vatican’s status as a state operating outside of international law (which Gibney’ tracks back to its roots in Italian Fascism) and the denial of transparency to victims attempting to implicate offending priests. The real impact of the piece lies with journey of the individuals who took the Vatican to court, who show real strength in reliving their childhood experiences of abuse in expressive sign language (with accompanied vocal translation including actors such as Ethan Hawke). Although the film could have wielded more impact if the voice – over was omitted tying into the overall themes of the film, the convenient metaphor of deaf people facing silence is matched by the struggles each individual had to face, with stigmas of disability tying into their futile appeals for help being met with a wall of silence from their Mea Maxima Culpa parents and communities alike. Even when they When people dip into their satchel of bad taste eventually confront their abuser Lawrence Murphy jokes there is always the potential of the Catholic in adulthood, who is living peacefully in exile with Church and pedophilia cropping up, with the two no conviction and retained priesthood, his wife’s becoming synonymous with each – other through attempts to dispel the situation by asking repeatthe well – known series of scandals that arose from edly ‘are you a Catholic?’ encapsulates the thin line the elusive politics of secrecy associated with the between religious duty and ‘criminal abuse’. Vatican. As an incredibly complex issue lost within the historical corridors of institutional religion it This strikes a topical chord with the resignation of takes a pragmatic director such Alex Gibney, who Pope Benedict this year (the first pope to do so in previously explored the troubling bureaucracy and 600 years) providing him with immunity from levictims of American torture in Taxi to the Dark Side, gal prosecution for child sex crimes and allowing to shine light on the issue with a water – tight and him to live out the rest of his years in ‘dignified finely researched expose of the shocking misde- existence’. The fact that this sickening disparity of power and legal immunity still exists makes Gibmeanors of the Catholic church. ney’s documentary all the more relevant and giving Like Taxi to the Dark Side, Gibney structures his ar- a voice to the silent victims that have always inevigument by using a single isolated instance to open tably suffered on the under the manipulative wing the scope of the issue to wider repercussions. In this of institutional power. CB case, the trigger event is explored through the microcosm of four deaf men who set out to expose the priest who abused them as children during the 1960s, and whose legal trial and public pressure revealed the web of deception that pervades the Catholic Church in the way it failed to regulate, extradite and successfully ‘treat’ known pedophiles. As an issue that dates back to the 7th century, documents and testimonials reveal attempts to treat pedophilia within the clergy with rehabilitation centers and even seclusion, with the unbelievable attempt to buy a South – American island for troublesome priests. However Gibney explores the
The Place Beyond The Pines The Place Beyond The Pines is Derek Cianfrance’s follow up to the heartbreaking 2010 drama Blue Valentine. The film follows the lives of various residents of Schenectady in New York State and how they deal with the massively different hands they were dealt in life. With a cast of stars including Ryan Gosling, Bradley Cooper, Eva Mendes, Ray Liotta and Dane DeHaan the story spans generations and takes a long contemplative look at the consequences of actions. Initially following “Handsome” Luke (Ryan Gosling) a fairground motorcycle rider, as he tries to be present and support his newborn son The Place Beyond The Pines looks at all the lives affected by Luke and how his influence can be felt over time. The Place Beyond The Pines is a much bigger story than Blue Valentine, which looked at a relationship at two crucial moments: it’s inception and destruction. Cianfrance’s latest sprawls where Blue Valentine was concise, but the story lines are more abundant and the generation gaps make the change in running time and editing more than appropriate. Though it may appear that there are three distinct stories on offer here they are linked not only by the people involved but by the central themes. Blue Valentine was an astonishing feature, but The Place Beyond The Pines is a step up in terms of film making craft, Cianfrance has gambled on an ambitious project and it has certainly paid dividends.
projects but here Cooper’s role is considerable, meaty– he shares billing with Gosling in the credit sequence – and remarkably well acted. The role of Avery is like nothing Cooper has ever done before and will certainly help move him away from the fluffy roles he’s been known for up until now. Dane DeHaan continues his rise as one of the most interesting young actors around after his roles in Chronicle, Lawless and the Sundance favourite Kill Your Darlings.
The Place Beyond The Pines is unquestionably a film about men and male relationships; whether they be paternal, fraternal or criminal. But that doesn’t make it a film exclusively for guys, the structure and themes at work here makes The Place Beyond The The cinematography is to die for, the images cap- Pines more of an epic poem than a film. The hazy tured by Sean Bobbitt (who also worked on Shame cinematography and the overt symbolism enhances and the upcoming Byzantium) are engaging on this feel and helps to root the film in your mind for their own as moving pictures. The opening tracking days after you might have seen it. JH shot of Handsome Luke focuses solely on his torso, and while we are all aware of the fact that Ryan Gosling looks good without his shirt, it’s Bobbitt’s work that really makes it come alive. Strangely, the majority of the male leads all have blue eyes, at first it could look like a happy accident as none of the actors are wearing lenses but it becomes clear that this works as a potent symbol for the connected nature of human lives. A stand out scene involving Ben Mendelsohn’s Robin focuses almost solely on his blue eyes. Bradley Cooper is the most surprising addition to the film, Gosling, Mendes, Liotta, Mendelsohn and DeHaan have all proved themselves in other
one explanation for those expressions. Phrases are repeated over and over set to different images. A conversation with Alien is one of these and as it’s played over varying shots including a threesome and Alien loading a gun, the meaning changes so you’re never quite sure how it’s meant to be taken. The film appears to be open to interpretation. The juxtaposition of a fairly melancholy (and brilliant) score with the scenes and voiceovers make for a film that certainly isn’t for everyone but is one that needs to be seen again and again. It would come as no surprise if every viewing brought on a different reaction.
Spring Breakers Nothing about Spring Breakers should be remotely entertaining. The drug use, swearing, alcohol use, constant sexualization of women and James Franco’s unrecognisable and very creepy face all make for a film that should leave people feeling angry and disturbed. However, Harmony Korine’s film about four girls who rob a diner to fund their spring break trip is nothing short of hugely entertaining. Following their robbery and a lot of partying, Faith, Candy, Brit and Cotty (Selena Gomez, Vanessa Hudgens, Ashley Benson and Rachel Korine) find themselves being bailed out of jail by Alien (James Franco) who shows them the world of excitement they were looking for. Amidst a flurry of neon, cocaine, beer and guns, the four girls show just how far they’re willing to go for their adventure, or, how little the line exists for them. Harmony Korine is one of those directors with the ability to have an audience howling with laughter one minute and staring open-mouthed the next. Take, for example, one scene where Alien serenades the girls. At first, Franco’s singing provides many giggles, especially given the song he’s singing. Introduce some gunfire, Franco’s “look at all ma shit” face and a sunset and you have a bizarre scene that, despite everything, is hilarious. After a minute or two, the novelty wears off and things don’t look so funny. Maybe that’s what is happens to the audience towards the end of the film, the novelty of their adventure wears off and everything they’ve done, everyone they’ve lost, sinks in. It’s
There isn’t really any way to describe Spring Breakers. It’s a ninety minute neon infested madhouse of a film that is absolute wonderful carnage but leaves you wondering if you should have enjoyed it. Half the time is spent laughing hysterically whilst asking yourself if you should be laughing, and the rest of it is spent working out if that really is James Franco. (The answer is yes, that really is him.) No matter what you’re expecting you will be shocked and surprised by this, but you will come away knowing you’ve just witnessed something incredible. It might not be up your street but you’ve probably never seen anything like it, and probably won’t for a few years. See you at the front of the line. ASH
PictureShow Magazine will return in April 2013