Thoughts on... Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut (2006)

Superman II: The Richard Donner Cut, 2006.

Directed by Richard Donner.
Starring Christopher Reeve, Margot Kidder and Gene Hackman.


SYNOPSIS:

The 1980 classic is reedited to its original director’s vision.


Having heard of this film’s very existence when it was released in 2006, I found myself longing to own a copy of it. A fan of the cinematic representation of the Man of Steel since first seeing Christopher Reeve’s debut as Superman when I must have been biting ankles, I was delighted to say the least when finding a shop that sold this movie as part of “The Christopher Reeve Collection” which includes all of Mr Reeve’s Superman films. Although I’m sure many of you know the storyline, I’m positive there are some who do not.

Three criminals (General Zod, Ursa and Non) from Superman’s former home of Krypton are released from their outer space prison after an explosion. Unfortunately for mankind, they are released quite close to Earth and decide to conquer the planet as they had failed to do on Krypton. Lex Luthor (Hackman), on the other hand, has been imprisoned along with his assistant Otis (Ned Beatty) after trying to make the land along the San Andreas Fault collapse into the sea with the new area owned by Lex. He soon escapes and embarks on a “mutual relationship” with General Zod and co after telling them that he knows how to find the son of their jailor Jor-El (Marlon Brando) a.k.a Superman. Unfortunately for the world, Clark Kent (Reeve) has fallen in love with Lois Lane (Kidder) and inadvertently displayed his secret identity, with his ghostly father Jor-El having removed his powers at Superman’s home, the Fortress of Solitude, after Superman requests for this to happen. Will the Earth ever be saved by Superman once again or will the world always be under the control of General Zod?

Having watched Richard Lester’s cut of “Superman II” many times, I found this version to be completely different but far better than beyond all belief. The alterations are quite remarkable and certainly evident for all to see. But first, a little backdrop about the film itself.

Whilst filming the first “Superman” film, Richard Donner also shot footage for its sequel simultaneously. The producers Alex and Ilya Salkind fired Donner and replaced him with British-director Richard Lester. The footage which Donner shot was pretty much thrown out, with a vast amount of new footage shot by Lester. Although the result of this was a commercially successful movie, the original vision of Donner was lost. Thanks to an internet campaign to get the original cut released, the vast amounts of footage which was shot for “Superman II” by Donner was shipped over from London to the USA. To say this project was ambitious is an understatement, as the production staff had to look through each and every reel and make sure that it was under Donner which this footage was shot.

With great power, comes great responsibility said Uncle Ben in the recent Spiderman movies. The legion of fans which regard Mr Reeve as the finest Superman ever to wear the red cape must have had high hopes for the release of this movie, and they mustn’t have been disappointed. With yours truly counting himself in this camp, I found this film to be superior when compared with Richard Lester’s original cut. The reasons for this are as follows:

The one element of the 1980 version which really bothered me is the dated comedy. Gone are these scenes, such as the man talking in the phone box after General Zod and co blow away the Metropolis citizens attempting to defeat them with whatever they could find, and are replaced with dark moments which Donner is so good at putting in his movies. The second element which this movie improves on is the fact that it is not just about Zod and co invading Earth. Their destructive nature is split up over the course of the narrative to much success, and replaced with previously unseen footage of Marlon Brando. Due to his exorbitant fee for appearing in the first movie, it was made forbidden that Brando should not appear in the sequel and the result of this was that new scenes of Superman’s mother Lara (Susannah York) should be replaced. To even think of replacing a screen legend such as Brando with a lesser-regarded actress is unthinkable, but then again that was the mentality of the Salkind’s. Money over common sense, the Salkind’s should be ashamed for what they did. Details of such footage will not be divulged, but trust me it is worth watching.

The way in which the movie is edited is quite contemporary, with the ending changed considerably and less patriotic but it is Donner’s vision which is most important, and some might argue that it is a much more suitable ending indeed. A respected and better version for the great man Christopher Reeve, but due to the Salkind’s dithering over who to direct the sequel an opportunity for Mr Reeve to view it in his own lifetime has been lost forever.

Russell Hill

The Notion of National Cinema

Jon Dudley explores the notion of national cinema...

Although cinema is a worldwide spectacle that can be enjoyed by billions of people, there seems to be a way to define a films origins and values, and who or where it represents. It would be all too easy to walk into any cinema and identify the nations of the films on show. For example, at the time of writing there seems to be a variety of national delicacies for cinema goers to choose from: there is Law Abiding Citizen (USA), Harry Brown (UK) and Kurbaan (India) to name just three. But are we right in thinking of films as expressions of national identity?

“There is no such thing as British cinema” according to an essay entitled The Cambridge. Also according to this essay, which was written by seven different people, the notion of national cinema, and here they specify British films, is not feasible. “British cinema can only justify itself, we are told, by saying something about being British. But all other cinema begins by speaking about the human condition”. Here they argue that British cinema seems to want to force itself to have a national identity whereas other countries seem to want to tell stories, not stamp their national identity over them.

Jim Leach, who wrote the book British Film makes a very good point indeed: “The problem is that ʻpeopleʼ and ʻnationʼ are not synonymous”. And he is right - nations of the world are so culturally diverse that it is difficult to consider the ʻnationalityʼ of a film. For example, East is East and My Beautiful Laundrette are British films yet both address issues that are familiar with Pakistanis. They are both classed as British films since they are set in England, but highlight a different cultural heritage to that of the majority of the nationʼs population.

More recently, and on a much larger scale, Slumdog Millionaire swept the board at the BAFTAs and Academy Awards. Director Danny Boyle, a Brit, and writer Simon Beaufoy, also English, were at the helm of this film set in India, about Indian people, and raising Indian issues - yet the film is still recognised as British. On the other hand, The Constant Gardener is directed by a Brazilian, Fernando Meirelles, yet also a British film because of the content - is this not the same?

The writers of The Cambridge Document are not the only ones that seem to dislike the whole idea of different national cinemas rather than one worldwide collective film archive. Sarah Street, writer of British National Cinema wants to encourage “the need to examine cinema from perspectives that celebrate pluralities and the blurring of boundaries instead of seeking to locate an essentialised notion of national identity”. She is saying here that different nations should not think individualistically when it comes to producing ʻhomegrownʼ films, but embrace the fact that world cinema can be appreciated as a whole.

If some people are against the idea of national cinemas, why does such a notion exist? It appears that many countries have their preferred genres. “Most national cinemas produce home-grown comedies that work only in the domestic market” according to Jim Leach. This doesnʼt apply to just the comedy genre of films but to ones that raise issues to which the particular nation of the films origin can relate. For example there were often comedic elements in war films such as people taking the traditional “stiff upper lip” approach, a trait only familiar with British audiences. In recent cinema, in Britain there remains to be a focus on social issues that affect the inhabitants of our nation today, resulting in a high volume of British films belonging to the social realism genre.

Leach comments that Britain is persistently recognised for having a unique sense of humour. When talking to an American friend of mine I asked him for his opinion of British cinema, and he replied “British film is like American film, but with more irony, different accents and worse teeth”. Although this response was humourous, it does highlight some of the characteristics that Britain in general and not just the films can be identified by.

But it is not just Britain that has addressed lower class problems over the last decade or so. Mathieu Kassovitz made the hard-hitting critically acclaimed French film La Haine in 1995, highlighting the hostility between youths and authority in Paris. Since other nations are addressing similar issues to each other, this puts forward evidence that perhaps films should not be defined from the country they originate from but by the genre they represent.

Films of different countries that produced similar films also added their national ethos into productions. An article in The Guardian suggests “it is widely felt that the key to a national cinema lay in 'realism and restraint”. British social aspects raised in films can include unemployment (The Full Monty), family issues (Fish Tank) and drug use and partying (Human Traffic). As I just mentioned La Haine brought up youth issues in France and therefore Armstrongʼs point is valid when he says national cinema is when films represent issues familiar in the countries where they originate.

Another key point that backs up my suggestion that films could be defined by genre, not by nation, poses the question ʻdo films really have to cater for national audiences or fans of particular genresʼ? Street highlights an issue with this: “Producers have been caught in a perpetual bind: Should they make films for the British market or for international export? Is it possible to aim for both, at the risk of satisfying neither?”. If an individual does not like watching films that highlight social issues for example, then they are very unlikely to be persuaded to go and see them. Instead of targeting specific national markets, perhaps producers should target genre audiences, and instead of asking themselves the questions raised by Sarah Street, they should be trying to investigate ʻwhat can we do within the genre of this film to satisfy the fans of this material?ʼ

Another suggestion was put forward by Erich Pommer, which led to the formation of Film Europe in the 1920ʼs. He said that “It is necessary to create ʻeuropean filmsʼ which will no longer be French, English, Italian or German films; entirely continental films...”. Unfortunately due to the rise of fascism in Germany and sound being incorporated into moving pictures, the company didnʼt last very long.

The introduction of sound, but more importantly language, to film meant that “individual countries were much more focused on producing films in their own languages for domestic audiences” says David Puttnam. Of course the most important thing was for home audiences to be given films in their own language, and at this point in time it was not feasible for films to appeal to continental audiences while they were still adjusting to incorporating their own spoken language into films.

Before sound design was an element of film making, David Puttnam also points out that it was the absence of language that made film universally accessible to audiences because there was no barrier. When language was common place in films, Puttnam remarks that “perhaps it was hardly surprising that cinema... became closely identified with the idea of national identity”.

Maybe it was the introduction of sound that eliminated films being viewed as a worldwide medium, and language did in fact encourage the divides in the moving image industry between countries and continents. Or simply it could all come down to the fact audiences would rather stick to watching films that were made in their homelands and address issues that are relevant to them.

Jon Dudley is a freelance film and television journalist and his 17-minute short film Justification was shown at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival.

Burning Brightly: A Jane Campion Profile (Part 2)

Trevor Hogg profiles the career of filmmaker and Academy Award-winning screenwriter Jane Campion in the second of a two part feature... read part one.

In 1981, Jane Campion watched a teenager perform at the Phillip Street Theatre in Sydney, Australia; the director immediately wanted to cast the young actress in her graduation film. Unfortunately, the headmistress at the all-girls North Sidney High School would not give her pupil the time off to work on the project. Not discouraged, Campion gave Nicole Kidman (The Hours) a keepsake – a postcard with the written words, “I want to direct you in something classical.”

When she heard that the filmmaker was going to adapt the Henry James novel, The Portrait of a Lady (1996), Kidman sought out Campion with the intention of having the promise fulfilled. “She came to the flat, and we couldn’t take our eyes off her,” recalled the director. “She was very bold with us, and very sweet, wanting to discuss with us the whole book and at the same time blushing and feeling a little awkward. She was bold and unsure at the same time.”

Offered a role by Gus Van Sant (Good Will Hunting), who needed a replacement for Meg Ryan (Sleepless in Seattle), Nicole Kidman went onto star in To Die For (1995). Fearing that the Hollywood experience had corrupted her talent, Jane Campion made a decision which Kidman took to be an act of disloyalty; the Australian-raised performer would have to audition for the part of Isabel Archer. “I had just enough doubts that I thought the only way to sort it out was to try it out,” explained Campion.

With her temper and emotions running high, Nicole Kidman auditioned for the role. “I saw her becoming very intuitive with her work,” recollected the filmmaker, “willing to go places I hadn’t imagined before.” Kidman remembered a phone call she received two days later from Campion. “She said, ‘You’re my Isabel. There’s nobody else I would want to play this character.’ I said thank you, but also started crying. And then, it was very daunting, because it was like, ‘O.K., we know we’re going to work together.’”

To get herself in the proper onscreen mood, Nicole Kidman incorporated some method-acting techniques. “We got the corset down to nineteen inches one day and I would be in pain and have bruises and stuff on my body when I took it off. But it was a psychological thing, a thing where I wanted to be restricted really, really tight so that the more repressed I was, the more I felt it.”

A veteran American actress wanted to play the manipulative Madame Merle but the character had already been cast with Susan Sarandon (Dead Man Walking). “Knowing that someone else has the role is treacherous,” observed Barbara Hershey (Hannah and Her Sisters), who persuaded the director to allow her to read two scenes while they were both in Los Angeles. “It was great,” marveled Jane Campion. “Barbara has an intensity you can never create; you either have it or you don’t. She’s slinky and feline. I love her black cat looks, and there was a temporal thing too. Some people are poised at a point in their lives to put everything they have into their work. That was a plus with Barbara. For instance, some women who have more attention in their careers would not know how it was to play second place and bide their time the way Madame Merle has to. I think Barbara knows those things.” Hershey’s ambition became a reality.

Though the movie is a faithful adaptation, controversy erupted over the additional sequence of Isabel having an erotic fantasy involving all of her suitors. Critically overshadowed by The Piano, The Portrait of a Lady did receive Oscar nominations for Best Supporting Actress (Barbara Hershey) and Best Costume Design.

Reuniting with Harvey Keitel, Jane Campion produced Holy Smoke! (1999) in which he stars as P.J. Waters, an American living in Australia who specializes in deprogramming members of religious cults. When Waters falls for a patient, Ruth Barron (Kate Winslet), he finds himself losing all sense of control.

“I loved the script, I loved the character, I admire Jane Campion, I wanted to do it with Harvey Keitel, and fundamentally I thought the story was incredibly interesting and really, really brave,” remarked Kate Winslet (Little Children) of the movie which the director co-wrote with her sister Anna Campion. “I think more and more people these days go for the safe option in filmmaking. Holy Smoke! is very brave because I don’t think it’s easy to watch.” Winslet went on to add, “It’s a deep psychological story in the sense that you have to understand what’s going on inside these people’s heads as well as the relationship they are starting to form. I think Ruth wants to give him the reality check that he wants to give her. There are times when you think, ‘God, you manipulative cow.’ At the same time you sort of love her.”

There was no doubt in Jane Campion’s mind that she had found her leading lady, “I felt pretty clearly, as soon as I saw her, that she was the right girl. Kate was very determined. She had done her homework. She had already worked on her Australian accent; she knew the lines for her audition. She wanted to do it, that’s what I felt. She knew the girl. In her heart, she felt she knew Ruth.”

Whereas the tale garnered mixed reactions, the cinematography received universal praise. “Holy Smoke! has a sensual allure that transcends its deep-seated ponderousness,” wrote Janet Maslin in The New York Times. “The richly coloured Indian scenes have a hallucinogenic magic, while exquisite desert vistas radiate an attunement with the nature.” Film critic David Rooney from Variety declared, “Original in every sense, this often difficult film about family, relationships, sexual politics, spiritual questing, faith and obsession further explores the director’s abiding fascinations in excitingly unconventional terms.” At the Venice Film Festival, Jane Campion and Kate Winslet won the Elvira Notari Prize for Best Director and Best Actress while Campion also received a nomination for the Golden Lion.

Taking on the role of producer Nicole Kidman purchased the film rights for In the Cut (2003) which was written by novelist Susanna Moore. Kidman’s plans to star in the picture were derailed when she became embroiled in divorce proceedings with her actor husband Tom Cruise. Cast to replace the Hawaiian-born performer was Meg Ryan, who was seeking an opportunity to move beyond her romantic comedy persona.

Trouble ensued; the original financial backers left when they learned that the erotic thriller was not going to be in the grisly vein of Se7en (1995) but instead was to be a “relationship-based story”. A lonely high school English teacher (Meg Ryan) has a sordid affair with a tough homicide detective (Mark Ruffalo) who may or may not be a serial killer. “I think of my heroines as going into the underworld in a struggle to make sense of their lives,” remarked Campion. “I think the real danger is in playing safe and avoiding the truth of your imagination in your art and in your life.” Midst the dark subject matter the filmmaker found a timely tale. “Women today are dealing with both their independence and the fact that their lives are built around finding and satisfying the romantic models we grew up with. The story gave us an opportunity to see how that model falls short for us, and creates enormous amounts of grief.”

More known for its nudity and sex scenes, In the Cut failed to capture the imagination of movie audiences or film critics. A.O. Scott wrote in The New York Times, “The story turns out to be fairly conventional, with an ending that is a stale pretzel bowl of surprise twists; the psychology of the characters can be frustratingly obscure, but there are nonetheless images and ideas that stick like splinters under your skin.”

Joining a group of eight directors, which included Robert Altman (Gosford Park) and Jodie Foster (Little Man Tate), the New Zealand moviemaker took part in a United Nations sponsored project called 8 (2006). Jane Campion’s contribution, The Water Diary, is about two young girls struggling to survive in a drought-stricken Australian Outback. “One day I heard them [her daughter and her friends] talking about the world they would inherit and how our generation had used up so much of the resources,” revealed Campion on the origins of the short film.

Participating in another multi-filmmaker collaboration, the director produced Lady Bug (2007). A woman dressed as an insect tries to extend her wings while dancing on stage only to have her ambitions squashed by an annoyed cleaner. The picture was included in a series of short films called Chacun son cinema (To Each His Own Cinema); the anthology was also screened at the Cannes Film Festival. In explaining her absence from directing feature length movies, Jane Campion said, “I could afford to. And I actually asked myself whether I wanted to keep making films, or whether I’ve said what I needed to say.”

To create her latest film Bright Star (2009), Jane Campion had to overcome a natural dislike for a particular style of writing. “I had a mental problem, an aversion to poetry. It goes back decades.” The major source material for the director was a book authored by Andrew Motion about English poet John Keats. “[In] the last three years of his [Keats] life, he’d fallen in love with his neighbour, Fanny Brawne. I had no idea how intense this love story was, or about the letters that documented it. Those thirty-three letters take you right to the heart of this great love affair. I was moved deeply by the tragedy of it all.”

When asked about her attraction to shooting period pictures, Jane Campion responded, “You do a contemporary film and you think you’ve already done your research. But in a way, that life we live in contemporary time is unexamined. So research you do into, say, the 1820s makes you pay attention to everything that surrounds your characters. Some things don’t exist anymore, some you have to build. Every piece of paper, every article of clothing, is different.” Despite the time gap, the director believes artists like John Keats had contemporary sensibilities. “The Romantics were called “romantics” because they were rebels against the status quo in a pretty important way. At that time, life and love itself were so unfair, so removed from what we know today. Every advantage went to the upper classes. Society was very staid. You couldn’t marry for love. Money meant everything. Many people left England because they felt they didn’t have a chance there.” Campion explained further, “These poets were speaking out and acting out against that. They were saying, ‘There’s one set of laws, society’s laws, and then there’s my gut, my instinct.’ And these poets said, ‘There’s more important things to worry about than etiquette, class, rituals.’ That’s why they seem [to be] so modern. That’s why we respond to them today.”

There was another reason Jane Campion was drawn to the short-lived romance. “What I loved so much about this story is its purity and innocence. It’s such a rare thing these days. Also, the poetry, a lost art which, hopefully, we’ve given a moment. It felt like it was about things I want to know about life. It’s not fashionable, but it seemed to feed me in the way I wanted to be fed.” The director is not concerned about the absence of a certain element in the relationship between the poet and his muse. “The chaste aspect of Fanny’s romance with Keats is not a big deal. It brings a fresh and original quality. You know, sex is actually not so original as the way people love or the stories behind each relationship, which is what you remember. Sex is sex in the end.”

Starring Ben Whishaw (My Brother Tom) and Abbie Cornish (Somersault) as the doomed lovers, Bright Star is a major contender for Best Picture at the next Academy Awards. When the picture was screened at the Cannes Film Festival, it found an unlikely admirer, someone known for creating movies filled with poetic violence and monologues. “I’m not really into poetry,” responded Quentin Tarantino (Pulp Fiction). “But the movie made me think about taking a poetry class. One of the best things that can happen from a movie about an author is that you actually want to read their work.”

Declared by The New York Times to be “one of modern cinema’s great explorers of female sexuality,” Jane Campion stated, “I think most women are love addicts. We’re brought up in this culture to be such, and we believe we’re going to get fulfilled through being seen intimately by a man. But it’s just not true.” Campion is disappointed by the number of female directors receiving international recognition and support. “I would love to see more women directors because they represent half of the population and give birth to the whole world. Without them the rest of the world is not getting to know the whole story.” The New Zealander admires the work of Gillian Armstrong (My Brilliant Career), Alison Mclean (Crush), Niki Caro (Whale Rider), and Sally Potter (Orlando). As for recent movies helmed by her feminine counterparts, the filmmaker enjoyed Catherine Hardwicke’s Thirteen (2003) and Kathryn Bigelow’s The Hurt Locker (2008) [read a profile on Kathryn Bigelow here].

Jane Campion watches The Godfather (1972) annually and has a deep affinity for the Seven Samurai (1954). “I like to see this film once every few years,” remarked the director of the Akira Kurosawa classic. “I love it for its balance of humour, drama, and its deep affection for our noble and flawed natures. When I remember the film I smile and enjoy very much the breadth of the characters, all the beautiful courageous, broken and romantic samurai. I too want to be one of those samurai, and I want to make such a strong and kind film.”

Eyeing Alice Munro’s short story Runaway as her next cinematic project, Jane Campion finds herself improving as a filmmaker. “When you’re a bit younger, you want to show off and impress or shock or be provocative. You don’t have the confidence to take your time. The change is in my own heart and body. You’ve got to find it in your body to become slow.” Campion also believes, “The [more] sober and objective you are [in telling a story], the greater is the possibility of a good result.”

Read Jane Campion's Top 9 Criterion films, or watch the trailer for her latest feature Bright Star.

Trevor Hogg is a freelance video editor and writer who currently resides in Canada.

UK Box Office Top Ten - weekend commencing 25/12/09

UK box office top ten and analysis for the weekend of Friday 25th - Sunday 27th December 2009.

Opening on Monday 21st to get a head-start at the UK box office, family comedy Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel jumps straight in at number one to lead the final chart of 2009 with £5,347,191. In second place, James Cameron's sci-fi epic Avatar collects another £3.8m to push its total UK gross close to £18.5m in just two weeks (with cumulative world-wide receipts of $640m+ in that same timeframe), while Guy Ritchie's action-adventure take on Sir Arthur Conan Doyle's classic sleuth Sherlock Holmes manages to bank £3m to place third despite only opening on Boxing Day (Saturday).

Highly-rated Bollywood comedy drama 3 Idiots manages an impressive fourth-placed opening with £437,544 from just 53 screens, while Brit comedy sequel St. Trinians 2: The Legend of Fritton's Gold slips three places to finish fifth in its second week of release. Rob Marshall-directed musical Nine, which is highly tipped for awards success, enters the top ten at the second time of asking after a limited release last week ahead of newly-released John Lennon biopic Nowhere Boy in seventh.

Plumetting five spots from last week, A Christmas Carol looks to have about run its course after a strong eight weeks that has seen the motion-capture animation bank almost £20m, making it far and away the most successful of Robert Zemeckis' recent CGI offerings. Also hanging on for dear life are The Twilight Saga: New Moon (with £26m+ from five weeks) and Law Abiding Citizen (£5.7m from six weeks), while Nativity!, Planet 51, Where The Wild Things Are, Paranormal Activity and 2012 are less fortunate and all slip from the top ten.

Pos.	Film	Weekend Gross	Week	Total UK Gross
1	Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel	£5,347,191	1	£5,347,191
2	Avatar	£3,828,123	2	£18,404,659
3	Sherlock Holmes	£3,081,072	1	£3,081,072
4	3 Idiots	£437,554	1	£437,554
5	St Trinian's 2: The Legend of Fritton's Gold	£436,296	2	£3,385,830
6	Nine	£269,447	2	£338,095
7	Nowhere Boy	£148,157	1	£148,157
8	A Christmas Carol	£131,033	8	£19,595,369
9	The Twilight Saga: New Moon	£129,777	5	£26,272,710
10	Law Abiding Citizen	£98,898	6	£5,736,117

Incoming...

There's little to write home about in the way of new releases for the first weekend of 2010, with Hugh Grant and Sarah Jessica Parker leading the way with romantic-comedy drama Did You Hear About the Morgans?, along with Brit drama Toby's Odyssey and comedy Post Grad, all of which open on New Year's Day.

U.K. Box Office Archive

Five Essential... New Directors of the 21st Century

Gary Collinson selects his Five Essential New Directors of the 21st Century…

In thinking of an article to mark the end of the decade a number of ideas passed through my mind - best movies (too common), worst movies (where to begin?), best directors (possibly), best directorial debuts (getting there) – before finally settling upon the Five Essential New Directors of the 21st Century.

Now the selection process for this list is very simple and limited to just three points. Firstly, they need to have made their first feature in the year 2000 or later (which sadly excludes the likes of Christopher Nolan and Edgar Wright). Secondly, they must have made another picture following said debut. And last but not least, I have to be aware of them. Simple! So, without further ado, let’s get onto the list (in alphabetical order only)…

Judd Apatow

The former stand-up comedian already had a number of producing credits to his name before hitting gold (and $177m in worldwide grosses) with his debut feature The 40-Year-Old Virgin in 2005. His next effort Knocked Up (2007) went on to enjoy even greater success, although this year’s Funny People failed to resonate with audiences and stands as a blip on the filmmaker’s CV. In between, producing credits on hit comedies such as Superbad (2007), Forgetting Sarah Marshall (2008) and Pineapple Express (2008) has helped to establish his reputation as the man who can transform dick and fart gags into big, big business.




Jon Favreau

With a handful of minor acting roles throughout the early nineties, Jon Favreau had his break as writer and star of the comedy Swingers (1996) before reteaming with co-star Vince Vaughn for his 2001 directorial debut, Made. Favreau enjoyed a festive box office bonanza in 2003 with the comedy Elf ($220m world-wide), although third feature Zathura (2005) disappointed financially and struggled to reclaim its $65m budget. Favreau then restored his reputation (and established his position on the Hollywood A-list) in 2008 with the blockbuster Marvel adaptation Iron Man ($585m in global receipts), with a sequel set to follow in 2010.




Alejandro González Iñárritu

Alejandro González Iñárritu’s gritty 2000 debut Amores perros was named Best Film Not in the English Language at the 2001 BAFTAs (as well as Best Picture at the Mexican Ariel Awards and an Academy Award nomination for Best Foreign Language Film), while English language follow-up 21 Grams (2003) continued to earn the filmmaker further critical acclaim. González Iñárritu completed his ‘Death Trilogy’ in 2006 with the multi-award winning Babel, becoming the first Mexican to be nominated in the Best Director category at the Academy Awards and gaining a Best Film – Drama Golden Globe to add to his already crowded mantelpiece.




Jason Reitman

Canadian filmmaker Jason Reitman (son of comedy legend Ivan) made his feature debut in 2006 with the highly rated satire Thank You for Smoking, while follow-up Juno (2007) continued to enhance his reputation with a host of awards and a Best Director nomination at the 80th Academy Awards. This year Reitman re-teamed with Juno screenwriter Diablo Cody as producer on Jennifer’s Body, while his third feature Up in the Air is hotly tipped to enjoy Oscar success this coming March. Be sure to read Trevor Hogg’s indepth profile on Jason Reitman here.





Zack Snyder

After working as director and cinematographer on a host of TV commercials, Zack Snyder made his feature debut with the 2004 ‘re-imagining’ of George A. Romero’s classic zombie horror Dawn of the Dead, which proved to be one of the better remakes of recent times despite its near-sacred source material. Snyder continued to demonstrate his impressive visual style in bringing Frank Miller’s 300 to the big screen in 2007 before turning his attention to another graphic novel, Alan Moore’s revered superhero epic Watchmen (2009). Up next is animated fantasy adaptation Guardians of Ga’Hoole, based on Kathryn Lasky’s critically acclaimed children’s book series and set for release in September 2010.



Honourable Mentions…

J.J. Abrams
Stephen Daldry
Andrew Dominik
Richard Kelly
Thomas McCarthy

Agree? Disagree? We'd love to hear your comments on the list...

Gary Collinson

Essentials Archive

Movies... For Free! Meet John Doe (1941)

"Movies... For Free!", showcasing classic movies that have fallen out of copyright and are available freely from the public domain (with streaming video!)...


Meet John Doe, 1941.

Directed by Frank Capra.
Starring Gary Cooper and Barbara Stanwyck.

Meet John Doe is a comedy drama from legendary director Frank Capra, who reteams with Gary Cooper after their successful 1936 collaboration Mr. Deeds Goes to Town (for which Capra was named Best Director and Cooper nominated for Best Actor at the 9th Academy Awards). Barbara Stanwyck stars as news reporter Ann Mitchell who, after being laid off from her job as a columnist at The New Bulletin, pens a fake letter from "John Doe" that causes quite a sensation upon publication. Forced to rehire Mitchell, the newspaper employs derelict John Willoughby (Cooper) to portray Doe, with media magnate D.B. Norton (Edward Arnold) using him as a pawn to further his own political ideology.

Often overlooked in favour of Capra's other classic movies, Meet John Doe received an Oscar nomination for Best Original Story (Richard Connell and Robert Presnell, Sr.), and is also notable for leading to a dispute between Capra and screenwriter Robert Riskin (who had penned previous hits Lady for a Day, It Happened One Night, Mr. Deeds Goes to Town and You Can't Take it With You), with Riskin accusing Capra of taking credit for his work and refusing to (willingly) work with the director again.

Almost seventy years after its production the film's themes and moral values remain highly relevant, and in 2005 it was named #49 on the AFI's 100 Years... 100 Cheers: America's Most Inspiring Movies.



Embed courtesy of Internet Archive.

Click here to view all entries in our Movies... For Free! collection.

Related:

Movies... For Free! Lady of Burlesque (1943)
Rory Barker reviews It's A Wonderful Life

Merry Christmas from FlickeringMyth.com

Just a quick note to wish all of our visitors (over 100,000 views since our inception in February!) and contributors a very merry Christmas and best wishes for 2010 from FlickeringMyth.com.

The coming new year looks full of promise for cinephiles and here is just a selection of the delights (or horrors) set to hit our screens throughout 2010...

The Book of Eli (dir. The Hughes Brothers)
The Lovely Bones (dir. Peter Jackson)
44 Inch Chest (dir. Malcolm Venville)
The Princess and the Frog (dir. Ron Clements and John Musker)
Percy Jackson & The Olympians: The Lightning Thief (dir. Chris Columbus)
The Wolfman (dir. Joe Johnston)
Shutter Island (dir. Martin Scorsese)
Alice in Wonderland (dir. Tim Burton)
Green Zone (dir. Paul Greengrass)
Clash of the Titans (dir. Louis Leterrier)
How to Train Your Dragon (dir. Peter Hastings)
Kick-Ass (dir. Matthew Vaughn)
A Nightmare on Elm Street (dir. Samuel Bayer)
Iron Man 2 (dir. Jon Favreau)
Robin Hood (dir. Ridley Scott)
Shrek Forever After (dir. Mike Mitchell)
Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time (dir. Mike Newell)
Sex and the City 2 (dir. Michael Patrick King)
The A-Team (dir. Joe Carnahan)
The Karate Kid (dir. Harald Zwart)
Jonah Hex (dir. Jimmy Hayward)
Toy Story 3 (dir. Lee Unkrich)
The Twilight Saga: Eclipse (dir. David Slade)
The Last Airbender (dir. M. Night Shyamalan)
Predators (dir. Nimrod Antal)
Inception (dir. Christopher Nolan)
The Sorcerer's Apprentice (dir. Jon Turteltaub)
The Expendables (dir. Sylvester Stallone)
MegaMind (dir. Cameron Hood and Kyle Jefferson)
Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 (dir. David Yates)
The Chronicles of Narnia: The Voyage of the Dawn Treader (dir. Michael Apted)
Tron Legacy (dir. Joseph Kosinski)
The Green Hornet (dir. Michel Gondry)
The Three Stooges (dir. The Farrelly Brothers)

My pick for the highest grossing film of 2010 - I'd like to go for Toy Story 3 (which might claim the #1 spot in North America) but in the UK and world-wide it would be foolish to look past Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1.

Hollywood vs. Britain

Jon Dudley compares Hollywood to the British film industry...

“...the American hegemony over cinema in Britain has frequently been blamed for preventing the development of an authentically indigenous cinema” - Tom Ryall

American films have dominated global cinema for many decades now. Such is the high number of Hollywood productions being shown in cinemas across the UK that this has perhaps proved a stumbling block for the progression of British film. But how can two industries that share the same language and ʻwesternisationsʼ as each other be so different?

“Film is capitalism in its [most] brutal form”. This quote made by Jeremy Dyson, creator of The League of Gentlemen sums up the Hollywood studio system. Although these huge studios, such as Warner Brothers and Universal, churn out hundreds of films per year, they are more than just producers of the moving image - they are some of the most successful money making machines in the world.

Films obviously rely on a strong story to get people interested in not only watching but investing in them. Hollywood studios have such vast amounts of money to spend that, to take a line from one of the most commercially successful film franchises of all time “with great power comes great responsibility”. This is something that Armando Iannucci, director of British political satire film In The Loop is not necessarily comfortable with. He is on record as saying “The bigger the budget, the more people have a say”. This is one of the reasons why he did not accept funding from the US for this film so as not to jeapordise his creative input.

Stuart Hazledine is a British screenwriter working in the Hollywood system. He talks about how if a writer goes to a production company with a spec script, and the producers like the idea but not the screenplay, they will simply buy the spec script from the writer and hire a proven screenwriter to develop a script based on the original idea. This is in complete contrast to the support given to British writers and directors.

The UK Film Council has a Development Fund which supports writers who are working on a feature film script that has great potential. Also, producers in Britain appear to be a lot more encouraging of first time writer/directors than their Hollywood counter parts. When I spoke to Daniel Jewel, a producer and Managing Director of Third Man Films, he said that he prefers to work with “emerging British talent and newcomers”. It is notoriously hard to break in to the film industry but the fact that newcomers are being actively encouraged in Britain by governing bodies and enthusiastic producers gives hope that fresh and original films by new talent will be made, whereas Hollywood is either too interested in remakes and adaptations or set on making money from the films made by established individuals. Of course Hollywood makes room for newcomers otherwise the industry would not move forward, however in Britain there seems to be more focus on bringing through talented film makers.

“Without knowing it, and ten years before the creation of the first American studio, Charles Pathé had laid the foundations of the system which would enable the Hollywood moguls to reign over the movie industry for decades to come” - David Puttnam

One of the key differences between the British and American film industries which is the catalyst of the significant financial success of Hollywood productions is the studio system. This is where a company invests money into a film and recoups the money it takes at the box office. This money is then invested into new projects and more often than not American films make a profit and the cycle continues.

This system is not a significant aspect of British film production and many British films are made on low budgets. I spoke to up and coming British writer/director David T. Lynch (no, not THAT David Lynch) about his thoughts. David and his brother have recently been awarded a £250,000 budget to make their first feature, Different Shades of Graham. David was very excited at the prospect of his project going into development, and rightly so, however £250,000 for a Hollywood production would probably not cover even a secondary character actors fee.

Although Britain has many production companies, they are not on the same scale as those in Hollywood. However, David T. Lynch said “Vertigo Films I think is the only company in Britain that takes the American production approach - they put money into films they know will make their money back and possibly a tidy profit”. Vertigo Films know their audience and produce films they feel will appeal to them. In America though, the globally dominating production companies can produce films of varying genres targeting different demographics and still be very commercially successful.

As well as higher production budgets than British films, Hollywood movies have significantly more money to spend on marketing and distribution. The way that the Hollywood studios throw a film at you makes it almost impossible to ignore. Not only are posters, billboards, newspaper and magazines advertisements and trailers more widely distributed, but some marketing techniques are more effective than those used in the UK. In his book The Undeclared War, David Puttnam says how Antoine Lumiére felt that “the key to the popularity of American goods in overseas markets was... their talent for boastful publicity”. This statement is perhaps most appropriate when applied to the American film industry.

David T. Lynch was in Florida, USA when Guy Ritchieʼs film Snatch was released on DVD in America. He says “On the front of the DVD they had Brad Pitt at the front in full colour, then all the other cast behind him in black and white”. Brad Pitt does not play the central protagonist in this film, however in order to sell more copies and appeal to a wider audience, he was key to getting people interested in this movie. It would be wrong to say that British films do not use popular actors to promote their films, as Harry Brown, released theatrically in the UK in late November 2009, featured a solitary image of Michael Caine on its official poster. But it seems American stars have a lot more box office potential, both in their homeland and abroad, than their British counterparts.

Maurice Phillips is a director who has worked on both sides of the Atlantic. I was very curious as to what his own personal experiences and insights into the differences between Hollywood and the British film industries were. “Hollywood is a movie town”, he said. “Film is it's life-blood. Everywhere you look there is evidence of the movie business”. He then went on to talk about how young budding actors, actresses, directors and producers flock to Hollywood to “cash in on the ʻDream Machineʼ”.

What is interesting is that the whole town is dedicated purely to the movie business, and “there are glass towers devoted solely to talent agencies, and the classy restaurants are packed with people making film deals... the LAPD even has a special department devoted solely to facilitating film crews” according to Maurice. This I found intriguing, as not only is film taken more seriously as a form of business in America but it seems to raise the notion of a cultural difference as well - by this I mean that it almost feels like a way of life. People move to Hollywood with the solitary aim of making it in the industry. Of course if they do they will be financially stable for the rest of their lives, but the number of people that do not succeed must eclipse those that do by some margin.

Another very interesting point Maurice talks about is the desire of those that work in Hollywood to get to the top. He said “on a movie set, you will find grips, caterers, secretaries, truck drivers, and extras who all have a movie script they've written”. From this statement it appears that only the top is good enough for the people working in Hollywood and the determination they have is evident. This is in contrast to what John Costello talks about in his book Writing a Screenplay. Of the British industry he says “I make no apologies for holding a general antipathy towards the underachieving, unambitious culture of British films”. He then backs his own point up with a quote from James Wilson, Deputy Head of Production at Film Four. Wilson says “I despair of a film culture that canʼt think beyond the stylistic language of Eastenders”. It is clear from this section in Costelloʼs book that not only himself but other people within the British film industry feel that there is a lack of ambition. “Whoʼs got the balls?” Costello asks. It seems the Americans have.

Although in Britain there seems to be more encouragement for new comers to the industry, it appears that our American cousins have more talent. But maybe we only think like that because, like most of Hollywoodʼs productions, we canʼt help but take more notice.

Jon Dudley is a freelance film and television journalist and his 17-minute short film Justification was shown at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival.

Burning Brightly: A Jane Campion Profile (Part 1)

Trevor Hogg profiles the career of filmmaker and Academy Award-winning screenwriter Jane Campion in the first of a two part feature...

The daughter of Richard Campion, theatre director and co-founder of the New Zealand Players Company, and stage actress Edith Armstrong, Jane Campion was raised in the world of the dramatic arts. The acclaimed filmmaker experienced her first major cinematic moment while watching Swiss Family Robinson (1960); as a pile of onscreen logs rolled down a hill, the eight year old thought she was going to be crushed by them. It was later that her fascination with movies would be aroused; upon seeing Performance (1970), starring British rocker Mick Jagger (Freejack), Campion began her “romance with mystery.”

After graduating from Victoria University with a bachelors degree in anthropology, the Wellington-native went to Europe to pursue her artistic ambitions only to find herself in Australia studying painting at the Sydney College of Arts. While attending the academic institution, Jane Campion produced a short film called Tissues (1980) about a father who had been arrested for child molestation; the project enabled her to trade in her paint brushes for a movie camera, and enroll in the Australian Film, Television and Radio School. The budding filmmaker found critical success with the short film Peel (1982), which The New York Times movie critic Ella Taylor described as being, “a lethally funny study in domestic warfare”; it was awarded the Palme d’Or for Best Short Film at the Cannes Film Festival. Working with her college boyfriend, writer Gerald Lee, Campion created her thirteen-minute follow-up effort Passionless Moments (1983), which won Most Popular Short Film at the Sydney Film Festival.

While still a student, the New Zealander accepted a job with the Australian Women’s Film Unit in 1984. The year was a busy one for Jane Campion as she directed a series of short films: Mishaps: Seduction and Conquest, After Hours, and her thesis assignment A Girl’s Own Story; the latter would have a dramatic impact on director Tamara Jenkins (The Savages) who saw the picture while she was attending film school. “This dreamy, 16 m.m., black and white film flickered on the screen,” recalled Jenkins. “I was flabbergasted. It was so – female, so funny and strange and gorgeously atmospheric. I remember the ingredients: 1960s preadolescent girls in Catholic school uniforms, yearning sexuality, the Beatles, a dysfunctional family dinner, and a girl-group musical number with melancholy girls sitting next to electric heaters singing I Feel the Cold. It gave me permission to make personal movies.”

Reflecting on the usefulness of shooting in the abbreviated format, Campion remarked, “Short films are not inferior. I think the short gives a freedom to filmmakers. What’s appealing is that you don’t have as much responsibility for storytelling and plot. They can be more like a portrait, or a poem. The great thing is that almost everyone ends up doing something creative with them, even those directors who then go on to make quite boring films.” Television summoned Jane Campion in 1986, where she directed an episode of the drama Dancing Daze, as well as Two Friends, which was honoured by the Australian Film Institute with trophies for Best T.V. Film and Best Director.

Collaborating with her now ex-boyfriend, Campion set about making her debut feature film Sweetie (1989). “Its inspiration was the deep confusion that both Gerard Lee, who co-wrote the script with me, and I had had about why our relationship didn’t work when we were in love,” explained the director. “We battled away with it in a complete fog, not understanding why we felt like we loved each other and yet didn’t want to have sex, things like that were very confusing and disappointing.” Though she had left behind painting, Campion had not abandoned her artist background. “I was keen to create a subconscious quality to the film. It’s such a strong part of our lives, and the consensus reality that we use to communicate in cinema today completely ignores that aspect. It’s very present in people and it’s lonely not to have it recognized.”

Summarizing the story, Jane Campion stated, “Kay [Karen Colston] tries to get her life under control, and actually, her control is fake. She’s not having sex with her boyfriend anymore and the real reason is that she’s lying to him. She’s got this secret, and it makes her unable to be open and feel free.” The director clarified her answer, “The secret is about the tree that she pulled out. They compensate with the agreement, ‘Oh, what’s happening to us is that we’re in a spiritual phase.’ That’s something they can agree on and feel good about, in order to keep going on with their relationship. Then Sweetie [Geneviève Lemon] shows up…Sweetie opens the Pandora’s box. She’s both a monster and an angel for doing that, also totally irresponsible and hopeless for it. She pays a big price. In the end, she dies.”

Sweetie proved to be a disturbing film for both movie audiences and film critics; two decades later, Campion has come to terms with the extreme reactions to the picture. “I find it a pain that I have to put up with. And it’s something I used to think was so great and special. I’m just as subject as anyone to getting caught up in narratives. The stories captivate you, and you get involved in them, but they’re not real.” Not all was lost for the debut directorial effort received the Los Angeles Film Critics New Generation Award and the Independent Spirit Award for Best Foreign Film.

Stepping out in the front of the camera, Jane Campion acted in a short film by her elder sister Anna entitled The Audition (1989), which also starred their mother. Though the venture did not convince Campion to change her career path, she would work with both family members again.

An Angel at My Table (1990) was originally conceived as a three-part television miniseries; however, it became a feature film divided into three chapters, each representing a different stage in the life of New Zealand novelist Janet Frame. The source material was the autobiography written by the enigmatic author. “I loved the book. I’ve been wanting to do this ever since I was in film school,” revealed the director. “No one knew anything about her life. It was a mystery because she was quite reclusive. Then this autobiography came out and suddenly this completely mythological person seemed like the most ordinary, honest, sympathetic, completely vulnerable, little round, tubby red-fuzzy-haired person you could imagine. She saw herself as a poetic being and yet didn’t look that way. She discussed the struggle with herself and the time in the mental hospital in a way that was so accessible and charming.” Not only was she was enthralled with the revelations, Campion also came to realize something else. “It’s the story of her life but it could have been my life. It allows you to re-experience your own childhood and all those awful adolescent memories and to laugh about them for a change instead of having them all locked away.”

Each chapter featured a different actress portraying Janet Frame. Karen Fergusson played the child; Alexia Keogh, the adolescent; and Kerry Fox (Country Life), the adult. Cast in the role of a teacher is Jane Campion’s mother Edith. The filmmaker’s sophomore effort would garner international acclaim; the picture won the Grand Special Jury Prize and the OCIC Award at the Venice Film Festival as well as the Toronto International Film Festival Critics Award, and the Independent Spirit Award for Best Foreign Film.

Composing an original screenplay, Campion was inspired by Emily Brontë’s literary classic Wuthering Heights, and the native inhabitants of her island homeland. “I left New Zealand when I was twenty-one, and came back ten years later. It was a strong period for the Māori culture and Māori language, and a certain reevaluation of their rights in New Zealand. For me it was frightening to see that I had a story where I had to find out things for myself. There were Māori roles and I had to work with a Māori adviser to get the story as authentic as possible.” Physically reconstructing New Zealand one hundred fifty years ago was not the objective of the filmmaker. “It was meant [to be] more like an emotional scenery. I imagined a bush the way Europeans of that period experienced it. I think the bush has many different qualities, sometimes it’s fabulous, nice and friendly, and other times suffocating and frightening. With different light the forest has adventural qualities. I wished to use the forest as a passionate scenery, which plays its own role in the story.”

Dedicated to Campion’s mother, The Piano was released in 1993; Holly Hunter (The Firm) plays a mute Scotswoman who is sold into a marriage with a New Zealand frontiersman portrayed by Sam Neill (Evil Angels). Cast as Hunter’s speechless daughter is Anna Paquin (X-Men), while Harvey Keitel (Bugsy) appears as a retired sailor who offers a place of refuge for the treasured musical instrument in return for sexual favours from her mother. “Choosing a cast is one of the most difficult jobs as a director. And it is also the most interesting because the decisions have to be made at a point when you know least about the movie…I received help from the cast too, and I believe that all you have to do is keep your eyes and ears open, then the right actor or actress will tell you what to do.” As for selecting established foreign actors for two of the key roles, Jane Campion stated, “Holly Hunter and Harvey Keitel both come from America but they’ve haven’t become part of the American system. They are used to working in independent productions and with alternative filmmakers like me. There are many reasons why Holly does an excellent job. Ada is not an easy role, and she makes it look effortless. Holly uses intelligence and pragmatism as is necessary to solve the role of Ada. Holly works a lot with her acting. She also developed the unlikely sign language between Ada and Flora [Paquin]. She is a complete work addict.”

Much care went into selecting the pivotal stage prop which causes things to spiral out-of-control. “The piano was chosen by the designer Andrew McAlpine. I queried it at first, because I imagined a tall piano and I found it hard to think of this table as a piano. But at the same moment as I saw it, I loved it.” On how she went about constructing the finale of the tragic tale, Campion replied, “I decided to try following the character’s psychology, and find a poetic or lyrical conclusion, rather than the original ending with a classic settlement. I did not want the film to end violently.”

The Piano became a worldwide critical phenomenon. The Australian Film Institute lauded the movie with eleven awards including Best Actor (Harvey Keitel), Best Actress (Holly Hunter), Best Director, Best Original Screenplay, Best Editing, and Best Cinematography. Hollywood was equally receptive as Jane Campion became the second woman in Oscar history to be nominated for Best Director; the film won Academy Awards for Best Actress (Holly Hunter), Best Supporting Actress (Anna Paquin), and Best Original Screenplay. In Britain, The Piano was awarded at the BAFTAS with Best Actress (Holly Hunter), Best Costume Design, and Best Production Design. At the Cannes Film Festival, the picture shared the top prize with Farewell My Concubine (1993).

Fourteen years later at the same event, Campion experienced an unsettling revelation. “When I saw only one woman on the stage full of Palme d’Or winners at the 60th anniversary of the Cannes, I felt shocked at this physical representation of how few women proportionally are directors, let alone award winners, even now. It seemed that we hadn’t really progressed very far at all.”

For her follow-up effort, Jane Campion had second thoughts about casting an American-born actress on the verge of achieving Hollywood A-list stardom.

Continue to part two.

Read Jane Campion's Top 9 Criterion films, or watch the trailer for her latest feature Bright Star.

Watch the short film A Girl's Own Story, courtesy of Dailymotion:

Trevor Hogg is a freelance video editor and writer who currently resides in Canada.

UK Box Office Top Ten - weekend commencing 18/12/09

UK box office top ten and analysis for the weekend of Friday 18th - Sunday 20th December 2009.

As expected James Cameron's long-gestating 3D sci-fi spectacular Avatar jumps straight in to top the chart, posting the third biggest opening of the year with £8.5m in receipts including Thursday previews [read Trevor Hogg's three-part James Cameron profile right here]. Despite some stiff competition over the Christmas period Avatar should manage to hold firm thanks to the 3D appeal (with almost 80% of takings from 3D screens), and continue to add to its already impressive $240m+ worldwide gross.

Another new release occupies second place in the form of St. Trinians 2: The Legend of Fritton's Gold, with the sequel just falling short of its predeccessor's opening weekend back in December 2007. Meanwhile last week's top film A Christmas Carol falls to third (aided no doubt by the huge loss in 3D screenings), but is yet to slip below this position despite being on release since the start of November. A Christmas Carol is showing remarkable legs much like the Brit comedy Nativity!, which continues to climb the chart and jumps two places to crack the top five for the first time and finish fourth ahead of animated adventure Planet 51.

Spike Jonze fantasy adventure Where the Wild Things Are continues to underperform and drops four places from its second-placed opening last week, while The Twilight Saga: New Moon falls two places to seventh ahead of crime thriller Law Abiding Citizen. The steepest decline this week is saved for low-budget horror Paranormal Activity, which plummets five places to ninth and looks about ready for the count with around £10m at the UK box office. Looking to finish its run with twice that amount is 2012, propping up the chart in tenth place after finishing eighth last time out.

Pos.	Film	Weekend Gross	Week	Total UK Gross
1	Avatar	£8,509,050	1	£8,509,050
2	St Trinian's 2: The Legend of Fritton's Gold	£1,586,832	1	£1,586,832
3	A Christmas Carol	£1,003,616	7	£17,800,095
4	Nativity!	£578,510	4	£3,629,077
5	Planet 51	£451,420	3	£3,240,615
6	Where the Wild Things Are	£415,900	2	£1,763,287
7	The Twilight Saga: New Moon	£349,440	4	£25,862,050
8	Law Abiding Citizen	£307,104	5	£5,452,528
9	Paranormal Activity	£305,637	4	£9,389,581
10	2012	£171,827	4	£19,211,971

Incoming...

A couple of releases will be looking to capitalise on the cold weather this Christmas week with Alvin and the Chipmunks: The Squeakquel hitting screens yesterday (21st) and Guy Ritchie's big-budget version of Sherlock Holmes opening on Boxing Day. Expect both to do well, but top spot may be a little too much to ask against Avatar.

U.K. Box Office Archive

R.I.P. Brittany Murphy (1977 - 2009)

Actress passes away aged 32...

Brittany Murphy has died of natural causes in Los Angeles yesterday, Sunday 20th December. The 32 year old actress reportedly went into cardiac arrest at her home and was taken to the Cedars-Sinai Medical Centre near Beverly Hills where she was pronounced dead on arrival. She is survived by her husband of two years, British screenwriter Simon Monjack.

Murphy began her career aged 14 in the American sit-com Drexell's Class before her breakthrough role in the 1995 teen comedy Clueless. Her other screen credits include Girl, Interrupted (1999), Don't Say A Word (2001), 8 Mile (2002), Uptown Girls (2003) and Sin City (2005). She was also set to feature in Sylvester Stallone's upcoming action ensemble The Expendables.