How to Double Your Box Office

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

Angie Han writes for Slash Film about a new (Beatles-inspired?) double-film project that Joel Edgerton and Jessica Chastain have recently become involved in called The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: His and The Disappearance of Eleanor Rigby: Hers:

"I’m a sucker for movies about failing relationships to begin with, and I love the idea of two films telling the same tale from two different angles. The same exact events can seem radically different depending on who’s telling the story, especially if the people involved aren’t quite on the same wavelength at the moment. On the downside, if the project is badly done, audiences could wind up paying twice for what’s essentially the same film, but the press release notes that both parts are intended as stand-alone features."

When press interviewed Lynne Ramsay for We Need to Talk About Kevin she hinted at the fantasy idea of creating a trilogy – the first film dealing with the Mum's perspective, second from the Father's and the final from the perspective of Kevin himself. I remember reading this and thinking, as an idea, that would be brilliant. But could it ever work?

Sequels, as we know, are the guaranteed sell for studios. If they can get Will Smith and Tommy Lee Jones back together for Men in Black III, it doesn't matter if the story isn't very good - the opening weekend alone should justify the cost. Better yet, shooting two films at the same time and releasing them separately is a much cheaper way to ensure that a sequel is already set-up and yet only pay for the one extended production. Back-to-back productions include Back to the Future Part II and Part III and The Matrix Reloaded and The Matrix Revolutions.

Recently, studios are much happier to gain double the box office by simply splitting a film in two - Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows: Part 1 and Part 2, The Twilight Saga: Breaking Dawn - Part 1 and Part 2, Kill Bill: Vol. 1 and Vol. 2, Che: Part One and Part Two and the upcoming The Hobbit: An Unexpected Journey and The Hobbit: There and Back Again; even Grindhouse, when it didn't garner a big-enough box office in the US, Miramax split up the two films - Planet Terror and Death Proof - and released them separately across the rest of the world. It didn't matter that artistically the films were always intended to be together with characters and actors that appeared in both films.

On the one hand, like Han, we could all agree that the 'idea' justifies the production of the 'double film'. But in this case, I am going to be a little bit more cynical. From the outset, this is a very purposeful project that doesn't cost much but should make a substantial amount of money. Much more a manufactured product akin to a special edition of a chocolate bar rather than a work of art. There are many films that effectively explore the different perspectives of characters without having to dedicate an entire film to each perspective - Rashomon would've become quite tiresome if it was three separate films. Not to mention how it can also be much more interesting to leave certain aspects quite ambiguous - we don't need to know every perspective. Chances are that both films will total roughly 3 hours so they could theoretically be released together as one double-bill feature. But of course, that would not make as much money, would it? The whole point of this is not to push the boundaries of cinema or create personal and meaningful art - it is to make two films for the price of one.

Bottom line is it doesn't matter because it is the idea that sells. (Additionally, funny how they chose the name 'Eleanor Rigby'... that guarantees the obsessive Beatles fan audience too! Kerr-ching!)

Simon Columb

Cinema: The Noble Art Form

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

On Friday 27th January, John Dugdale commented on the movie industry's heavy reliance on literature; writing for The Guardian, he mentions the Best Picture nominees not based on books, noting:

"Diehard believers in cinema's creative autonomy will no doubt point in the Oscars list not only to The Artist, but also to two self-penned movies by publicity-averse veteran auteurs, Woody Allen's Midnight in Paris and Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life. They'd be unwise to do so, as these films are by no means pure of literary influences. Online commenters have begun to note echoes of DH Lawrence (as well as Arthur C. Clarke and Stanley Kubrick's 2001: A Space Odyssey) in Malick's Palme d'Or winner, and particularly The Rainbow's portrayal of one family against a cosmic backdrop; while Midnight in Paris makes no secret of its bookish hankerings, magically granting its present-day protagonist encounters with Djuna Barnes, TS Eliot, Scott and Zelda Fitzgerald, Ernest Hemingway and Gertrude Stein."

Indeed what contemporary work of theatre or cinema is ever "pure of literary influence"? I can appreciate the highlighting of films exclusively based on the books - but Hollywood will always try and make films that have established audiences. For example, the reason The Da Vinci Code and the two (!!!) versions of The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo were made was because of the success of the book. I think the same could be said about the producers' decision to greenlight the hugely successful novel-turned-play War Horse and international bestseller The Help. As I understand, in America Extremely Loud and Incredible Close is actually on the High School syllabus. Talk about an established audience to home-in on.

Then again, you always have the films which completely capitalise on the source material but reinterpret it. Do we ignore the unique and artistic quality of Baz Luhrmann's Romeo + Juliet? The modern-day retelling of Coriolanus? What about The Curious Case of Benjamin Button and Casino Royale? Both from short stories and expanded upon to become feature-length films with much more depth, meaning and - in the case of 007 - action.

Dugdale clearly rates literature as a higher art-form to cinema, hence the 'debt' he believes cinema owes literature. Leonardo Da Vinci argued painting as the more noble art-form in comparison to sculpture, stating the broad range of skills required: "light, shade, colour, body, shape, position, distance, nearness, motion and rest". In a similar way, cinema requires the combination of literature, theatre, music and art to truly become something incredible. With this in mind, maybe Dugdale cannot see the wood for the trees as cinema is a more noble art form through the way it develops and refines the literary word.

Simon Columb

Changing the expectations of cinema...

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

Xan Brooks writes for The Guardian on 19th January about the audience members who demanded a refund (!!!) after realising that The Artist was a silent film:

"Stories like this are reliable broadsheet catnip, because they make us feel so superior to those cultural illiterates who don't read good. What kind of bozo goes to see The Artist without knowing its USP anyway? Who manages to remain so ignorant of the one thing that made the movie a novelty to begin with? Wow, get a load of those morons. Demanding a refund because The Artist is silent? That's like walking out of a Harry Potter adventure angrily protesting that it's full of little kids."

Brooks goes on to comment about how the film is not your usual film - akin to how Drive is not a Fast and Furious heist movie. Rather than feel superior and smug about how ignorant these audience members are it might be better to consider how these audience members were challenged in their expectations of what cinema is. I mean, how many people watched the film without realising it was silent and didn't ask for a refund ... and didn't leave halfway through. How many people have now seen a silent film for the first time ever and realised what a great genre it is ... typing into Google "silent films" to see many pictures of Chaplin, Mary Pickford, Buster Keaton and thought "Hey, I recognise him..." and watched a short video...

In the same way as the two children in Hugo go into their own dream-world about silent-cinema, we can only hope that this film will illuminate a style of filmmaking that is all-but-dead in contemporary cinema. Then when we think about the film winning Best Picture - How many people will watch it purely on this semi-credible award win? "It must be good - it won Best Picture!" they'll say... and then, the start of something beautiful will happen. Film does not just pass the time, film will then emotionally inform, educate and entertain...

Simon Columb

I Want To Report Kim Novak

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

The Telegraph covered a very strange story when the inevitable anti-The Artist publicity machine began in full swing with Kim Novak, star of Hitchcock's Vertigo, chiming in:

"Novak took out a full-page advert in Variety magazine earlier this week, where she said: 'The [Artist] could and should have been able to stand on its own without depending upon Bernard Herrmann's score from Alfred Hitchcock's Vertigo to provide it more drama.' The statement was headed by the words: 'I want to report a rape.'"

The fact that Novak put her name to such a disgusting attack on a film in the first instance is bad enough - indeed the term "rape" is rarely defined as "a film score used on another film". And I am sure that any victim of such an act will fail to see the lighter tone of the term.

If her problem is the use of the score, then why pick on The Artist alone? I don't recall Novak being up-in-arms about the use of Herrmann's score in Tom Ford's A Single Man. And we are meant to believe that Novak has plenty of money to throw about and spend on full-page adverts to insult a film? Quick Question - Name three Kim Novak films. I got Vertigo...

It’s tragic when it is painfully obvious what is going on – Novak was paid a certain amount of money to take out the advert in the hope that anti-Artist publicity will knock it off its pedestal. In the same way that last year the whole King-George-actually-wasn't-very-nice campaign tried to stop The King's Speech from winning the prize. This was a huge misstep and an insult to many people in the words used to describe the used of score-sampling (fully credited). I would say a bigger insult is when, watching reality TV show The Apprentice, I hear music from incredible soundtracks like There Will Be Blood, Wall-E and The Village. More insulting is the use of the incredible Tron: Legacy soundtrack on the new Virgin advert. The subtle use of a great score within a film that celebrates cinema is the least of my worries.

Simon Columb

The Future of Paranormal Activity

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

Stuart Heritage writes about Paranormal Activity 4 in The Guardian... with a very pessimistic attitude:

"The problem is, the wheels might fall off at any minute. The Paranormal Activity formula is now so slick that the films pretty much write themselves. There is a family. They set up cameras all around their house. Nothing happens for 45 minutes. Something goes bang. Nothing happens for another 45 minutes. Someone falls over. The end. That's essentially been the gist of all three existing Paranormal Activity films, with just the lightest of tweakings (there was a baby in the second one, the third one was set in the 1980s and filmed on VHS cameras). If the fourth film continues in this vein, there's a real chance that audiences might just turn up for the last ten minutes to see who falls over, and then go home again."

Heritage seems to be missing a few cameras which haven't been 'touched' yet. What about CCTV rather than cameras which have a personal 'touch' (e.g. the baby sitter in Paranormal Activity 3 'jumping' out to scare us/the Father)? It always has restrictions - the camera operator is using it handheld (Paranormal Activity, Paranormal Activity 3) or the specific locations whereby the home-cameras were set-up (Paranormal Activity 2). Even the rotating-camera in Paranormal Activity 3, though different, it purposefully restricted the options as to how we could be scared. CCTV, YouTube videos and phone cameras all give a little more scope as to how the franchise could carry on. I was not a big fan of the latest installment, I happily looked at the corner of the screen when I knew scares were coming up (telling myself "I'm still looking at the screen ... just a part of the screen that won't jump out at me"). I even began to become bored by the too-often 'jumps' that happened but, as a rebuttal to Heritage's article, many of these 'jump-scares' were within the first 45 minutes and therefore changed the tone a little from the previous two films.

At any rate, I have an idea of pseudo-documentary-footage being collected. Maybe a modern-day documentary crew in an editing suite/building (CCTV) trying to piece the 'found-footage' caught since the chronologically-latest point in Paranormal Activity 2. We obviously see the 'rare' footage of Hunter and Katie which has been found/sent to the documentary crew (camera phones, YouTube videos, fake-films, etc). You could even start with a classic horror staple whereby the opening 'sequence' is an explicit death which the documentary crew found via CCTV, before plunging into the tension of the crew actually piecing it together - will they manage to piece together their documentary before the demons "get" them? Hire me and I'll give you hundreds of alternate ideas.

Personally, unlike Heritage, I think that they have managed to create the last three films incredibly well and the same passion, if it is put into the next film, should ensure an ongoing success. Yes, there is only so far you can go now we know how it started and so 'explaining' things seems a little redundant. As a fan of the Saw franchise, the fact that they killed off the most important character in the third installment and still managed to continue until a seventh installment, simply shows how much you can add to a good concept and an interesting horror franchise. Furthermore, I would argue that Saw IV and Saw VI are potentially in my top 3 installments! Who knows, maybe Paranormal Activity 5 and Paranormal Activity 8 will be the best episodes in the low-budget film-series...

Simon Columb

Who Scores on 007 Skyfall?

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

Germain Lussier writes for /Film about the replacement of David Arnold on the 23rd Bond film, Skyfall:

"To be honest, I couldn’t pick one of Arnold’s Bond scores from the other (I’m more of fan of his Roland Emmerich collaborations) and, usually, most of the Bond music news is attached to the pop star who sings the opening credits song. Arnold’s a fine composer, but it almost feels lazy that he kept getting asked back when each director is so radically different."

As a huge fan of the James Bond franchise - and someone who truly enjoys the wide variety of scores to the 007 films, I couldn't disagree more!

David Arnold is the only composer who has comfortably succeeded John Barry. Many have tried - Eric Serra (Goldeneye), Michael Kamen (Licence to Kill) - but none have managed to balance new scores with traditional James Bond themes as successfully as Barry until David Arnold came along.

For example, Tomorrow Never Dies managed to introduce a solid pace with modern electronic music without ignoring the iconic theme - Arnold even managed to get Moby involved to create his own version of the 007 theme. The World is Not Enough and Die Another Day proceeded to get more electronic and technological. You simply have to compare the electronic percussion on the track 'Whiteout' in Die Another Day to the 'Hamburg Break Out' in Tomorrow Never Dies to see how, initially a contemporary use of technology then became more of an excessive use of equipment - a little too far away from the orchestral scores of the past.

Thank God David Arnold completely changed his palette when working on Casino Royale and Quantum of Solace. The sound effects are no more and Arnold ensures that, in the same way as the films have 'gone back to their roots', the music has too. For example, 'Night at the Opera' on the Quantum of Solace score harks right back to the track 'Capsule in Space' from You Only Live Twice showing the direct influence of John Barry.

In closing, it is worth noting that I do love Thomas Newman. I often listen to his scores for American Beauty, Wall-E and Finding Nemo. And, in fairness, between From Russia with Love and John Barry's final score, The Living Daylights, the odd film had a different composer, only for Barry to return to the franchise in the next film. Composers as diverse as Marvin Hamlisch on The Spy Who Loved Me, George Martin on Live and Let Die and Bill Conti on For Your Eyes Only (For a real laugh, hunt down Conti's Rocky-track for 007 title 'Runaway').

I have a feeling that most composers want to "do" a James Bond film and this was Newman's chance. I doubt Barbara Broccoli and Michael G. Wilson are foolish enough to destroy their connection to David Arnold. If this Sam Mendes 'vision' doesn't wholly work, I'm sure David Arnold will be back on board for the 24th film. Or at least, I hope he is back.

Simon Columb

Cinema Deserves Better

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

Charles Saatchi wrote for The Guardian on Orson Welles and the tragic bulk of cinema that was ignored by the Oscars...

"A quick glance at the history of Oscar winners and nominations throws up many outstanding films that were passed over as Oscar finalists, with more mundane products regularly picking up the plaudits. Since 1950, none of the following movies have even been nominated for best film: North by Northwest; Some Like It Hot; Vertigo; The Searchers; When Harry Met Sally; Blade Runner; Cool Hand Luke; 2001: A Space Odyssey; Groundhog Day; Close Encounters of the Third Kind."

It is a fascinating article that highlights the completely flawed business of Hollywood and how incredible artists, such as Orson Welles, were treated unfairly throughout their time.

My personal issue is the control we, the public, have. Hollywood is a business and, like any business, the tickets we buy dictate what will and won't be made in the future - Orange Wednesdays, Monthly Film Cards - they all count. People will happily watch a sub-standard action film that has been marketed to hell - stating how "well, it was a good way to pass the time" and "I watched it on my monthly film pass - so, it doesn't matter", etc. Whereas art-house and independent cinema, without the marketing clout and cinema screens, struggle to even get the slightest bit of recognition - desperately clinging to the talk of a film festival to gain free-publicity in the press. More often than not, I think you can tell a mile-off whether the film will be worth your time.

We should crave greatness from cinema, we should seek out personal, profound and political issues that directly inform, educate and entertain us. The very idea that cinema is "merely entertainment" puts the industry alongside the "entertainment" of Reality TV and Quiz Shows. When someone happily puts on the TV with no prior knowledge of what is on - simply happy to watch whatever Mr TV decides - it is clear that our own effort is at an all-time low. Don't let this same lack-of-effort dictate the direction of the film industry.

If there is nothing decent on at the cinema, don't settle for the one-which-was-advertised-during-Coronation Street! Maybe choose a different, smaller cinema... maybe choose to watch something you have never watched before... hunt down a Hitchcock, Kubrick or Almodovar ... stream it from the countless legal websites that offer such-a-service.

Because Cinema deserves better.

Simon Columb

Movie Review - War Horse (2011)

War Horse, 2011.

Directed by Steven Spielberg.
Starring Jeremy Irvine, Emily Watson, Peter Mullan, David Thewlis, Benedict Cumberbatch, Toby Kebbell and Tom Hiddleston.


SYNOPSIS:

A horse is separated from its owner and thrust into the midst of World War I when it is sent into action on the Western Front.


In Jurassic Park, there is a scene whereby Palaeontologist Dr Alan Grant (Sam Neill) finds an ill Triceratops. He is transfixed - "It's so beautiful. It's the most beautiful thing I ever saw". This same line could be applied to the War Horse, our protagonist in Steven Spielberg's latest War film. Spielberg's fascination with the idea that Dinosaurs, Animals and Aliens tell us more about ourselves that about themselves, is a theme further explored in War Horse.

Michael Morpugo released the children's novel in 1982, but it was in 2007 when the success of the play on the London South Bank meant that Hollywood became interested. Though successful in its own right, the play was also renowned for the use of puppetry to depict the horses - winning multiple awards for Best Design. Spielberg's interpretation does not use puppetry and relied solely on the beauty of the animal and the core of the story itself.

The film charts the journey of a horse who, born in Devon, provides hope for a family before being taken to assist in World War I. In the War he manages to become an ally of both English and German armies whilst also providing hope for young men and girls from across Europe. The film manages to successfully highlight, through the multiple perspectives, the varying attitudes to war - the horror, the tragedy, the patriotism, the cowardice, the sadness and frustration.

Technically, Spielberg creates a picturesque impression of Devon and Europe, in no small part to the cinematography by longtime collaborator Janusz Kamiński. It almost gives the impression of a hyper-real world whereby the skies are always blue and the endless fields in Devon depict every single variation of green. Initially, this jars a little giving the impression of artificiality but I believe, like many of the concerns I have with the film, this is primarily due to the audience Spielberg is aiming at. This artificiality is heightened by some stylised transitions between scenes, plucked straight from the editing software used for The Adventures of Tintin, as we effortlessly fade from a pair of knitting-needles to a field where our War Horse is ploughing. Even the decision to ensure the film is delivered in the English-language, again, seems to be specifically to cater the younger audience - considering the broad range of characters of German, French and English origin.

World War I also provides a fascinating context to explore the themes. Technologically, the range of weapons from small bayonets attached to the end of rifles for close combat straight through to the large, bulky tanks, are all touched upon. And indeed, without being patronising, the film explores multiple challenging themes: the fear of fighting in a war; the pride in fighting in a war; theft by the Army and the state; war creating broken families; previous generations who have fought in wars changing irreversibly following their own experiences. Though technically ensuring it is accessible to younger audience members, it does not go as you would expect. Nothing goes 'to plan' and characters live and die, with a very clear message: In war, there are no winners - you are either lucky or not. Richard Curtis and Lee Hall have written a script that is equally challenging and haunting whilst still ideal for children. I can only imagine the countless conversations between families following their cinema trip.

This is ultimately a story about a horse - memorably named 'Joey' by Albert Narracott, played touchingly by Jeremy Irvine. The story of the horse is the spine of the film - taking us to see a broad range of characters from David Thewlis' 'Lyons' and Benedict Cumberbatchs' 'Major Stewart', through to Niels Arestrup (Un prophète) playing the grandfather of a young girl Emile who becomes equally besotted with the horse. The cast are suitably strong, but in the case of some young unnamed cast members, where it is less-than strong, you can be safe in the knowledge that our War Horse will sure-enough take us away from those characters and move onto others within minutes.

Schindler's List and Saving Private Ryan recreate sequences from World War II which are simply horrific - the landing on the beach portraying the graphic death of many soldiers whilst the horror we see in Schindler's List in the Auschwitz concentration camp can never be forgotten. These are films that, as important as they shall be to cinema, are not accessible to children. War Horse sets out to depict World War I in a way that children can appreciate - without ignoring the tragedies and horrors that inevitably occur during wartime. The film depicts an innocent animal set against the backdrop of the horrors of war, much like the children who were innocent victims in a conflict they did not create - it is our fighting that hurts the horse, yet it is the horse that manages to bring people together.

I can already see the future as many schools and teachers will ensure that this film plays a core role in the school curriculum. In 1993, Spielberg directed Jurassic Park and Schindler's List. One became the Best Picture Winner whilst the other smashed all box-office records worldwide. In 1997, Spielberg directed The Lost World and Amistad. Here in 2011, we have another two Spielberg films. This is truly the time to view the film - bring the family, and make sure that you have a place to go afterwards because there will be plenty to talk about. Not least the fact that, over the last year, Spielberg has directed two films that, again, establish him as a force to be reckoned with.

Simon Columb

This Is England '88: This Is Forgiveness

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

Euan Ferguson writes in The Observer about the recent TV and, crucially, the outstanding This Is England '88:

"Tellingly, I thought, the hugs said it all. When members of the old bunch hugged, even after estrangement, it was real. When Woody and new girl Jen tried to group-hug the dreadful boss Mr Squires and his new woman, after an increasingly drunken 'bonding' meal at Christmas – yes, it was set at Christmas, and a far truer one than you'll see depicted elsewhere in the next week – glasses and chairs and napkins got all in the way; it couldn't have been more excruciatingly, wittily stilted. When Woody and Lol hugged at the end, apparently reunited, it was very real. This was all phenomenal, partly because you feel the actors thoroughly love and suffer with their deeply etched characters. Roll on their next story, and thus the next chapter in the story of all our lives."

I absolutely adored the film, writing about the Brit-Realism of This Is England myself back in 2010. Therefore I became incredibly excited about the first series, titled This Is England '86. The initial series provided many stories, and many characters, each with their own issues. Amongst the interesting characters though, remained characters who were less-than engaging - Gadget and his own storyline as he fell for an older woman and moped-riders who were almost comical in their bullying of our favourite foul-mouthed schoolboy Shaun (Thomas Turgoose).

This Is England '88 on the other hand is much stronger than its predecessor. Focussing almost solely on the three characters of Lol (Vicky McClure), Woody (Joe Gilgun) and Shaun, we see tragic and differing ideas on acceptance, loss and - most importantly - forgiveness. Forgiveness, as a concept, is something truly complex and something that Shane Meadows and Jack Thorne manage to balance perfectly within the context of Christmas. Ferguson writes about the 'hugs' between characters, and I believe that these hugs are so real and moving because forgiveness is rarely depicted on TV - or at least, it is rarely tackled with such brutal truth and honesty.

Simon Columb

The Artist - Art Will Find a Way

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

Jonathan Romney writes for The Independent about the up-and-coming Oscar-contender The Artist:

"The Artist raises the ghosts of Tinseltown to uncanny effect, but also with a sincerity that's utterly disarming. Executed with rapturous fondness for the period, it's far more than a conceptual film-buff project – although Hazanavicius can wax theoretical about it. 'The directors of the 1920s weren't making silent films – they were just making films. So I had to be aware of the fact that I was addressing people who knew I was making a silent film – and that they knew I knew I was making a silent film.'"

I watched Martin Scorsese’s Hugo last week and, in the same way as The Artist, there is a huge fondness for the love of the Silent Era. It seems that we may be in a time whereby a nostalgic look on the History of Cinema is littering our cinema screens. Whether it be the latest Pedro Almodovar or Quentin Tarantino, whereby they self-reference film-genre relentlessly (the former claiming that The Skin I Live In was considered briefly to become a silent movie, whilst within Talk To Her, Almodovar created a nostalgic-silent movie to depict a rape scene) or My Week with Marilyn glorifying the 50's productions and iconic status of the film stars, decades before the 'celebrity culture' that we currently live in.

I commented last week on the change 'digital cinema' is having on the film industry. If a Silent, French Film wins the Best Picture Oscar for 2011, this clearly shows that maybe the industry is not as cynical as we think. And that clearly, to paraphrase Ian Malcolm in Jurassic Park - "Art will find a way..."

Simon Columb

The Digital Cinema of the Future

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

Mike Gubbins writes for Moviescope about the Digital revolution [read the full article here]:

"The ‘digital dividend’ was the great promise of the post-celluloid era. Lower costs in production, distribution and marketing would go with greater quality and choice of content; less spending, more income. The independent industry was hoping that lower entry costs, direct access to consumers and more programming flexibility would to some extent close the gap with Hollywood, if not exactly level the playing field. The win-win, however, naturally had to begin with pay-pay."

I find this discussion fascinating as there are so many different factors at play - the productions green-lit, the film festivals, the release dates, the publicity and the zeitgeist all contribute to a successful film box-office. Understandably, cinema is not in the habit of making art-for-arts-sake, it is a business that requires a return on investment. So, though we may dislike Transformers: Dark of the Moon being released, we have to accept that the countless independent films are only put into production because a studio has the money - from their blockbusters - to finance them in the first place. Films like Paranormal Activity and successful cinema-release documentaries like Catfish made a huge amount of money, but this is no easy feat: Both captured a zeitgeist of the time, the former replacing the torure-porn obsession (via Saw and Hostel) whilst the Facebook craze was the 'theme' of 2010 with The Social Network garnering a huge amount of press, whilst Catfish even became dubbed "the 'real' Facebook movie"

I had read an article about how multiplexes were first introduced. There was an expectation that the multiplexes were expected to provide a diverse catalogue of options, but "pay-pay" publicity dictates the money ... so, instead, we have the latest blockbuster dominating multiple-screens over the opening weekend, and no release whatsoever for smaller independent, art-house cinema:

"It has been very good at making sure that the 3D blockbusters get maximum space, and has also opened up opportunities for remastered classics and non-film content—all putting the squeeze on specialised film."

Hopefully, the idea of revisiting the past is something that may change the future - maybe the success of The Lion King 3D may dictate that Disney needs to veer away from boy-films like The Sorcerer's Apprentice and Prince of Persia and focus their efforts on quality animation. We await with baited breath ...

Simon Columb

My Fantasy Week with Marilyn

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

Alex von Tunzelmann writes in The Guardian about accuracy of My Week with Marilyn:

"Historically, the film's main problem is that its source for the alleged Clark-Monroe liaison is Clark's diary. In the film's key sequence, Monroe takes too many pills, locks herself in her bedroom, and collapses. Clark climbs in through the window. He refuses to open the door to her worried friends, asserting that he is the best person to look after her, and says he will sleep on the sofa. Instead, he gets into bed with the woozy and incoherent woman and starts telling her he loves her. According to him, that's as far as it goes – but Monroe can't remember anything the next morning, so you've only got his word for it."

I must admit, I think it is complete fiction. There seems to be a very focussed effort to establish a air of 'fact' to the film - opening credits note it is "Based on a True Story", whilst it finishes by charting 'what happened next...' to Colin Clark, the film's protagonist.

Let us consider the reality. Marilyn Monroe, by this point, had been married three times. Two of these men - Joe DiMaggio and Arthur Miller - were successful men, both at the top of their careers: DiMaggio a Major League Baseball player, Arthur Miller a hugely critically and commercially successful playwright and author. She was rumoured to have had affairs with Robert and John F. Kennedy whilst, in the film industry, this also included Marlon Brando.

I'm not saying Marilyn did not have affairs, and I'm not saying she didn't have an affair whilst her recently-married husband was away for a single week during filming of The Prince and the Showgirl. I am saying that the likelihood of an upper-class, son-of-an-art-historian, 3rd-assistant-director - effectively an obsessive fan - six years her junior, becoming in any way romantically involved with Marilyn Monroe strikes me as highly unlikely.

Von Tunzelmann's article highlights the lack of reliability in the sources used - but I think you only need to watch the film and summarise what the biggest flaw is within the narrative: Marilyn Monroe would never be attracted to Colin Clark. In terms of art - books and films go down in history and maybe through these, the myth will become more important than the truth, forever connecting the Clarks with the Kennedys, the Brandos and the Millers through Marilyn Monroe.

Simon Columb

Log-jamming prestige pictures for Oscar season

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

Scott Mendelson writes about the log-jamming nature of prestige pictures pre-Oscar Season in the US:

"Part of the problem is that there are just too many movies to see around this time of year. For reasons that still baffle me, the studios choose to unleash every single major awards contender during a 2-3 month period, rendering what should be a pleasure (seeing some of the year's best films) into a chore, a marathon of balancing screenings and before-work matinees and the like. Maybe people would complain a bit less about how 'Movies stink these days!' if the studios actually spread out their quality product throughout the year rather than holding most of it for November and December."

On the plus side, in England it seems that it is spread a little better from November through to February as, to be in the Oscar race it has to be released in the US for the appropriate year - therefore, the UK release can be a little later. Having said that, I vividly recall the difficulty in watching a few Oscar contenders in January when 127 Hours and The Kings Speech were both released on 7th January. With another film the week after. Another the week after that. Right up until the Oscars itself.

Ironically, the fight to get that all important Oscar-buzz, I believe may have a more detrimental effect. I love cinema and I love trying to ensure I have watched all 10 Oscar Best Picture nominees. But even I will rarely go the cinema twice in one week - its just too expensive! With this in mind, consider the quiet months between March and May, whereby there is nothing released ... what a missed opportunity! The average person cannot see every Oscar nominee and, therefore, is simply at the mercy of what gets a wide release and what gets the most attention and publicity. If nominees represented the whole year (E.g. Shutter Island had no reason to not be in contention at last years awards, but alas, it was released in the US in February 2011 - not the November / December period) rather than those few months, then re-releases could be created once the film is nominated and those who missed it may hunt it down. Reality is, we have a situation whereby we have back-to-back blockbuster-contenders from May to August, some of which fail simply because it is released the same day or the weekend after the new Twilight or Transformers film. Then we have back-to-back 'prestige' pictures, with films losing out on the basis that it is released at the same time as a bigger-publicity-budget film is released. And huge chunks of nothing-ness in between.

This is nothing to do with the art of filmmaking or the quality of product - it is a combination of greed and bad management. What a shame. (Which reminds me, Shame will lose out this year as it is released on 13th January in the UK... the same day as Spielberg's War Horse...)

Simon Columb

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol Getting Some Positive Press... Kind of

Commenting on the commentators with Simon Columb...

Ben Childs managed to see some sort of preview of Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol at the BFI Imax at Waterloo:

"Judging by the quarter-full auditorium at the Waterloo IMAX this morning, studio Paramount's most difficult mission – should they choose to accept it – will be to build buzz for a belated sequel that no one saw coming, and few really clamoured for. It seems there's little press interest for MI4, but if the movie does turn out to be a box-office turkey, that would be rather a pity. This is a series which is getting better with age, and there are indications that the new film might be the best instalment yet."

In the first instance, I caught wind of the buzz a while back and I can't wait to watch it. The bottom line is that Tom Cruise is a great action star. The Mission: Impossible series is different to many other action-film franchises in that in each film has had very different approach. Brian De Palma's spy thriller in 1996 was a great take on the film whilst John Woo blew the doors off with M:I-2 and then finally J.J. Abrams tried to make the film a family story in Mission: Impossible III when the film began as Cruise's wife is held at gun point by the antagonist ... played by indie-movie star Philip Seymour Hoffman.

Brad Bird directs the fourth installment and some characters return - Simon Pegg, Ving Rhames - and the strong use of the word 'abort' in the trailer and Renner's accusatory "we all have secrets Ethan..." indicates we go back to its roots by referring to the first film of the franchise.

I hope Childs is right about the quality of the film - because, especially in sequels, the word-of-mouth is paramount. If people are talking about the film, as Ben Childs does, by saying it is the "best of all four", you will be talking big money. But we all remember the mixed reviews of something like Tron: Legacy and, indeed, the box-office was nowhere near as good as it should've been.

The clock is indeed ticking...

Mission: Impossible - Ghost Protocol is released in the U.K. on December 26th after opening in North America on December 16th.

Simon Columb