2 into 1 and 1 into 2!

The prestige is about opposites.

It's one man with 2 lives and 2 men with one life! Tesla originally created the machine for Borden who ONLY USED IT ONCE! Where as when Dantone used it he repeated the use of it with a fatal end for the twin, repeatedly killing himself.

The film is also a classic example of Nolan's style. Of his depth as much a blockbuster spectacle. Compare this to The Illusionist that came out around the same time and you can clearly see the differences and why Nolan is such an extraordinary film-maker.

Also note the corollary with the bird trick that features in several scenes of the film, from start to finish.

What I love about the film is that it features magic at a time when it was performed by gentlemen in a very gentlemanly way. There was none of the crazy stunts and spoon-bending that gets past off now as magic. It was more akin to the special effects.

Plus I love the fact that they use genuine magicians in supporting roles such as actor Ricky Jay appearing as the Magician Milton in the film.

I love this film and think in terms of Nolan's back catalogue it's hugely under-valued. If you haven't seen it, watch it. If you have watch it again and again and again!

Nuns On The Run!

Here I was thinking that writing Good Will Hunting (1997) as well as starring in it was a fluke, a one off. That you couldn't be an attractive leading actor and take on other responsibilities within a production. The list is a short one from Woody Allen, Clint Eastwood and George Clooney to Sean Penn, Robert Redford and Zach Braff (Hey I thought Garden State was great even if you don't!).


Whilst it does take the genre of the heist thriller down the path oft wandered, it does it with quality and something to make this more than your typical heist movie. This is not simply a gang robbing film all about the action. It's a rarity that has as well thought out characters as it does stings. You fly from careering, chaotic chase scenes to slight moments of tenderness with ease never feeling the speed bump in pace and you drive across it.

The older Affleck takes the lead this time round, as experienced but disillusioned thief Doug Mccray. He like many others in his genre, just want to get out of the game a start a fresh, with a nice big bag of cash in hand of course! And the film opens straight into his life of crime as we see the influences the greats of the genre have clearly had on Affleck. The first scene nods towards the opening of Heat, with the group of Catholicly camouflaged crooks robbing a Charlestown Bank, ending with them taking a female bank manager, Rebecca Hall, hostage.

It isn't as immediately as engaging as Gone, Baby, Gone but that's a problem really we can set aside to the genre itself.  And whilst the film's central romance between Affleck and his hostage Hall could have been more developed, much like De Niro's enamoured entanglement in Heat, there are so many moving parts to this film that to have all mesh together in one smooth, synchronous action would be a little optimistic. But the film is by no means lacking because of this. 

The Town is a strong thriller that lets you engross in the action but in between these set pieces it doesn't sacrifice the narrative. Comparisons with Michael Mann for this sub-type of film are obvious but in this case justified. Although Affleck is not quite there yet, he's certainly on his way!

No. 8 Fencing Wire....

You can't deny how good the effects are in some films no matter what your viewpoint. Avatar has achieved incredible heights in the visual effects world albeit, in my opinion, to the detriment of the story. The visual flair is phenomenal as you tread a well told story of man versus nature, or as I like to think of the narrative, Fern Gully 2: This time We're Blue!

Most people nowadays seem to instinctually think the latest technology must therefore be the best. And this is true in a sense, but after all those that do not learn from the past are doomed to repeat it, right? John Lasseter probably knows this best, for whilst his company PIXAR, are best known for some of the world's greatest computer generation animated films, such as The Toy Story series, Wall-e, Up, Monsters Inc and The Incredibles, his whole approach to animation not just the computer stuff is based around what he learned from the old men of the Disney Studios. The technology of producing animated films has changed but he saw a need to preserve what was important about Disney animation to begin with. He didn't simply dismiss all the animation work done before because the methods and moved forward and radically changed.

And I think this is a lesson that the rest of the film-making world still needs to learn, including James Cameron. You don't need to shoot in 3D, in motion- capturing suits and have actors inhabit entirely computer-generated worlds to have a film worth of being called a ground-breaking work of effects.

Films like Blade Runner, Gattaca, Moon and District 9 prove this.

Firstly Blade Runner was an entirely in-camera special effects production all achieved with live action sets, model work, lighting, matte painting etc. It was as they say the last truly analogue film. And yet this analogue approach brought forth a film of epic proportions, was considered incredible (eventually) and still remains infallible even today, when we are over-whelmed by megabytes and microchips.

All the effects in Blade Runner were created in camera, like this scene of a future Los Angeles.

Gattaca, a personal favourite of mine, showed that you don't have to have big set pieces of action for a film to fit into the science fiction genre. Yes is wasn't that greater success on it's release, but then again neither was Blade Runner. The film focuses on character and emotional development over scintillating plots of explosions and big pull backs of intergalactic ships. Indeed the emotional development of the film's main character Jerome is more important than the murder plot that draws us into Jerome's story at the start. The effects here are subtle. Set in a future where space travel beyond the boundary of our own Moon is possible. People drive in Prius like cars that have almost no sound as they go by. The world is a much cleaner, slciker place and about the biggest traditional effects shots you'll get are the fleeting glanes of the space vehicles that are the tip of Jerome's drive to succeed in a world where genetic manipulation of the Human race has gone so far that discrimination has become as science.

Effects in Gattaca however, were inconspicuous. From miniature effects of spacecraft taking off in the distance to the use f existing architecture to suggest a future Earth, they weren't the focus of the film but were important to it nonetheless.

Finally there's District 9 and Moon. Two successful science fiction films of the past couple of years that achieve great success with very limited effects budgets. What they lacked in Cameron finances they gained in originality. Moon has a lot of model work to create the activity and action surrounding the character Sam Bell played by Sam Rockwell. But there is also computer stuff there too. Dust falling off the back of vehicles as the traverse the lunar landscape and other small effects combine with all the other effects elements of the film to create a very satisfying film as a whole.

Both Moon and District 9 combine both the computer generated and the practical effect tin seamless slight of hand.

It's not a CGI movie, it's not a model work film entirely, like Sharlto Copley's Wikus in District 9, it's having elements of both that can solve problems the best. Or as Peter Jackson might put it, number 8 fencing wire- whatever works best!

A Knight's Rising Foe

The new Batman villain is probably going to be Doc Strange eh?

Proves two things, most directors get trapped into the habit of using actors they've worked with before. And whilst this can be a good thing, meaning the actor and director no each other's methods of working and hence potentially saving time and money in the process. It also means the director is equally time saving in that theres not that awkward period when you first start working with someone and don't really no what to expect, like when you start at a new educational institute and know no-one there or in the simillar but more meek setting of starting of a new daily job.

But doesn't this also means that you're potentially preventing new talent from having their chance on the main stage. I understand equally that studio will have their hands in the casting pitch and will almost always go against unknowns because of the high risk for them, fame usually guarentees some monicome of success. Take Kevin Smith's last film Cop Out. By no means his greatest achievement (I preffered Jeresey Girl to this schlop) but the fact is although it didn't do aswell as say Inception or Avatar, it didn't drift under the radar, dying a horrible death having failed to make even it's own budget. It made a profit and this is because of one thing, BRUCE WILLIS!

Hanks' only co-star for most of Castaway (2000), Wilson the Wilson Volley Ball.

Another good example of this is Castaway, starring Tom Hanks. A film about one man being trapped alone on an island with anyone else would have bombed. But with Hanks it grosses over $400 million world-wide. Is this success justified? In Tom Hanks' case like many others in Hollywood, yes this is justified but some recently don't seem to warrant the fuss and attention and focus. And what's the point in investing in the stars anyway when 3 of what I would consider to be some of the biggest films of all time all had relative unknowns at their centre, Star Wars, E.T. and Titanic. And even Avatar had what I would consider an unknown as it's lead, Sam Worthington, yes at the time Avatar was released Worthington had been in Terminator Salvation as well as some small, independent stuff. However, as all the press surrounding Avatar informed us, it took years to film Avatar and at the time of his casting, Worthington would've been a risky underdog.

Are stars a bad thing.  No. Is it a bad thing to rely entirely on them to drive the success of a film overlooking production value and quality on the way? YES.

So please Hollywood,  no more Valentine's Day's, The Proposal's, 2012's and Knight and Day's. Lets continue focusing on the quality in Hollywood as Mr. Nolan does .

What's good for bad? PRESENTATION!

Being a huge fan of a certain hero from a doomed far away planet, upon seeing the trailer for Megamind I was greatly intrigued. Here was a film that presented an interesting scenario. A kind of what if Lex Luthor killed Superman, be careful what you wish story. In this case the two central characters aren't such the polar or binary opposites that Lex and Supes are.

Both Megamind and his nemesis Metroman are orphans and sole survivors of their respective worlds. Both were sent out into the universe by the parents and both crash landed on earth. And here is where the similarities fade and the binary opposition arises both with themselves and the man of steel.

One grows up cared for by rich opulent foster parents a far cry from Ma and Pa Kent. More like a what if Kal-el landed in Wayne Manor as a kid. The other, Megamind, pre-empts the justice system a few years and lands in a high security prison. They become mortal enemies a la General Zod and Superman, due to their alien nature although there are as many ties with Lex Luthor in Megamind, but eventually he seemingly destroys Metroman in a fateful final battle. After defeating his mortal foe the sapphire settler finds himself trapped within a monkey's paw. He wished it would happen, it did happen and now he knows not what to do!

The film works fantastically on many levels. It is an excellent animated feature with high production quality and it's carried out with great style. Much like some of Pixar's best features it doesn't limit it's audience to the young, every generation can find something to relate to here from the Marlon Brando impressions that left the kids in our Hatfield audiences bemused whilst their fathers were in tears.

It also works greatly as an examination of Superman & the superhero genre in general. The two characters arrived on earth as equals and it appears to b their upbringing that defines defines the position on a Taoist scale. Good bad right wrong. It's an examination of the ideas and concepts of nature versus nurture.

Yes it furiously mines superhero clichés specifically the man of steel but I think the biggest let downs of the film are the Jimmy Olsen-esque character of Hal, Roxy's cameraman , Minion and Roxy herself. Jonah hill was a mistake for the role of Hal and that combined with his character being horribly written has resulted in a highly insulting stereotype of humanity as a whole.

Roxy's impact as a character should have been a significant one in the film. Equivalent to that of Buzz's impact on Woody in Toy Story.He had his bravado and alternate take on life to contend with similar in some ways to Woody's train of thought. Neither are bad they just take life in their own stride but it's that different perspective that drives the character arcs into new territory. We should have seen this more in Roxy in her attitude towards the Metroman seemingly only she saw. Megamind puts Metroman up on a pedestal himself as this idea of good, or to quote from Superman , of truth and justice and the American way. Whereas the reality Roxy saw was a "man" who was very vein and rather selfish despite all his so called good doings. This is what Megamind as a film really should of focused on rather than merely touching. The ideas of binary opposition and the blurs between good and evil. In the comic world and culture in general, Superman is seen as distinctly good and Lex Luthor is distinctly bad. In reality we don't have these absolutes and that's what this film should focus on more with the characters.

Like Dreamworks' other animated efforts such as Shrek, the film is equally packed with wider cultural references as it is with digs into the superhero genre. Donkey Kong, Brando's Jor-El and a very old school rock soundtrack full of AC/DC, Guns 'N' Roses and Michael Jackson serve to make Megamind's entrances all the more spectacular, after all as the epic egghead himself says being as super-villain is all about presentation. And he never fails in this respect!

The film is fun for all and whilst the story may initially seem a little contrived and almost implodes like the colossal cranium's home-world with the focus shifting to Hal's new persona, Tighten.

Megamind on the whole looks amazing, the 3D works well without trying to hard to impress. By throwing every object that isn't nailed down at you, which with a bunch of superhero characters is a possibility. It isn't as well rounded an examination of the genre as The Incredibles but it succeeds in being funny, entertaining and appealing to all ages.

Hopefully Megamind will return with same presentation and pathos as he's shown in his first outing without succumbing to fourquels entitled Megamind: IV The Quest For Peace upon which he's left in hiatus hell for two decades only to return finally to be ruined again due to repeating plot ideas and strange parental developments....

An Ode to the End of the Current Season of Dexter...

Two Serial Killers, 

Both alike in dignity.

In fair Miami, 

Where we we lay our scene. 

Where unethical blood makes moral hands unclean. 

From forth the blood soaked shipping container, 

A pair of star-cross'd lovers take lives.  

See, how she leans her cheek upon her hand! 

O that I her glove upon that hand, 

That I might touch that knife...  

But soft! What light through yonder window breaks? 

It is the East, and Lumin is the sun! 

Arise, fair sun, and kill the envious Jordan, 

Who is already sick and pale with grief,

That thou his victim art far more murderous than he.  

That I might help give her Jordan, and, when he shall die, 

We shall Take him and cut him out in our kill room,

And he will make her face illuminate so fine. 

That all the world will be in love with our night 

And pay no worship to the garish sun. 

These violent delights have violent ends. 

And in their triumph die, 

Like fire and powder, 

Which as they kiss, consume.  

A glooming peace next Monday morning with it brings; 

The sun, for sorrow, will not show his head: 

For the current season of Dexter shall be dead. 

Go hence, to have more talk of these sad things; 

For there never was a tale with more doom in, 

Than that of Dexter and his Lumin.

Soak up and Slash out!

Nobody expected 9/11 despite all the precedents set in the media

Isn't it a little demeaning to tell us as a race that we are categorically subliminally influenced by the violence we perceive in the media?

Yes there are thousands of thousands of films out there that are as some may say "no holds barred, adrenaline fuelled thrilled rides that only exist to express a conceit of violence. Kill Bill, the evil dead, jack ass, anything by Chuck Norris, Jean-Claude, Steven Segal etc. and generally anything that is typically shown on five US. Films that just show us how cool it is to round house a guy unconscious.

Is there any point to it? Let's face it we are violent beings, it's an evolutionary imperative. Fight or flight. Live or die. So is all the violence we see in the media really turning us into mindless zombies . Yes sure if we only focus on the death and destruction side of things. We are violent there's no denying it but letting that single trait define us and let it be how others define us really does turn us into mindless zombies.

There's no doubt that high violence video games like DOOM certainly had an effect on the kids at Columbine, but did it really define there actions? Should we forget about all the wars and massacres and all the terrible things humanity has shown itself capable of simply because of the possibility of it happening again. After lest we forget what has come before we can't prepare for is still to come?

NO-ONE predicted 9/11 despite all the aircraft high-jacking precidents set in the media and popular film, but that had a flip-side to in that no-one could have predicted what happened after that tragic day. I remember exactly where I was that day in 2001, stood in the teachers lounge at my secondary school staring in disbelief at the atrocity on screen. No doubt it was a heinous act but I never understood the response...the invasion and sacking of countries before then I had never heard never mind understood why it was so important to invade these countries to maintain peace...how oxymoronic. Eye for an eye and the world would be blind but no doubt we would still find a way to fight.

It's interesting how people tried to explain the actions of those involved in Columbine by passing it off as being the media's fault and them being exposed to too much aggression and violence through gaming. Nobody, tried to explain away 9/11 with such pretences. Nobody said " those guys were watching too much Executive Decision and Air Force One before deciding to do this " Religion is usually justification for a lot of the terrible things in the world, but only when that side comes out on top, obviously.

The notion that screen violence can lead to copycat behaviour is now so familiar that it has been the subject of various television fictions, from episodes of The Simpsons to Law and Order, subject to it's own mockery and exposition. You either believe that from violence begets violence, or that viewing violence can in no way automatically cause a person to be violent, a mindless zombie only subject to a cause and an effect. There's no hedging your bets in this debate, despite the fact that we know more about the dark side of the moon than we do about the human brain and the formation of consciousness, society and the media in particular wants you to take a side on the debate. In science if you come to a conclusion without basing it on solid results we see it as speculation but yet we are expected to take a side on screen violence with no such guarantees.

Bring Me The Head Of Bill The Body!

I see why Ivan encourages us to do a post every week and not just several at the end of term all at once... the ideas in the lectures seem to ebb away and become less focused with time, like dreams when you first open your eyes in the morning, or tears in the rain....but anyway, here I am 3 weeks later still trying to get my head around our new lecturer! A not to uncommon problem!

Week one of Bill's lectures introduced him as a ball of game obsessed spontaneity! Less structured than Ivan's lecturers but more challenging because of this.

New Media & Temporal Montage

I don't mean the difference between the old Doctor Who show and the new one as viewed in a Youtube mash-up of clips! Taking aside the discussions of games and gaming, and how if you play if you're on-line with a certain newly released game, how Bill will come up from behind and kill you in a most undignified and unrelenting way. The important thing about this lecture for me were the ideas of the different ways to approach media and their development.

Specifically in film where we focused on ideas of perspective and the passage of time within the medium of film. The focus of this discussion initially was on "The Life of An American Fireman" made in 1903 by Edwin Porter and the ontogeny of the cinematic organism of narrative structure.

                    

In the film the way in which the story is told is defined by the limitations of the technology of the time. The camera is fixed in one place, with a fixed focal length. The film suffers from the same limitations as theatre, confined and constricted with action always directed away from the camera and chronological progression destroyed by this single point of view methodology. It lacks what we now take to be a universal idea in film....the cross cut. A method of editing that allows us to see multiple points of view from within the film and so helping us understand the situation better. It's not only a tool that develops our understanding of one scene but also has a greater effect on the story as a whole. You couldn't have films like Inception, The Matrix or Memento without being able to rapidly change from one perspective to another within the film.

As with the introduction of perspective to painting by artists of the Renaissance, the idea of time being unsecured in film through the use of cross cutting enables us to go beyond the constraints of the traditional narrative progression, start to finish. So whilst the camera and film may have liberated art from the rigid definitions of reality allowing artists like Picasso and Rene Magritte to take skewed perspective on reality. I think that cross-cutting has both allowed us to create a real time evolution of events in a linear manner, it has also allowed for the possibility of ignoring time all together! The Back to the Future film series couldn't exist without being able to simultaneously cut from one perspective to the other!