Cinema Without Borders Blogs

Moved by the reported plight of his actors made homeless by Indian authorities Danny Boyle and his Trust Jai-Ho, (established after the making of his Oscar winning film Slumdog Millionaire) have begun the process of re-homing. Azharuddin Ismail and his family are allegedly living in new accommodation on the south of the city. Clearance was granted by the Chief Minister of the district for two government apartments who issued this statement;
“Slumdog Millionaire has won Oscar recognition. We thought this would be a proper thing to honour these children acting in the film. It would be a good gesture on the part of the government.”
This ‘gesture’ was part funded by Boyle’s Trust. Danny Boyle widely criticised for the slow response to the situation spoke up in defence of his actions accusing the media of playing an unfair role in the predicament and raising the expectations of the children. “They were given access to a world, an extraordinary and glamorous world, and they understandably want their lives to be completely transformed.” At this point Rubina Ali still remains homeless. It is the aim of the Jai-Ho Trust to re-home her and her family before the monsoon season. We at Cinema Without Borders shall keep you updated with the latest news.

www.hollie-miller.com

Following up to the latest post highlighting the plight of young Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, now homeless after his shanty town was demolished by Indian officials, his 9 year old co-star Rubina Ali, who played the young Latika is in the same situation.

This time , it has been reported the government demolition team used force to remove residents of the slum village. Rubina’s father Rafiq Qureshi was allegedly beaten with bamboo sticks and needed hospital treatment.  This situation is a rough injustice for any human being, and yet these children quite cruelly got a taste of a privileged life only to be dumped back into poverty once the cameras ceased to roll.

We at Cinema Without Borders do not find Danny Boyle and the team behind Slumdog Millionaire responsible for every individual from the film but we do believe that they are owed at least an existence outwith a shanty town. We would love to hear your comments.

www.hollie-miller.com

I think reality TV is very powerful. Although it is not being taken seriously but it is one of the most powerful ways of story telling. Yes story telling. We are all very much used to having famous Hollywood actors play the part of heroes, that it seems strange to see real people playing their own parts as heroes in cinema and TV.
That is why I use Hidden camera style for telling my stories. How ever I have never seen any Hidden camera style cinema in festivals (except Borat!). I think this guy was very brave to initiate such movement in cinema.

Amir Ghahrai

In commercials you would have to tell a story in 20 to 60 seconds. Film makers have to use very short shots (25 frames most of the times and down to 5 frames some times). This has changed the perception of the audiences to a much faster pace. Why? Because the broadcasting fees on major TV channels are so high. Some times the cost of broadcasting your commercial once, equals the costs of producing it. That is why in a 30 second commercial you can count up to 40 to 60 or more shots. Now, as we watch television more than we watch movies in theatres we have gotten used to seeing shots and understanding them at a much faster pace. This has affected the film industry’s styles of movie making. If our kids watch an old movie of 1980s they can get bored. Imagine the audiences of John Wayne’s era watching the Mission Impossible 3. They would feel dizzy I guess. Arguably the likes of Hitchcock used fast paced editing in his suspense sequences, but these shots were not half as short or as many as the shots we see now a days in an action movie. Still, I would say the art of film making has improved thanks to the faster pace of life.

Amir Ghahrai

What makes us laugh?
Have you ever thought about what happens in our brain which creates the effect of laughter?
When we hear a joke, what happens in our brain and why are chemicals pumped in our blood to create the sensation of laughter?
Let’s try it by hearing a joke first, and then I will analyze its effects step by step to understand this sensation.
The Joke: A man approached a TV talk show producer and asked him to be introduced in his show as a man with extraordinary talent.
“What is your extraordinary talent?” the producer asked the man.
“I can count cattle in a zip of a time” the man answered.
“Let’s try you first “
The producer said took the man to a sheep farm and asked him to count the sheep there. The man looked at them and in less than two second he answered: “268 sheep”.
They counted the sheep one by one and to their amazement he was right! There were 268 sheep in that farm yard.
The producer said: “Ok that was too easy. Let’s go to a bigger farm house.”
They went to a much larger place where they had lots of cows.
“Count these now” the producer said. The man looked at them and immediately answered: “3958 cows”.
The producer and his assistants started counting and after about 6 hours, they reached the same number the man had told them, 3958 cows! They were astonished! “I will take you on my show. You are a genius”.
On their way to the studio the producer asked the man: “What is the secret to you counting so fast, can you tell me?”
The man said: “If I tell you, do you promise not to tell anyone?”
“Sure! I will not tell a soul.”
The man said: “I usually count the feet and then divide the number by four”.
Now if you found this joke funny, I will tell you the secret of laughter next week. Why did you laugh at this joke? What happened in your brain? What made you laugh?…

To be continued Amir Ghahrai

No-one seems to take this style of story telling seriously and I don’t know why. I have been making Hidden Camera programs for over 16 years. I am talking about the style of hidden cameras where you put the subject in a situation that they are not at all familiar with. Usually when you have not had a previous experience about an incident, your mind hangs, just like when a computer hangs because it does not have a solution for what you are asking it to do. Usually hidden cameras are called Pranks; I am not talking about pranks. I am talking about when you create an unfamiliar situation and the subject has no idea how to coup with it. It is there that you see some fantastic and different reactions from each individual. You can learn a lot from the creativity of minds in these situations.In one of my plots I pretended that I have taken a number of mental patients for a walk in the park. Then I let them wander alone. During this time they made friends with an individual who was sitting on a bench in the park. Each patient had a poppy flower on his coat. One of them gave his flower to the individual. When I got back to take them to the institution, I pretended that the individual was one of the patients and had to come with me. Now he had to prove to me that I was mistaking. But he was wearing the flower which made him look like one of my patients! His reactions were fantastic, especially when I said: “if you don’t co-operate I will have to give you a shot of tranquilizer. Can you imagine his reaction?

Amir Ghahrai

In light of the news that the 10 year old star of Slumdog Millionaire Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail is now homeless, we at Cinema Without Border’s ask- with a film that gained $200m (£140m) in box office takings how can this be right?

Last week Indian authorities, without prior warning evacuated the residents of the shanty town in Bandra East where Azharuddin lived with his family before tearing it down, leaving everyone homeless. The Indian government claim that the homes were illegally erected on land planned for alternate use, and cleared the make-shift structures as a pre-monsoon deterrent.

Azharuddin Mohammed Ismail, can be seen to break down in an interview to the BBC claiming how he and his family had nothing despite his fame for his role in the Oscar winning film. And now, he no longer has a place to call home.

With Slumdog Millionaire reaching a global phenomenon its hard to ignore the success. 8 Oscar wins and the generation of more than enough revenue to share amongst the poverty stricken cast, but this hasn’t happened.

It isn’t the first problem to go unnoticed either. The choreographer for the ‘Jai Ho’ sequence, Longiness Fernandes was left out of the credits which had caused upset, although later during his Oscar acceptance speech Director Danny Boyle made amends by saying a special thank you. In the case of Azharuddin it isn’t as simple an error. In fact this is of a far more dire situation. Although promised a new home by officials this boy and his family now have nothing. This child, who proved a key character in the film and portrayed his part with strength and talent, isn’t demanding outlandish terms- he is simply asking for a home.

In defence of the producers and Danny Boyle, they are ultimately not responsible for the welfare of these people and efforts have been made on their part to donate to Indian charities. But when the film hails critical acclaim how can they happily bask in the glory knowing that those who helped to shape this success live in abject poverty?

We at Cinema Without Borders are interested in your response and wonder if sales of the film should suffer as a result of this treatment. For further coverage please follow this link.

I tend not to watch scary films. When I was younger I forced myself to sit through Sleepy Hollow to me, a fine achievement, even though it was the middle of the afternoon and sunny outside. This week my friend invited me out to the cinema and as I hadn’t seen her in a while I was keen to meet up. She purchased the tickets so I couldn’t wriggle out of the decision and we settled down to watch The Haunting in Connecticut.

Sitting through the trailers for the likes of Mall Cop and a kooky Jennifer Garner flick I temporarily forgot what we had come to see. My friend loves to be scared and I really don’t so locating my coat, pulled it up to my chin.

A family move to a house in Connecticut. The eldest son is receiving chemotherapy treatment at the local hospital and as the journey back to their hometown was proving too arduous they rent locally. Set during the 1980’s the radiation treatment he undergoes is ground breaking for the time. He has been assessed as an ideal candidate but warned of possible side effects including burns, nausea and hallucinations. At first the film shows the boys struggle through the illness and the first frights come from his fevered dreams. The viewer is led to believe that these visions are manifested entirely through illness, but soon the other family members are involved.

The sound plays a dramatic part in the film, with a gentle chink of chains, to treaded floorboards and then startling music. However it’s the positioning of each shot which proves most unnerving. Generally the characters are framed to the side with an empty chair, open doorway or dark crevice beneath a cupboard as much in shot. In conversational scenes with shots back and forth a figure will sometimes appear and then just as fast disappear jolting the audience. With the frequency of this scene and the music building to an upcoming shock, sometimes nothing appeared keeping the viewer alert and tense throughout.

With all the chills and the occasional gory moment, the ending unfortunately is jarring. According to the opening credits The Haunting in Connecticut is based around a true story . The mother is introduced in the first scene being filmed by documentary makers. Silhouetted from the window behind- face darkened, she recalls the horrors they faced that summer. But we never return to this scene. Instead the film concludes with a few explanatory words, which are seriously unconvincing and abrupt. Watch this film for jumps and starts but don’t focus too much on its ‘real-life’ origins.

www.hollie-miller.com

As release dates for independent film are generally a quiet affair one of the most appealing things about them is the feeling of satisfaction on discovering it years after its creation.

Year of the Dog (2007) written and directed by Mike White, is this months example. I first became aware of the film in a brief trailer on a DVD. I had looked it up and mentioned it to a friend who rented it and passed it on.

The story follows Peggy an office worker of simple means who lives with her dog Pencil in a well-kept suburban house. After the death of Pencil and many tears from me, Peggy (played by the wonderfully convincing Molly Shannon) moves on to adopt a new dog. Throughout the story Peggy learns to live her life around other people and their preoccupations. First we have the paranoid Robin (Josh Pais), Peggy’s boss who seeks his ego massaged at regular intervals. When not contending with constantly reassuring Robin she endures the self involved attitude of her brother and his neurotic wife. It is her irrepressible colleague Layla (played with perfect comic timing by Regina King) and Peter Sarsgaard as the damaged vegan who deliver most of the initial laughs.

The film focuses upon Peggy’s journey from bereavement through to her new found interest in animal rights. A passion which at its height sees her adopt 15 dogs due for lethal injection at the pound, gets her sacked from work and pushes her to attack her neighbour with a hunting knife. Although treading a line of darkness the script is almost entirely humorous. It is acted superbly in that believable indie style; crippled dogs, company fraud and hunting accidents all become hilarious moments. Year of the Dog, for me was a hidden gem, smartly written by White, and executed by some fine performances.

www.hollie-miller.com

Confessions of a Shopaholic is one of this years Valentines Day cinema releases including Bride Wars and He’s Just Not That Into You. Is it me or does this seem the weakest contender? Not only does it use a recycled and bland title, the plot synopsis is severely lacking in …well in sense. A pretty girl in debt, unhappy in her job and sponging off her friends tries to ensnare a wealthy man to pay for her obsessive and compulsive spending habits- and wins. Ah ok- so it’s a film that has thematic qualities which are reflective of the current economic instability? No. Instead it’s a fluff movie adapted from a fluffier ‘airport bestseller’ which just happens to involve ‘bad credit’.
At least in Bride Wars we had the beautiful Anne Hathaway to keep us involved in the ‘story’, with a hilarious performance as both the vulnerable doe-eyed school teacher and the enraged and vengeful bride. Not that I don’t love Isla Fisher, it’s just I am disappointed with her choice in film, but maybe it was the lure of Producer Jerry Bruckheimer and the chance at a lead role that confused her. Yes, Jerry Bruckheimer- has he taken leave of his senses? This is the guy who has brought us Gone in 60 Seconds, Pirates of the Caribbean , Black Hawk Down and the glamorised gore of the C.S.I series. Is he onto a winner here? It’s doubtful. Was it a studio decision- who knows?
If this is a film that aims to curb spending, the moral message is a little hazy. Case study: the average looking Jane Smith, working somewhere less rewarding than Fisher’s ‘boring financial magazine’ lets say a standard office. Jane is in debt and compelled to purchase beyond her means. Never fear says the film- blow away that cloud of financial woe, the answer is simple. Find a rich single man, take him up the aisle, have his child as a down payment and before you can say ‘marriage of convenience’ you have your own wardrobe full of pretty labelled goods paid for by someone else.

www.hollie-miller.com