Donald L. Vasicek Olympus Films+, LLC Writing/Filmmaking/Consulting http://www.donvasicek.com dvasicek@earthlink.net

The Science of Sleep (2006) is a modern example which uses stop motion amongst live action to dazzling effect. Michel Gondry’s film follows the sleeping patterns of a young man who confuses his reality and dream-like state. The narrative blends this technique within the film instilling the viewer with the same emotions. Eagle Vs Shark (2007) employs it as a symbolic vehicle for the development between the two central performers.

Jan Švankmajer is one of Europe’s best stop motion filmmakers. His film Little Otik (2000) is based on the Czech fairytale of a farmer who carves a wooden baby for his infertile wife. In Little Otik the baby comes to life with an appetite so insatiable he eats the family cat, the postman and the social worker. Stop motion is used to animate the character emphasising a macabre image with broken audio of a child crying. Švankmajer mixes puppetry, stop motion and unsettling narrative in his work to create dark themes.

Filmmakers are now reaping the benefit of the web to showcase their work. I have found several fantastic examples of stop motion animation by amateur artists. I encourage anyone with a camera to make an attempt. I myself experimented with line drawings feeling like Dr Frankenstein on completion ”It’s alive, it’s aliiiive!”. It is one of the simplest, if time consuming techniques available literally bringing a story to life.

Article by Hollie Miller                                                www.hollie-miller.com

Article: Hollie Miller                                                 www.hollie-miller.com

Cinema as a visual medium should please aesthetically whether it is for the sake of realism or to transport the viewer to a land of colourful impossibilities. My most preferred use by the cinematographer is the ‘photo shot’ in which a scene can be reminiscent of a captivating photograph. This technique can make a difference to a flat script or mediocre performance.

One of my favourite examples is Dear Frankie (2004, Shona Auerbach) set on location in Greenock a port town in the west of Scotland. The story is simple following a family of three (young mother, her deaf son and his grandmother) as they move into the area. It soon transpires that Frankie and his mother have moved around frequently. They are on the run from Frankie’s abusive father unbeknownst to the boy. Instead his mother has invented an alternate life for is father working away at sea as a sailor. She encourages Frankie to write letters to his ‘dad’ posting them to a sorting office in the city. He receives a reply once a month written by his mother who collects each letter.

As they settle into the new town, Frankie explores the harbour, the library and the streets meeting people and learning about friendship. In reality Greenock is a town which has suffered severe industrial decline over the last ten years, if a resident were asked to comment on the location ‘hauntingly beautiful’ is a description I doubt would spring to their mind. Yet every shot seems to capture a perfect moment. The town and docks look similar to a painting with wide open empty shots capturing that initial sense of isolation which the family feels.

The cinematography is also symbolic of Frankie’s approach to life. As a child he sees the world as a different place, he is under the illusion his violent father leads a charmed life sailing around the globe. As a deaf boy he relies heavily upon his sight for lip reading and so his perspective focuses on a child-like wonder. Every object he encounters takes on a visually delightful appeal. Cinematography in this case acts as a narrative devise as well as a visual art form.

Although the narrative is not challenging and could easily be accused of falling on the side of whimsy, it can be forgiven. The imagery strengthens the story and is highly enjoyable as a result. From a personal perspective, it was intriguing to see a local place portrayed as such knowing that it was achieved through subtle cinematographic techniques. The cinematography opened my eyes to the natural beauty of the town.

Article: Hollie Miller

www.hollie-miller.com

This summer cinema season has been filled with super-natural, super-action heroes. Although I missed HULK and HELLBOY, I did watch the three box office blokes: IRON MAN, HANCOCK and THE DARK KNIGHT. After the July 25-27 weekend, according to the NY Times box office overview, THE DARK KNIGHT had earned a total of $313,781,677 during its first 2 weeks, HANCOCK brought in $206,482,007 after 4 weeks and IRON MAN tallied $314,925,955 over the past 13 weeks in the US and Canada alone.

For a couple of days I have been wondering about the success of these summer block busters. What is it - besides introducing us to some super action heroes on a mission, with top notch professionals in front as well as behind the camera plus immensely high production value - that makes these films so popular?

Sometime last year, after a screening of THE GOLDEN COMPASS, I overheard a mother of a pre-schooler say, that she was fine for her small child to watch this film – because the killings were for a good cause. That seems to be one other communality of these summer hits – their heroes are violent - but only to save the world from evil forces.

I started the season with IRON MAN. Robert Downey Jr.’s does not possess supernatural powers – but is a super-smart inventor and engineer. His IRON MAN does not always take himself completely seriously which adds charm to the character and story. And the subtle love interest between Pepper Potts (Gwyneth Paltrow) and Tony Stark (Robert Downey Jr.) gives the film another dimension, in addition to the incredible gadgets and the thrilling super-hero-action-scenes.

Similarly, HANCOCK offers a lot of humor with Will Smith as the ultimate anti-hero with incredible powers. His HANCOCK is imperfect, with a drinking and severe discipline problem, in urgent need of an image make-over, all of which makes him a very likable guy. However, in the final chapter, the film shifts gears a number of times, moving from a potential love drama to a much more brutal, dark and grim thriller before it turns around one more time to finish on a positive, appeasing note.

Of the three films I saw, THE DARK KNIGHT is by far the darkest, most depressing and daunting one – especially, each time Heath Ledger as the JOKER appears. His JOKER is creepy. Although the horrifying make-up makes Ledger unrecognizable, there had been so much publicity about his sudden death prior to the opening of the film – that I was automatically reminded of his real life tragedy whenever he entered, looking for clues in his powerful and psychotic performance: For example, one of my most memorable scenes in the film is when the JOKER introduces himself to some gangsters stating: “I can make this pencil disappear”. He then takes a mobster’s head and drives the same pencil though it.

At first sight these films seem to perfect the art of violence in the most entertaining way. On second thought it is more complex. Who do we, the audience, root for? With IRON MAN and HANCOCK it is clear: our sympathies are with the heroes and their associates. But how about THE DARK KNIGHT? Is BATMAN -the actual hero of the film- the character that we want to see more of? Or is it the villain, the JOKER that we are most interested in? Even though his motivations and actions are immoral, it is the JOKER that everyone is fascinated with and seems to talk about. I wonder if this is because of Heath Ledger’s passing and whether therefore another kind of hero is created – one where the real life person and the fictitious character converge. And I am curious to know if we therefore project additional meaning and darkness upon the film.

Ah, the blockbusters. We commonly flock to multiplex theatres to watch the films of the summer which seem dazzle the senses. In the interim, we sometimes we forget the films which can be equally as evocative, dazzling and able to conjure up a multitude of emotions.

These are the short film subjects which can be anywhere from one minute to thirty minutes or so. These films can move you just as much as the mainstream ones, sometimes even better.

Over the weekend, I came across a moving film about a man who must dig deep within himself to resolve his past childhood issues. He must muster all the inner strength within to overcome some frightening odds.

The best films I feel, are the ones where the antagonist is oneself, the inner demon that must be conquered or controlled before a change can be brought about. External forces or foes keeping the main character from their initial goal are great, but what puts more meat on the story is the inner struggle and how they triumph in the end (hopefully).

The short film I speak about is called, “It’s Me, Matthew”, a film by Michael Ferreira. Based on a true story, the film covers the life (and romantic life) of the lead character, Matthew in present day but eventually spirals back to where problems first were conceived and remained attached. Nicely shot, the film (running time is only 15 min), touches on many aspects of the human psyche and follows through to tie up all loose ends.

Though it may seem it’s a lot to take in in a mere15 min, but it works. That’s the key to short films, show us compelling storytelling in a short period of time. It should move us, it should make us want to care, it should give us what we ask for when we first enter the viewer experience. Performances were moving as well, “It’s Me, Matthew”, is another reason to hail short films as equals in emotional content, along side its sometimes heavyhitting visual effects cousins.

In The Cann Productions: www.itsmematthew.com

If there are any short films which you feel should be checked out, let us know!

What are US young filmmakers doing? What are their dreams? It is sad if this crowd’s ultimate dream is to become another Spielberg. It is heartbreaking if they are not willing to jump high in their work and touch the sky of “Experiment.”

 Last week I watched an independent American film with an interesting approach, Baghead. Duplass brothers’ filmmaking style is quite far from traditional Hollywood filmmaking and it has a touch of French Cinéma vérité and that’s good for a change. (Even if at times it falls to the low level of the American Reality shows!) Problem is that this film heads nowhere and you just forget it as you finish watching it. What remains with you from this film is not about the relationship of the characters, but just a visual gag! And still I praise the Duplass brothers for saving us from the same Hollywood routine! I thank them for the use of actors by improvisation and letting us witness at least a few beautiful acting moments in the film. I also like the loose plot of the film that brings it closer to be a picture of real life. Unfortunately filmmakers use this kind of unconventional plot just to surprise the audience here and there. But all surprises are only good for first time that you watch the film. I will write more about this. Please tell me what do you think about this topic?

An often overlooked aspect of cinema is the event itself. ‘Hitting the flicks’ was considered a treat something saved for first dates and always took place during the weekends.

The release of ‘Sex and the City Movie’ re-captured this approach, with women dressing flamboyantly getting together in large groups and queuing around the block for the ‘sold-out’ screenings. For a moment ‘event cinema’ was back. Pity therefore the film never shone as much as the sequins on the garish outfits of the audience.

For those of you unfamiliar with the hit sitcom; Sex and the City followed the exploits of four New York women on their ever so complicated search for a ‘happy ending’. I admit I was caught up in the later seasons of the show and admired how it ended without cynicism, schmaltz and not giving too much room for any follow-up episodes. Something many long running television shows fail to achieve. The fact they reunited to make a movie was powered, of course by money. I was interested to see where it would lead after closing on each of their happy endings relatively successfully.

And so the wound was opened. I had hoped it would be a frivolous adventure of what happened next and for the first half hour it did. But, as all audiences know a narrative needs a ‘conflict’ in order to provide a ‘resolution’ and to allow the words ‘The End’ to appear. The conflict in this case is the jilted bride played by Sarah-Jessica Parker in her role as Carrie Bradshaw. The film then follows her and her friends through the aftermath of the doomed wedding and new emotional turmoil; Miranda splitting from her husband, the breakdown between Samantha and her partner and the delicate issue of Charlotte’s pregnancy. Apart from the latter, this new upheaval in the romantic lives of the women only seemed to mock the successful ending to the series. We, the viewer had witnessed the emotional highs and lows of the six seasons, many decisions were made along the way enabling this current conclusion. Therefore, to see it all crumble to dust in the few hours this film was screened seemed somewhat rushed. The first half of the film played the realism card and this is where it did well. Now I am not talking about gritty realism here after all this is a film with dialogue referring frequently to fashion, designers and labels. I do refer to some very naturally acted scenes offering a level of believability. Specifically the scene in which, Carrie and Big casually converse before settling down to sleep for the night. The Valentine’s Day sequence when Miranda and Carrie fall out is played both for laughs and tears. The topic has an emotional impact on the women but Carrie’s dramatic exit is slowed down as she is tangled in several balloons hindering her to comedic effect.

For the best part of the film we are duty bound to endure Carrie’s heartbreak. The man she searched an entire sitcom for left her on the day of their wedding. It is handled quite effectively considering the timeframe. However, this is when the ending betrays the viewer, Big is portrayed throughout as a hated figure and fewer shots are used of him as Carrie’s strength grows.

Then the runaway train ending turns the whole film around. Suddenly she is back in his arms, suddenly they are married and suddenly we are supposed to feel satisfied? Excuse me, but we had devoted quality time helping our friend find her feet only for her to lie down and say ‘hey there, care to wipe your feet on me?’

In true Hollywood tradition it raced to tie the ends together and as a result failed to impress. The previous scenes seemed to lose their weight as the happily married couple grinned vacantly until the credits rolled.

Article by Hollie Miller

www.hollie-miller.com

Cinema focusing in particular on the British gangster scene has in recent years been glamourised by the likes of Guy Ritchie’s Snatch, Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels and subsequent imitators in Layer Cake and The Business. Ritchie introduced a more ‘Americanised’ style to film using high-paid internationally recognised actors such as Brad Pitt and New Hollywood methods of cinematography. Not least the spectacle of fast paced scenes set to popular music. It reinforced a series of representations of Britain or more specifically London rife with gangsters, organised crime and brutality. Meadows’ success is in his accuracy of portraying ‘villains’ without spectacle taking precedence over the narrative.

Drawing on his youth on a council estate in East Staffordshire Meadows’ films arguably contains autobiographical content. Noted in the film This is England (2006), a young boy growing up with an absent father represents issues in Meadows’ own childhood. The film also focuses on the development of characters from small communities similar to his. This is also tackled in his film Dead Man’s Shoes (2004). In the latter, the ‘gangsters’ are represented in a believable way shirking the London based, leather jacket wearing cockney geezers.

The villains are considered to be more believable by both their characterisation of deeply flawed human beings and their portrayal by the actors who play them. The weaknesses found reinforce the reality of the situation. In one scene in Dead Man’s Shoes a group of thugs leave their flat carrying weapons intent on attacking the main character. They do not succeed. On arriving back the flat is trashed with threats daubed in red paint all over the walls. The bravado instantly evaporates as the viewer is introduced to several reaction shots of intimidated, anxious and perturbed men.

Another technique Meadows’ successfully applies to his work is the use of improvisation. Having studied dramatic arts and starred in films Meadows has chosen this method to invoke again the reality and believability of the scene. This has often led to darkly humorous dialogue. Above all it leaves the viewer with an overwhelming sense of having witnessed or become involved in the events.

Therefore although the content of his films never shy away from delivering brutal, shocking scenes, the use of distinctive characterisation and the style of performance provide the genre with a sense of substance over the usual spectacle associated with British gangster films. Shane Meadows has been recognised and awarded accordingly for this input.

Article by Hollie Miller

www.hollie-miller.com