The other night I treated myself to a double helping of Werner Herzog cinema. BBC3 was having a Herzog night and showed Fitzcarraldo and Aguirre, Wrath of God one after the other! And then a documentary to bring us up to date with his more recent activities.

Why am I raving on like a lunatic about this non Hollywood, German film director whose most famous films are so idiosyncratic and away from the mainstream? Not because these two films generally crop up in most film critics top 20 films of all time. Not because both films contain the acting talents of Klaus Kinski, one of the most charismatic and spell binding (not to say unpredictable) presences on celluloid. No, you just have to watch the films to find out how special they are.

 I had seen Aguirre, Wrath of God, many years ago and it left an indelible impression on me. I just had to see it again. The story is based on a real event about a group of conquistadors fresh from defeating and enslaving the Incas in Peru and their search for El Dorado - the fabled city of gold - in the Peruvian jungles of the Amazon. The opening scene of the Spanish conquistadors trudging down the mountain into the Amazon jungle through the clouds is deliberately long with an electronic musical score and it sets the tone and pace for the rest of the film. As they trudge through the mud down into the jungle you have feelings of foreboding, that the jungle is ready to devour them physically and metaphorically. The canon gets stuck, the horsemen get caught in the jungle vines, the river looks menacing. Its not long before the nobles are arguing amongst themselves, and power struggles erupt with the hunch backed Aguirre plotting and conspiring. The expedition starts to devour itself and descend into madness.

What is so good about the film is the intensity of it. Kinski, in particular, is electric as the morose, treacherous and violent nobleman who eventually leads the doomed expedition further in to the jungle and madness. The cinematography is breath-taking with the merciless jungle and the raging river becoming major characters in the unfolding tragedy. It has epic pretensions but the encroaching jungle makes the film close in on itself. The conspiracies and power struggles are shown at close quarters. It explores the relationships between the classes - between the noblemen, the soldiers and the slaves. As it is based on the only surviving account of the expedition by a priest, there is also an examination of the realtionship between the state and the church. It looks real because it is real. The hardships were actual hardships for the actors. They really are miserable! No CGI or special effects here. Reality filmed well can be just as stunning. Long takes, no flash bang editing here. It sucks you in by osmosis. It gets under the skin. The finale shows the rapidly-unravelling raft floating down the river with the few remaining survivors after the indian attacks and the camera swoops in and flys in circles around the stricken craft whilst Aguirre rants at the jungle, the river and the dead bodies that surround him. An incredible death spiral image. Wow. If you can overcome the German dialogue and the sub titles I urge you to watch this film.

Just imagine. Immediately before Aguirre, Wrath of God, was Fitzcarraldo, an equally esoteric and eccentric piece of quality cinema. It has many of the features of Aguirre, Wrath of God. Kinski is on acting duty again but playing a much different character - an eccentric Irshman called Fitzgerald who buys a plot of rubber plantation land in the inaccessible Peruvian jungle. Everyone thinks he’s mad because he has no way of getting the rubber out of the impenetrable jungle. This is a much more uplifting story of one man’s insistence that the impossible can be made possible (with a little help from your friends). The jungle and the river are once again major players but not so malevolent this time and beautifully filmed. There are long takes and deep focus shots of the steam boat sailing around the bends of the river at normal speed against the majestic backdrop of the jungle. There are long takes of the steam boat actually being mechanically hauled over a steep piece of cleared jungle  over to the next river. This is actually happening. You have to marvel at it. Herzog, however, manages to make it seem fantastical at the same time. And the operatic score perfectly compliments the film. It symbolises civilisation of the wilderness as we see the indigenous tribe buy into Fitzgerald’s dreams. And the music teeters between tragedy and triumph as they overcome the various obstacles put in their path. Not only does he manage to make his money from rubber but he also satisfies his passion for opera as he builds the first opera house in the jungle.

Quite simply the images in this film, as in Aguirre, Wrath of God, burn into your skull. Once seen never forgotten. Iconic images you will not see the likes of elsewhere. Both films march to the beat of their own drums. They are multi-layered and complex but worth investing time in to stimulate your mind and your senses. In the current parlance, these are two films to see before you die.

£14.95 (0 Bid) End Date: Thursday Sep-11-2008 12:40:33 BST Buy It Now for only: £15.45 Bid now | Buy it now | Add to watch list

£16.45 (0 Bid) End Date: Thursday Sep-11-2008 12:40:30 BST Buy It Now for only: £16.95 Bid now | Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 End Date: Friday Sep-12-2008 21:08:37 BST Buy It Now for only: £29.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£6.45 End Date: Friday Sep-12-2008 17:24:37 BST Buy It Now for only: £6.45 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£4.95 (0 Bid) End Date: Monday Sep-15-2008 16:16:49 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

As you can see from the first part of this I am a fan of the old style epics which are usually historical stories with universal themes involving large scale conflict, and where no expense is spared, either on the costumes, settings or numbers of extras to fill the  . However, apart from Gladiator and possibly Troy in the recent past, there are fewer of these types of epic that are made any more. Braveheart (and possibly Dances With Wolves and my favourite, Last of The Mohicans) might also slip into the bottom half of the category.

That is not to say that epic films are not made but they now tend to inhabit different genres. The definition of epic has changed slightly because you can now see Science Fiction epics, Western epics, War epics etc. They are not confined to historical subjects or reality for that matter but they still rely on big stories with universal themes and more CGI effects than any normal film can handle.

Just think of the impact of Star Wars at the time of its release.The first major science fiction epic. You might argue with me that 2001 - A Space Odyssey was really the first space epic but I contend that it paved the way for Star Wars. Nothing had really been seen like this before. The special effects were eye-popping, the scale of the sets huge and the galactic gallivanting and action sequences better than the most advanced computer game at the time.

Like all true epics you need to see it on a wide screen to appreciate its epic qualities. Each episode got bigger and more CGI laden (not always for the better) and pushed the envelope in terms of CGI and what the audience could take in visually. The story of a band of renegades taking on an evil empire is a classic story dressed up in science fiction garb. Like all good stories it follows the Hero’s Journey structure described by Christopher Vogler. Weird and wonderful (and most importantly, memorable) characters also litter the Star Wars films and the energy and superb sound and editing make it an assault on the senses and a roller-coaster ride of action.

No less impressive is The Matrix trilogy although the epic concept, story and visualisation tend to rely more and more on CGI as the mind boggling narrative loses steam and coherence in the third episode. Not to say that the final battle against the machines isn’t exciting and adrenalin-pumping, no siree.

But the real daddy of them all has to be The Lord of The Rings trilogy. This fantasy adventure that brings the well loved Tolkien story to the silver screen has to be the biggest labour of love and the greatest triumph in recent years. Peter Jackson and the cast quite simply have created a series of believable and engrossing characters that interact with each other an imaginary world that soon become an alternative reality throughout the playing time of the films. The films are fantastic but adult in their visualisation. This is not child’s play. And here we have an example of where the CGI definitely enhances the story telling and is not there just to show off. The journey of the Hobbits through the weird and wonderful landscapes imagined by Tolkien provides a strong backbone of narrative against which the colourful characters and sub plots are introduced. Large scale epic story, action and visuals connected to individual emotion and drama in a seamless presentation to the viewer. Not a weak link in the trilogy and something to truly marvel at.

What is interesting is that the true spirit of the epic is still alive …. and living in China. For the past few years, if you want to see a cast of thousands then you need look no further than some of the historical Chinese films such as Hero and The Curse of the Golden Flower. The rich sensual qualities of the fabrics and colours and the large scale settings coupled with balletic action and fighting sequences clearly put these films into the epic category. They carry on the oriental epic tradition elegantly promoted by Kurosawa in Kagemusha and Ran. Choreography and organisation rather than CGI are the order of the day but the final product is no less stirring and spectacular.

It will be interesting to see if the forthcoming Mongol, the story of Genghis Khan, furthers the epic tradition.

One of my great passions in movies is to watch epic films. You know the ones - grand scale, sweeping visuals and action and heroic stories. A good epic film needs the big screen to fit in the cast of thousands and the panoramic view of the action. There have been many epics made over the years (some good, some not so good) but the genre is still alive and well but mainly populated by CGI “casts of thousands”.

As a younger whipper snapper my early view of epics were that they were historical stories based on Greek or Roman tales and myths. I cannot tally up how many subtitled Italian “sword and sandal” epics I watched at the local cinema. Romulus and Remus, Helen of Troy, The Wooden Horse of Troy and many others. They were exciting, colourful, wide screen and action-laced. I can’t say, looking back, that any of them had any great merit but for a young lad of 12 years old they stirred the imagination.

But there were two that stood out during this period as worthy contenders for the best epic ever made. The first is Spartacus and I have mentioned this elsewhere in this blog. I can’t remember whether I blagged my way into the cinema as it was an adult certificate or whether my dad took me but anyway…It had all the trappings of a great epic film - wonderful story of one man against Rome, exquisite photography (you would expect that of Stanley Kubrick though), fine leading actor performance by Kirk Douglas (who also produced the film) and tremendous supporting cast filling in the gaps between the battle scenes. Ah, the battle scenes… Whenever I watch the final battle scene with the Roman legions marching I just marvel at it. It looks like a well-oiled machine but you can see every penny up there on the screen. A definite cast of thousands.

The second and perhaps underrated epic film is El Cid. An unusual subject for an epic at the time of its making produced by the maverick Samuel Bronston and directed by Anthony Mann. A Spanish nobleman unites warring kingdoms in medieval Spain to fight the invading Moors from Africa. The story was not well known but still remarkable for that. A complex story involving political intrigue and family jealousy and betrayal interwoven with grand scale conflict. Many reviewers over the years have said that it is the greatest epic film of all time as long as it keeps its mouth shut. Granted some of the dialogue is clunky and jars occasionally. But there is so much more to marvel at. I watched it on television again for the first time in many years the other day and I must say I was still wowed by it overall. The production design was breathtaking, sumptuous colours, designs and fabrics popping out of the screen. Incredible locations and interiors. I used to think that some of the acting was over the top but I now realise that the actors were fighting to be noticed in the midst of such a visual back drop. Nevertheless, with a strong lead performance from the recently-deceased Charlton Heston and excellent supporting cast it was bound to be a winner. The cream on top of the cake was the action. Robust, bloody and spectacular. The scale and grandeur were there to see. The sight of thousands of Moors marching along the sandy crescent towards Valencia was frightening and blood curdling to a young boy immersed in the story. And the ending is unforgettable with The Cid (already dead but strapped to his horse) leading out his men to meet the Moors in battle and riding away along the sand into the distance after the battle is won. If there is a more iconic scene in a film let me know.

I did watch Ben Hur around the same time but it did not have quite the same impact on me as these two films.

As I grew older two more epic films had an impact on me. They were both directed by the same man, Sergei Bondarchuk. The first was his Russian version of War and Peace by Lev Tolstoy. Now I should say at the start this is not my favourite by any means - it is long (I saw it originally it in two three and a half hour segments) and fairly boring in places unless you are fan of the book. But it sprung into life in the battle scenes. His depiction of the battle of Borodino was amazing and the final shot as the camera tracked back and upwards from just a couple of bodies to show literally thousands of bodies on the battlefield was just heart stopping. A similar device was used in Kurosawa’s Kagemusha as the extent of the carnage is shown and the rivers running red with blood. His photography of the cavalrymen riding into battle with their lances created a fantastic tension and during parts of the battle he freeze framed scenes to make them look like portraits that could be hung in an art gallery.

In the second film, Bondarchuk concentrated on his strengths and produced the rousing Waterloo. More battle action and memorable scenes playing out the events that lead to a very detailed and rousing climax. Again the cavalry scenes were brilliantly realised and the choreographed splendour of the infantry made for action on an epic scale. Aerial shots of the battle field show how difficult it must have been to coordinate the action and make it believable. Again, the film doesn’t get into my top three because there are moments in the film where the momentum of the story is lost but for dramatic and full on epic action in the battle scenes it is hard to beat it.

So little time, so many epics…….

 I watched Atonement on DVD for the first time last week. I was curious to see why there was so much fuss and Oscar buzz about a British period piece set around the second world war. I also had a local interest as the much-heralded, one take scene of the beach at Dunkirk was filmed in Redcar just down the road from where I live.

The film directed by Joe Wright is based on the book by Ian McEwan and displays its literary heritage from the start. It is a strange film in terms of structure and themes. The UK film magazine Empire described it as a manor house mystery followed by war story and a kitchen sink drama ended by a confessional piece to camera. I have to agree mostly and it does feel a little disjointed. To its credit, the acting all round is superb - especially Keira Knightley and James McAvoy - and provides oil for the clunky story structure to slide around on.

The themes of class and forbidden and repressed love are well explored in the opening half of the film. But as you find out from the early moments of the film not all is what it seems. The same scene in the fountain is shown from two different viewpoints to emphasise the differing perceptions of the main protagonists and lead the way to the dramatic and fatal course of action that follows. 

In many ways the standout scene is the Dunkirk beach tracking shot where Robbie is walking around the chaos and carnage but it is almost superfluous. It seems out of place. Its scale is epic and whilst interesting and eye popping it does not add that much to the telling of the story. Maybe it was put there to distract the audience from the loose narrative. It belongs in a different film.

I suppose the only film that I could compare it to would be Cold Mountain. There is a similar story of two fledgling lovers who have never really consummated their love being torn apart by war. Both films are about what might have been and what was. Both films are adaptations of books and I must say that Atonement seems to have had the more difficult birth. Beautiful photography and the depiction of the thirties setting (complete with the sort of accents you would expect from a Noel Coward film of the time) help the film enormously. It is definitely not without its merits.

However, the penultimate act deceives the audience and makes the ending that much more shocking and tragic. I believe it is a fatal flaw that stops it from being a really great film. Whilst it is a clever and a contrived device both in a literary and cinematic sense it frustrated me personally big time. Many reviewers have applauded the ending and see it as a ray of hope in a bleak emotional landscape. I don’t see it that way. The act of atonement itself is not strong enough, sincere enough or romantic enough to satisfy a film audience - well, not this member of that audience. I find the ending more tragic and bleak for all concerned. And the atonement by the girl (now a famous writer) is weak and selfish and all the less sincere for it taking so long to surface. She has given the two ill-fated lovers a future through her last novel, one that they never had in real life. A romantic gesture? But it helps no one, other than to salve her own conscience before she dies. 

I came away from the film feeling short changed in the emotional stakes and unsatisfied. Because of the ending, it did not have the emotional power of say The English Patient and I just felt a little confused and frustrated. Maybe in the literary world such an ending is seen as intelligent and smart but as a film there was a chance for a really powerful ending that went begging. Maybe that’s where too literal an adaptation works against the film narrative.

I will watch it again to see whether I have been too hard on the film and it won’t be a hardship as in many respects it is one of the best British films of this decade.

No, I’m not talking about his drunken rants against Jews but the dark side of his more recent films. Has any one noticed that you have to have a fairly strong stomach to watch the films directed by Mel Gibson? Of course you have. You have to wade through a lot of gore.

It obviously started with Braveheart which is Hollywood through and through. But the violence was quite strong for its time of release. The graphic slitting of throats was a hark back to Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch. And I feel sure that the final hanging, drawing and quartering scenes might have been even more graphic had it not been for trepidations about censorship. We hadn’t seen anything like this before in such detail and it gave us a feeling of revulsion. But he got away with it and precedents were set. One could argue that the scenes were justified in terms of the film narrative. Wallace had to have a strong motivation to hate the English. What better than to show us (not him, by the way, in the film) the graphic death of his wife at the hands of an English Lord. And the final execution scenes were pure Hollywood to show his lasting legacy to Scotland in the form of continuing rebellion.

Next, The Passion of the Christ, gave us Gibson’s account of the final days of Christ up to an including his crucifixion. He stated that the film was about “faith, hope, love and forgiveness”. I am sorry but the abiding memory I will have of the film is of brutality, graphic scenes of violence and revulsion again. His messages were lost in a sea of gore. The film was unbalanced by the long scenes of torture and violence of the flesh. You could almost put the film into the new Gorno category. There seems to be a delight in the violence.

I have not seen Apocalypto yet but I understand from people who have seen it and from reviews that it is no exception to the Gibson “buckets of gore” mantra. It is stunningly beautiful to look at (the cinematography looks exquisite) and perhaps it is a more fitting historical vehicle for him to explore the darker side of human nature and society’s evils. Human sacrifice in the Mayan civilisation is a central issue here in the narrative and as such gives him licence to explore the issue in detail.

Nevertheless, Gibson makes us (un)willing accomplices or voyeurs in these films. You cannot take your eyes off the screen. Is it real violence? Of course not. But how do they achieve that effect? Is it heightened realism? Over the top for the sake of dramatic effect. Probably. Is it meant to offend and cause revulsion? Again probably. Debate and controversy in the media before opening night always guarantees a decent box office with people wanting to make up their own minds. Does it cater to our baser instincts? Has he tapped into an older human consciousness that is in everyone but is rarely awakened? Don’t know is my answer at the moment. Now I am no prude when it comes to watching violence on screen but Mel Gibson’s violence makes me feel revulsion, titillation and guilt in equal measure. The titillation is that I cannot take my eyes off the screen and the guilt is that I cannot defend not taking my eyes off the screen.

His films are never less than interesting but if his films reflect his thoughts, feelings and predispositions then Mel Gibson has already gone to the dark side.

£11.99 End Date: Wednesday Sep-17-2008 11:42:13 BST Buy It Now for only: £11.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£24.99 End Date: Tuesday Sep-09-2008 17:18:40 BST Buy It Now for only: £24.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£10.99 End Date: Saturday Sep-13-2008 16:19:15 BST Buy It Now for only: £10.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£13.99 End Date: Tuesday Sep-09-2008 11:51:25 BST Buy It Now for only: £13.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£13.99 End Date: Tuesday Sep-16-2008 6:23:32 BST Buy It Now for only: £13.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

I’m on a roll now. The Song Remains The Same just started me thinking again about pop music films again. It’s funny how one thing leads to another. I’d almost forgotten about probably the greatest film about popular music and culture. And it was made by a bone fide film maker with a host of cinematic as well as musical talent.

The Last Waltz is a film documentary by Martin Scorcese based around the final(?) gig of The Band, that legendary but cultish rock band, that became famous through being Bob Dylan’s backing band for a while. The film came out only two years later than The Song Remains The Same yet as films they are poles apart.

The Band were more legends in the American music industry rather than world wide famous rock stars. Their pedigree was impeccable, they were killer live performers and they commanded respect amongst their peers. Their friends numbered among the royalty of the 1970s American music scene. Individually, they were not household names like Led Zeppelin or The Who. But together they created a small phenomonen.

Martin Scorcese obviously was a fan and he conducts several interviews personally with The Band about their career. But the main event is the concert footage with guest appearances by Bob Dylan, Neil Young, Joni Mitchell, Van Morrison, Eric Clapton, Dr John and countless others. Not only is the sound reproduction high quality as is the camerwork and lighting but there is a great feeling of celebration in the performances. Judicial use of editing makes the action always interesting. Scorcese displays the concert footage in its best light and highlights the variety of musical styles on display with The Band accompanying the musical guests on many of the songs. It’s almost like you’re there. There are no great stylistic cinematic tricks to distract you from the performances.

The film is worth watching as a historical document and shows a slice of the 1970s American music scene with many of its movers and shakers but for me it’s all about the music. No pyrotechnics, no real myth making agenda just a record of high quality music for the sake of it. Beautiful.

£16.14 (0 Bid) End Date: Saturday Sep-13-2008 12:17:36 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£10.99 End Date: Monday Sep-15-2008 23:52:09 BST Buy It Now for only: £10.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£12.00 End Date: Monday Sep-15-2008 18:50:54 BST Buy It Now for only: £12.00 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£41.40 (0 Bid) End Date: Saturday Sep-13-2008 22:58:46 BST Buy It Now for only: £48.40 Bid now | Buy it now | Add to watch list

£19.99 End Date: Sunday Sep-07-2008 22:27:50 BST Buy It Now for only: £19.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

1999 was one of my favourite years. I studied film and the cinema for a year at John Leggott sixth form college in Scunthorpe and ended up with an “A” Level in Film Studies. For years I had avidly watched movies at the cinema and on the television and more recently on video. I had even done a short course on the effects of media on society in my university degree in 1973. But I had never been introduced to appreciating films critically. I knew a little about the history of the cinema, a little about the grammar and business of films but this course put it all together and gave me a much greater appreciation of the whole package.

There I was, a forty something guy, going through this course with a group of young sixth form students (18 years old at the most). The lecturer - Alistair Mickie - was a joy, really enthusiastic about his subject and it rubbed off on to everybody. It gave me a great lift to go down to the college one night a week and forget about the worries of the day job. I had decades of experience of watching films over the kids and could quite easily pull out specific examples from my memory. I particularly enjoyed the detailed analyses of parts of films and found new meanings and images that I had never seen before. You suddenly start to understand what the director or the actors meant to get across. The theory gave me an insight into how to watch and understand films better than before. It gave me a new lease of life.

Watching Eisenstein and the old Russian directors showed me what montage was all about. We even tried to do a Proppian analysis of the story in Casablanca - the first time that the teacher had even tried this. Even analysis of more recent films (not necessarily great ones) such as Speed and The Net provided insights into the grammar of film and the underlying story telling. Studying Kubrick as an auteur/author and the rules on different genres and being able to discuss them and listen to different views was quite liberating. We had to watch Citizen Kane, every one had to not because it is supposed to be the greatest film of all time but because, as a student it gave you examples of so many cinematic and editing techniques that it could be an example in almost all of the exam questions. And you could choose to analyse more closely some of your favourite films. I chose Seven Samurai and The Life and Death of Colonel Blimp. Very different but very rewarding.

I don’t consider myself a film geek or even an authority. I am an enthusiast. I can still watch new films and appreciate them better than I used to. I have very eclectic tastes. From Hollywood to Art House, studio blockbusters to small independent films, english, american or sub titled and virtually any genre (although I am not too keen on romantic weepies - my better half loves them wouldn’t you know!). I do know that following that course helped me appreciate films and the cinema a lot more. Reading books is fine but discussion and debate makes it better. I suppose film forums and film chat rooms can provide that sort of outlet for your views nowadays. It opens your eyes and sharpens your senses and gives you a vocabulary to talk about a visual medium.

My main message from this post is to keep learning about film. That way you can get a better appreciation and ultimately more satisfaction watching films whether they are good or bad.

We all know a great film when we see one don’t we? Well not always. What is a great film to someone may be awful to someone else. Films are very subjective. Citizen Kane leaves film critics in raptures but today’s teenager will wonder what all the fuss is about (and probably hate it to boot).

We all have our own ideas about what makes a great film. Are popular films great? You would think that something that draws in audiences in their thousands and millions must be great. Not so. Look at Rush Hour 2 and Pearl Harbour. It could be just that the latest hot film star is appearing in their next movie. Bankable stars in mediocre movies. What about Harrison Ford in Sabrina and Six Days, Seven Nights. Your favourite auteur film director’s latest offering should be great based on past performance. Not necessarily. Even Spielberg slips up occasionally – look at 1942 and Amistad. Conversely, some great films have inauspicious beginnings. What film did little business at the box office but became one of the most successful DVDs of all time and in the process became re-evaluated as a great film? The Shawshank Redemption.

All I’ve tried to do is to show that there is no simple way to forecast what will make a great film. As usual it is a combination of factors that, mixed together and cooked at the right temperature with loving care, produce a great film. I believe that no one factor on its own can produce greatness. Not just the director, not just the star, not just the subject. Not just the story or script.

However, two or usually three or more factors working together can do it. Here is my list of ingredients for greatness.

• Story/ Script – This is the most important ingredient for me. You need a story that grabs the audience and takes them with it on a journey. It must affect the audience’s emotions. You need a script that does justice to the story and provides colour and originality to the action. If you don’t have a good story or script you rely too heavily on other factors and the probability of producing a great film plummets. Watch The Godfather I and II. Great stories from an average book but even better scripts. You are drawn into another world with very different codes of conduct and behaviour and morals. The Shawshank Redemption’s story is gripping even though the script came out of a short story by Steven King. Clint Eastwood’s Unforgiven provides an unusual raw and downbeat view of the old west with no heroes riding off into the sunset.
• Acting – good actors telling a good story gives the basis for greatness. One example of greatness that involves just a good story and great acting is Salvador. James Woods gives a career high performance as the thoroughly unlikeable war photographer who goes to El Salvador to make money and retrieve his reputation and in the process gets caught up in the civil war. Good supporting cast performances particularly by James Belushi as his unwitting sidekick drive the film with a nervous energy that has you wincing and squirming. It could be the film that disproves my previous hypothesis where the acting alone could make this film great. A more recent example might be Forest Whittaker’s portrayal of Idi Amin in The Last King of Scotland.
• Cinematography – By this I mean that what you see on the screen makes you go wow. Not just the CGI although that has to be taken into consideration e.g. The Lord of The Rings. But just consider David Lean’s epic Lawrence of Arabia. Beautiful sweeping cinematography conveys the epic feel of the film, the vastness of the desert, the scale of the battles. However, you can equally be impressed by the edgy quality of the cinematography in something like Traffic or Heat. You can also marvel at the beauty, colour and technical artistry in some of the recent Chinese films such as The House of Flying Daggers and In the Mood for Love. 
• Editing – Editing conveys the pace of the film and splices the narrative together. Poor editing can leave an audience confused or bored. A well edited film will enhance the story telling and adjust the pace of the story to the action. Well edited films will have an internal rhythm to them.
• Direction – You may wonder why I’ve taken so long to get to direction. The director is the ringmaster and as such needs to juggle all the above (and more such as art direction, sound, costume etc.) to come up with a great film. The great ones can coax new meanings and nuances out of formulaic stories and scripts. Stanley Kubrick’s Full Metal Jacket could have been just another Vietnam war movie but he turned it into a psychological study that showed the dehumanisation of young recruits to help them face the horrors of war. They provoke exciting performances from average actors. Just watch the incredible performance of Sharon Stone coaxed out by Martin Scorcese in Casino. They can inject beauty, originality and controversy into what could have been mundane films.  Terence Malick’s Days of Heaven uses beautiful photography of the American mid west plains to reflect the ebb and flow of the story. They can tap into the issues in society today and make films relevant to the audience. Spielberg does a great job of raising discussion of crime detection and the legal system by projecting a future where crimes can be detected before they happen in Minority Report. Even historical films can touch a nerve by reflecting issues that are important in today’s society. Kurosawa’s medieval Japanese masterpiece – Rashomon – is all about deception and the search for truth played out as a whodunit in the case of an alleged rape in the woods. And directors can put their own individual stamp on films which has lead to the cult of auteurism or authorship.

There you are. Only five factors but great films will have at least two and usually more of these factors present. Just think of films you believe are great films and assess them against these factors. It is fairly simple to do. Do they stand up?

In conclusion. Why is Citizen Kane a great film? Well, it has at least three of the above factors. The story is good although a little dated now as it is about the rise of a press baron (loosely based on the life of Randolph Hearst) and shows the arc of his life and the effect on people around him. However, it does not engage the emotions of the audience and is quite cold. Where it scores highly is in the cinematography, the editing and the direction. The cinematography and editing are ground-breaking and extremely well executed and were way ahead of their time. They actually helped to form a new grammar for films. The direction was excellent in that the telling of the story and the use of new cinematography techniques add nuances and layers to the film beyond the story and script. One could argue that the acting was first rate as well from Orson Welles as the eponymous lead and Joseph Cotton. So, 3or 4 out of 5 is pretty good. Whether it is the best film of all time………

£29.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:19:39 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£29.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:05:35 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£45.00 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 19:48:13 BST Buy It Now for only: £45.00 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:19:46 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£17.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 13:19:46 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

Well, I took my son to see 300 at the local Empire multiplex on Wednesday to see for myself what all the hype was about. I have to admit that it was far better than I had imagined. As long as you watch it  as a fantasy rendition of a true life event, then you see a stunning piece of cinematography and special effects.

At the centre of the film are two strong performances by Gerard Butler (Leonidas) and Lena Headey as his queen. My prayers for some back story and a bit of political intrigue in the plot were answered although it was never going to score highly in these. Why? Because its focus is the battle itself. The scenes in Sparta are merely pauses for you to get your breath back after what are incredible and adrenalin-laced set pieces.

The film revels in war and mayhem. The action scenes are balletic in their choreography and the sense of overwhelming force is always in the background of the shots.  There is even a bit of grim humour as Leonidas, eating an apple, and his captain carry on an everyday conversation whilst wounded Persians are being speared to death around them after the battle. No prisoners. They are Spartans.

The final scenes where Leonidas and his men are slaughtered by arrows is realized in spectacular fashion although surprisingly you don’t feel the emotional pull of, say, “Gladiator”. The sense of a doomed enterprise is overridden by the battle lust. The only hint of vulnerability is when the captain’s son is killed in front of this eyes and he goes mad for a while.

The enemy, Xerxes the god king of Persia, is portrayed as an exotic, exaggerated, charming devil who uses persuasion and seduction to get what he wants. If all else fails he falls back on barbaric cruelty. He looks and feels like a monster, almost other-worldly. I guess this was done to contrast starkly against the heroic and human Leonidas.

All in all, 300 is a roller coaster of an action movie with a look and feel that we have never really seen before in epic movies. Well done Zack Snyder again. A pretty staggering follow up to “Dawn of the Dead”. Even my son loved it.

It must be a great time to be a young energetic and imaginative film-maker at the moment. “The world is your lobster!” as Derek Trotter might have said. Why do I say that?  Because it seems to me that they have more options now than their predecessors ever had.

It was not so long ago that fresh-faced graduates of film schools would get on the ladder of major film-making through the auspices of the large production companies. Getting their face known, showing their skills and abilities and eventually climbing the corporate ladder

But there are some trends that are evident now that could cut through all of the traditional ways of making films, marketing, distributing and presenting them.

Digital video is one of the most significant developments that is starting to democratise film-making. In theory, any one can make a film as long as you have a DV recorder and a PC with the right software. True you still need to have talent and vision but it doesn’t cost the earth to get started. The cost of storing and manipulating moving images has plumetted as processing power becomes greater and the price of hard disks and storge media decreases. Special effects are available to all with low cost, chromakey technology. The quality of DV recorders is improving daily and excellent sound capture equipment is within the reach of most budding movie makers. Editing can be done on the PC.

The technical and cost barriers to making your own film have been eroded away. Just get together with a few talented mates, use your imagination and ingenuity, get organised with a script and actors and go and make your film! Just take some inspiration from the original “Evil Dead”, “The Blair Witch Project” and “Napolean Dynamite”. Even major film makers are converting to DV. Mike Figgis has experimented with DV on ”Time Code” (2000) and just recently David Lynch has released “Inland Empire” (2007) to critical acclaim.

So what happens then. Who is going to see your masterpiece? How can you get paid for your efforts? When are you going to be invited to Hollywood?

Apart from your parents and interested friends is any one else likely to see your creation? Well, if you get out there and market it, quite probably. There is a huge audience out there to tap into. Just look at the rise of YouTube. People making small films of themselves or things and events around them and making them available to any one who has a PC across the globe. This site gets millions of hits every day. No surpirise that Google has taken them over. Why not use it as a marketing opportunity to show a trailer of your film? David Lynch did this with “Inland Empire”. Viral marketing and word of mouth could hook you up with thousands of potential viewers and get that precious PR and buzz. All for free!

As video streaming technology improves you could distribute your film yourself over the net. Bypassing the traditional means of film distribution. There are already loads of internet operations that sell films by download. The infrastructure is already there for you to make money.

Going straight to video is usually filmspeak for poor quality films that are likely to do poorly at the box office. Actually you could turn that round and make quality films that will only be seen in the home and not at the cinemas. People will be able to still have a great film experience with all the new Home Cinema technology (50+ inch screens, Dolby Digital sound through a multitude of speakers etc) being sold at the moment.

So in effect you don’t need the big procduction companies, the big distribution companies and the big cinema multiplex chains. Granted if you want to make an enormous epic like Star Wars or Lord of the Rings then it might be a little difficult to do it a home DV recorder but who knows with a little imagination……..