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.

Werner Herzog Box Set (5 Discs) - New DVD

Werner Herzog / Klaus Kinski Box Set (6 Discs) New DVD

Werner Herzog Box Set 1 Sealed 6 dvd RG 2 Klaus Kinski

Werner Herzog's MY BEST FIEND - All Region DVD

NOSFERATU.VAMPYRE.WERNER HERZOG.K. KINSKI.1st EDITION

Many people have read the books by Thomas Harris that introduced the serial killer, Dr Hannibal Lecter, to an unsuspecting world. Who can forget Anthony Hopkin’s performance in Silence of the Lambs when that story was transferred to the silver screen.

However, his first appearance was several years earlier in a small but pivotal cameo role in the first adaptation of Red Dragon called Manhunter. It was directed by a little known director at the time who was famous for creating the US cop series Miami Vice - Michael Mann. Many years later, after the success of the Silence of the Lambs and Hannibal, a big budget remake of Red Dragon was made starring Edward Norton, Ralph Fiennes and Anthony Hopkins reprising his role as Dr Lecter.

But which was the better film?

Manhunter was a low key but stylish film on a relatively low budget. So no famous movie stars only good actors propelling along a spare and tense script. The audience is a key member of the film crew here as they are required to use their imagination throughout the film to fill in the gaps as you are told but not shown the grisly goings on. All the audience sees is the aftermath in all its gory detail. It is also a puzzle which engages the audience. How can they find the Tooth Fairy in time before he kills another innocent? The film is ground breaking as it introduces us to the techniques of forensic criminal investigation used by the FBI. I would go so far as to say that it is the forerunner of the CSI TV series. Heck, you’ve even got the actor who played Will Graham in Manhunter - William Petersen - as the head of the original CSI unit!

Manhunter is stylish too. Many film conventions are broken here. The scenes with Lecter are shown in his brilliant white prison cell. Glaring light and white backgrounds. Most monsters emerge from the dark. This one is shown in the light. Lecter himself is an educated, manipulative man who would not be out of place in a board room or a university. The architecture of the prison/ secure facility where Lecter is held is interesting again all white but labyrinthine. You see Graham trying to get out but seemingly going round and round. Is it a representation of Graham’s mind, is he going insane? There are lots of glossy Miami Vice-like touches in the beach house scenes as well.

But the key to this film is the script. It is maybe not the most faithful adaptation of the book out but concentrates on the key storyline to produce a gripping film. There is no scene that does not have a function, no dialogue that does not propel the story onward. A masterpiece of conciseness. The audience are willing participants in filling in the gaps. The technical forensic stuff is real and not presented for dummies. It is restless and sparks into life at the appropriate moments. The story works and the climaxes are satisfying.

So is it better than the big budget remake? My view is a resounding yes. Red Dragon boasts actors with a high pedigree and another performance by Anthony Hopkins as Lecter. But we tend to see in our mind the Lecter from the Silence of the Lambs. If you compare the performances by Hopkins and Brian Cox (Lecter in Manhunter) they are different but equally chilling in their own way. Cox is almost brash and arrogant and not very menacing until you see what he can do in the scene where he finds out Graham’s home address. Hopkins is charming and menacing but we know already what despicable things he can do from the previous films and this detracts a little from the menace. It’s almost like meeting an old friend again. We’re not frightened merely eager to see what he’s been up to! Red Dragon is possibly a film too far for Dr Hannibal Lecter.

For all its production values and good acting Red Dragon is a bit of a yawn. Red Dragon may be a a more faithful adaptation of the book but it’s too long and loses its tension several times. We are after all working in a different medium. We see the moment when Graham discovers Lecter as the serial killer and the reason why he left the FBI. The grisly scene is shown it all its technicolour glory as Graham is sliced up by Lecter but is it any scarier or better than the few terse references in Manhunter. In my view, less is more and the Red Dragon scene seems gratuitous.

In trying to spend more time looking at the Tooth Fairy’s character it drains the story of its lifeblood. Our monsters need to be unknown to make them scary. This also knocks the point of view out of whack. Which character is driving the film? Graham or the Tooth Fairy or Lecter? The script and story meander along looking for the directions to the end. For those of us who have seen Manhunter we know the story, we know the ending, we have the route map. We just shout at Red Dragon to get on with it.

At the end of the day I find Red Dragon a bit redundant. Why was it made anyway? Hollywood bosses trying to build a franchise from the Thomas Harris books? For those of you who have not seen Manhunter and or Red Dragon get them from your local DVD rental and check it out for yourself.

THOMAS HARRIS - HANNIBAL RISING - HARDBACK BOOK

Hannibal Rising Book | Thomas Harris

HANNIBAL RISING - THOMAS HARRIS

I'm OK, You're OK - Harris, Thomas NEW BOOK

Thomas Harris | Hannibal Rising | Book NEW *

Well, I did watch it again with my wife this time. It is a film that bears watching again and I appreciated much more the good points of the film. However, I still stand by my comments about the ending.

The beginning scenes give you all the clues to the film in a really cinematic way. The ambiguous opening shot of the country mansion pulls back to reveal a doll’s house. Nothing is really as it seems. The scenes repeated from different points of view. The typewriter clack on the soundtrack morphing into the music. Very much literary references. And one of the things I missed but my wife picked up on quickly - the relationship between Robbie and Cecilia. Nothing is said in the narrative but again the clues are there. Robbie, the lowly cook’s son has been financed in his education by the now dead head of the household and his mother’s assertion that Robbie was “nothing like his father” suggest that there has been a liaison in the past between the master and the cook that produced Robbie. So maybe there is more of the forbidden love element than I originally thought with Robbie and Cecilia being related. Incestuous goings on amongst the gentry - that wouldn’t do!

One element of the film that my wife and I both agreed could have been improved was the sound quality. As most of the dialogue was fast and of the Noel Coward variety, clear sound was essential but we kept missing key lines in the film and having to ask each other what did they just say.

I watched the final half hour carefully again and still feel duped. The director Joe Wright may retort that you were warned during the first half of the film that things were not as they seem. So, why were you not sceptical about the latter scenes in the hospital and the scene at Cecilia’s flat? My response would be that there were no obvious clues in these scenes as there had been in previous scenes. Deliberately so to make the ending that much more unexpected. I was interpreting it as straight forward narrative and genre. A sneaky trick.

The final confessional by the dying Briony I understood better her arguments but I still say that it was a weak gesture that would mean nothing to anyone except her. Atonement, to me, means acknowledging your mistakes, your sins, and trying your best to put them right. Her tragedy was that she could not put them right for Robbie and Cecilia in real life. But she could have confessed to Robbie’s mother. She could have done the same to her mother (although we are told that the episode had been swept under the carpet). But she didn’t and what she did was far little too late and comes across as self serving only. She could have lived with her conscience after confessing better but might have had to endure the wrath or anger of real people still alive. Instead she retreats into a fictional world of “what might have been” for what seems to have been the rest of her life. Maybe that was her penance for her dreadful act. Penance - now that would have been a better title.

 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.

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………

100 MYSTERY MOVIE CINEMA CLASSICS NEW 24 DVD BOX SET

100 MYSTERY MOVIE CINEMA CLASSICS NEW 24 DVD BOX SET

Flavour Of The Month Classic 16mm Cinema Adverts

100 MYSTERY MOVIE CINEMA CLASSICS NEW 24 DVD BOX SET

ACTION MOVIE CLASSICS : 50 CINEMA GR8s : NEW BOX SET

I have recently been working on a free toolbar specifically designed for film enthusiasts. And now I have one to launch to the world! It’s fairly basic at the moment but I will continue developing it and adding whatever features I can to it, hopefully, with your help.

As I said it is designed with film enthusiasts in mind and has a number of features that will make their (and my) life easier, such as:

• A direct link to the Films @ Dave’s Info Cafe web site! (I am developing it after all)
• Google search functionality
• Links to specialist film-related web sites and resources
• RSS feeds from film-related web sites and blogs
• Direct messaging facility
• Ticker box with access to reviews of the latest DVD releases
• Chat room restricted to other toolbar members ie film enthusiasts!
• Windows Media Player - easy access button

I addition there are several other useful features on the toolbar, such as:

• Pop Up blocker
• Email notifier - customise it so that you can access any or all of your email accounts and be notified of incoming mail
• Weather - customise this to find out what the weather is like in your part of the world (or any part of the world for that matter)
• Radio player - listen to a selection of online radio stations while you are surfing

If you are interested you can download it from the link below:

http://filmsdavesinfocafe.OurToolbar.com

I have loaded it on to my computer and have been using it for a few days. I have run the full Yahoo Spyware scan on my hard disk after I installed it and found no problems. However, I regularly scan my hard disk for spyware and suggest you do the same as a matter of routine.

This is only the start. I will be developing the toolbar over the course of the next few months. If you download it you will see any improvements that I make AUTOMATICALLY. It will change before your eyes! You will not have to uninstall and then install the latest version. Please let me have you feedback on the toolbar, particularly any more film-related links and RSS feeds. I can then add them and everyone can share the improvement. If you have any ideas for more film-related functionality I will try to take them on board (within the limitations of the software that I am using).

Ken Loach is one of the most successful and feted British film directors of all time. He has won 64 film awards and been nominated for 38 others. Yet he has never made a “commercial” film nor had box office smash hit. And he always struggles to get finance for his films. He is the doyen of European cinema yet politely ignored in the UK and the USA. You won’t see him mixing with the rich and famous of Hollywood, talking deals and the like. You may not have seen any of his films at the cinema in the UK or USA (they tend to get a very limited release, even the ones that have won awards). His DVD releases usually end up in the World Cinema section. Yet he is rarely out of work.

How has this happened? To understand this fascinating enigma you have to understand the man himself, where he has come from and his principles and beliefs.

Loach started in television and made his name initially directing social issue dramas for the BBC. He was so successful that “Cathy Come Home”, an episode from the Wednesday play series in 1966 about homelessness, created such a profound impact on viewers that it actually precipitated changes in the law in the UK. It was a social realist drama using unknown actors and had the feeling of a documentary rather than a traditional drama.

He is passionate about exposing social injustice and highly critical of the state and corporate business. In this respect he might be compared to Michael Moore. He always tells his stories through the eyes of common people and shows the effects of state or big business corruption on them. Dealing with real and contemporary issues is his stock in trade. Needless to say this has not endeared him to the establishment in either the UK or USA.

His political perspective is there for all to see. An unashamed left winger, he does not compromise his political beliefs when making a film and they influence both the subject matter and the way in which the story is portrayed. One can see why this might make him a pariah in Hollywood given the checkered history of communism in Hollywood. His film “Carla’s Song” shows the impact of the popular Sandinista revolution in Nicaragua through the eyes of a refugee who returns to find her family and it shows the role of the US administration in supporting the contras who terrorised these ordinary people. The USA is also vilified in “Land and Freedom” - Loach’s Spanish Civil War epic -  for supporting Franco’s fascist regime. So, he doesn’t expect to make too many influential friends in the USA soon.

However, why he is without honour in his native land is more complex. The UK has generally sanctioned diversity of political opinion. Communism is tolerated in principle as are the various shades of red. But this is in the context of a brightly coloured rainbow of political beliefs. And in Europe this is magnified several fold. However, Loach pushes too many buttons that embarrass the UK ruling elite in his films. Just watch ”Raining Stones”, “Ladybird, Ladybird”, “Family Life”, “Riff Raff” and probably his most famous film “Kes”. They all expose the social malaises of the day by accurately portraying the lives of ordinary people and who are affected by poverty, mental illness, the intrusion of the state (social workers) into our lives, unemployment, poor education etc.

His modus operandi is to tell a story through the eyes of the victim. He uses unknown actors or sometimes even non actors in his films to put the focus on the subject rather than the actors themselves. He shoots the films in a neo realist documentary style to draw you into believing that what you are seeing is real. There are no special effects to wow you or take you off message. A lot of it seems to be improvised although I doubt that this is the case. He takes you along with the characters and their journeys into pain, disillusionment, anger, betrayal. He wants you to feel outraged, as outraged as he is himself by the conditions that these common folk find themselves in.

Because of his consummate film making skills honed over many years he is able to influence people’s opinions. Is it propaganda? Probably, but then every story can be looked at from different points of view. But he always manages to embarrass the government of the day by implying (or even baldly stating) that they are responsible and should do something about the problem he has exposed.

His more overtly political films are “Hidden Agenda” about the murky goings-on in Northern Ireland and the recent “The Wind That Shakes The Barley” about the republican movement in Ireland that fought the Black and Tans in 1920. Both films go into areas that show the British government in a less than flattering light.

His more recent films are starting to turn on corporate business and their exploitation of workers treating them as a commodity rather than people. “Bread and Roses” is about the efforts of two latina cleaners who fight for the right to unionise. “McLibel” follows the famous law case where McDonalds took a postman and a gardener to court in the longest trial in UK legal history (7 years) and created an enormous  PR disaster as a result. His most recent production, “It’s a Free World” focuses on the use of immigrant workers, a hot subject on the UK political radar.

I don’t think that Ken Loach is just a political agitator for the hell of it. He passionately believes in his subjects, he exposes the facts and arguments that you don’t normally get to hear in establishment media. He then skillfully weaves a realistic story to bring out these messages and he wants you to think about what you have seen, not just accept what you hear on the radio or read in the newspapers. He wants to stimulate debate. I see him as Britain’s conscience on social and political issues. In fact, he is more effective than the traditional political opposition parties on single issues. But by adopting this role he nevertheless courts controversy.

In Europe he is adored as one of the standard bearers of social realist film making and his films are major events in France, Germany and Italy. This is where he is able to get funding for his films. They are always low budget but he still needs a cocktail of many different funding sources to finance his film making efforts. Every backer knows that they are involving themselves in a quality product but the financial risks are there.

Loach is uncompromising in his vision of film making. He has to be passionate about his subject matter. He has to do it his way. It has to make a difference, to stimulate debate. If he has to reveal uncomfortable truths then so be it. He won’t fudge issues. And in the process he has to be true to his own beliefs. Ken Loach is a unique film maker of enormous integrity and he still deals with contemporary and relevant issues even after 40 years in the business. We will never see Ken Loach do Hollywood. He could not work in those conditions with major studios. He has carved himself a unique niche in film history outside of the Hollywood machine and his reputation is still growing.

DVD LOOKS AND SMILES (1981) Ken Loach Rare Region 2 NEW

Land And Freedom Ken Loach NEW DVD

Ken Loach Collection Vol.2 (DVD) - inc Cathy Come Home

KEN LOACH - RAINING STONES - POLISH POSTER

Land And Freedom Ken Loach NEW DVD

It is quite common now to see graphic violence in films. You can even watch it on prime time television in the UK - just sit through a few episodes of Rome. We are used to going to the cinema now and seeing buckets of blood and gore, limbs and heads being hacked or sawed off. Most horror films now have more and more ingenious ways of dispatching their victims. It is inescapable. Even serious films, “Saving Private Ryan”, Clint Eastwood’s Iwo Jima double bill etc. show the realities of war in great detail. Kids’ movies also have plenty of fantasy violence nowadays and this is what kids expect.

I’m not going to get into the debate about whether it has got too extreme because we are where we are now. Taking something away is much more difficult than letting some one have something in the first place. But when did it all start to get out of hand.

My first memory as a child of seeing something graphic on a film screen was when my dad took me to see “The Alamo” (1960) with John Wayne. I had been brought up on a diet of western TV series on the television but seeing this huge spectacle was exciting. But the scenes that stuck in my mind were during the final battle scenes where Davy Crockett (John Wayne) was killed by a Mexican cavalryman’s lance and the end of Jim Bowie (Richard Widmark) being bayoneted by Mexican infantrymen. I had never seen anything so graphic before and certainly not in my TV westerns.

But I think that the real opening of the floodgates happened with Sam Peckinpah’s “The Wild Bunch” (1969). Watch it now and you may think that it is not a great deal different to a lot of films today in its depiction of violence. However, at the time there was a great uproar in the artistic community and the public at large and opinion was very much divided. Peckinpah made violence and death an artistic statement in the film. The use of slow motion and explosive blood pouches to simulate real bullet wounds made some of the fight scenes seem balletic, horrific and intriguing all at the same time. Peckinpah had a penchant for violence and this is encapsulated in the Wild Bunch’s final battle where hundreds of Mexican army soldiers are dispatched by a Gatling gun in slow motion with blood bursting from their gunshot wounds falling helplessly backwards down steps. To much critical acclaim I might add.

It had an incredible impact on making  action movies. No longer could you make westerns where one cowboy shot a gun and another fell off his horse. The boundary had been shifted. A new aesthetic of violence had been created. It quickly spread across other genres and boundaries were pushed and crossed and the system of censorship was tested severely over the next two decades. There was also a leap forward in the use of make up and special effects to emphasise the violence at this time.

Films like “The Exorcist” (1973) tested the boundaries in the horror genre creating not only physical violence but more disturbingly psychological and supernatural violence. The special effects and make up on this film produced some stomach churning results. The Censors worked overtime with this as nothing as graphic or detailed or disturbing had been seen on the screen before. There was a lot of hype around the film before it opened and people went to the screenings t be terrified. News of some individuals having heart attacks during the film only served to widen its notoriety and its appeal in some quarters. A number of scenes were deleted before it passed the censors for theatrical release. Only in recent years with the rise of DVDs  have some of the deleted scenes been reinserted.

Two years before in 1971, Stanley Kubrick had released “A Clockwork Orange” which had told the story of a group of disaffected young men and one in particular - Alex -  and the alienating world they lived in. It had been criticised for its extreme, almost glorified, ultraviolence and graphic rape scenes. There were a number of copycat violent incidents following the release of the film which sparked off a very heated public debate over the links between film violence and its impact on impressionable people. It grew so heated that Kubrick removed the film from the public domain with no one being able to see the film for over 25 years. The debate overshadowed the themes of the film which were very relevant at the time - the alienation of young people in the early 1970s; the brutal concrete landscape and environment that people were living in; and the violent reaction of the state to rebellious youth.

I believe these films were turning points in the depiction and expansion of graphic violence in the cinema and paved the way for graphic violence in realistic and fantasy films of today.Whether that is a good thing or not I leave to you. 

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.