As most of you will know the premise of Unforgiven is that a killer comes out of retirement after 11 years to do one last killing for money when he hears about a prostitute who has been disfigured by two cowboys. The story follows his journey and explores the debunking of western myths and the savagery underneath the newly civilised West.

What interests me is that there is not a word out of place. Every word has its place and use in terms of furthering the plot. There is no fluff or padding, nothing is redundant. Yet, between those words and the superb actors – Eastwood, Gene Hackman, Morgan Freeman, Frances Fisher, and Richard Harris – delivering those lines, the whole world of the new west is exposed. The heroic myths of the cowboy and gunslinger are set up to be knocked down. The screenplay allows the actors to finely draw their characters through its actions and few words.

It is a slow burner. There is no rush about the action. Even the final shootout is extended longer than most western shootouts to show the grim reality of the situation. The change of Eastwood’s character from vaguely sympathetic to mean, cold blooded killer at the end is quite chilling and surprising to the other characters left alive in the town.

The only major sub plot is that of the fate of English Bob, the dandified gunslinger hired by the Railroad company to shoot absconding Chinese coolies, with his biographer who paints a romantic picture of the gunslinger for his publishers. His meeting with Little Bill Daggett, town marshall, betrays the reality of his encounters and enables us to see the ferocious interior of Daggett despite his early affable exterior.

The plot is slight and spare. It could have been an episode of a western series. But the attention to detail and the excellence of the screenplay make it a riveting film with suspense and interest in the characters throughout. If you want to look at how to blend plot, character and dialogue seamlessly to deliver a colourful and interesting story then go no further than this.

But it could be argued that this was only the final nail in the coffin of the western at that time. In an attempt to find new story lines, film makers were starting to trawl the later period of the western era. This is when the west was becoming less wild and more civilised and the corporations were beginning to move in. Sam Peckinpah’s The Wild Bunch (1969) was almost an elegy for the old style cowboys who felt the cold hand of progress on them and foreshadowed the demise of the western. They were old misfits in a changing world. The same could be said in many ways for the earlier Butch Cassidy and the Sundance Kid (1969). The march of progress in America caught up with them and they had to move to Bolivia to recreate the old days.

The Missouri Breaks (1976) provided another downbeat addition to the genre albeit a quirky battle of the acting egoes that were Jack Nicholson and Marlon Brando. The tale has similarities to the later Tom Horn in that a “regulator”, Marlon Brando, is hired by a wealthy and sophisticated rancher to deter rustlers. Tom Horn (1980) starring Steve McQueen as the titular lead encapsulates this downbeat fall of the western empire. His character is an old style cowboy turned “regulator” of rustlers who eventually falls foul of the new power in the land – big business. Hollywood was providing its own epitaph for the western.

Heaven’s Gate was just the clincher and it would be nearly a decade before another significant western would be made.

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.

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.

In summary The Song Remains The Same documents the Led Zeppelin gig at Madison Square in New York and was released in 1976 when the group were at their zenith. It is interspersed with various dream-like sequences I assume were meant to be representations of the personality of the members of the band. There are also gritty sequences of the hard-nosed manager and his cronies taking the stadium management to task with copious amounts of adult language. As the film was financed entirely by the band it is safe to say that the overall effect is to try and extend the myth of Led Zeppelin. It is designed to make you think that there is more to the band than there actually is. As the camera looks into the crowd you get the feeling that they are mesmerised by the presence of the band. This isn’t just a gig but a religious experience. An alternative explanation is that the looks of love and awe were chemically induced!

My overall impression of the film is that of variable quality in both the movie sense and music sense. There are some moments in the film that are absolutely electric, during the concert footage, where you can understand why they were hailed as the best band in the world. The opening – Rock and Roll – gets things off to a tremendous start and many of the more famous riff-based songs fare well. But they do retreat into the more self indulgent, long versions of various songs that was symptomatic of that “progressive” era which can be a big yawn after a while. More jazz than rock. Maybe that’s why there are the dream sequences which tend to be played over an extended solo in the concert. However, Stairway To Heaven does provide one of the highpoints. There is more than a little technical proficiency and panache in Jimmy Page’s guitar work but he tries to prove it time and time again. But I guess that this is what fans expected at the time and much of the filming is based around close ups of Page playing his guitar and posing. However, he is outgunned in the posing department by the lion-haired, lead singer Robert Plant who stands and wiggles his hips in an almost effeminate posture before unleashing his powerful and unique voice.

The film can be magnificent and irritating at the same time. I can’t help but compare it to The Kids Are Alright with The Who. Kids has a vibrant energy as a film and a record of performances that The Song… only reaches in small segments. But there are large parts of The Song… when it just seems a bit too pretentious and a bit too much like fodder for the Spinal Tap script. I am still a fan of the music but I can’t buy into the Led Zeppelin myth. Having read many reports of their live gigs over the years it seems they tended to be a bit hit and miss as a live band (although the Madison Square Garden performance was very good). So when you see that 20 million people tried to get tickets for the reunion gig I find that a bit surprising. But I am an old cynic and all the myth building in the intervening years has clearly done its job to herald the return of the rock messiahs. I am sure that The Song Remains The Same has also played its part in this process.

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 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………

But aren’t we missing something? True, there is so much choice but it is fairly sanitised and regimented and self censoring. Some of the great pop music films happened at key times during the last century. They were pioneers in the medium and upset the establishment. They said something about the social and cultural setting in which they were made. They were not just tapes of live performances but social commentaries on the times of upheaval in young people’s lives.

Woodstock exposed the hippy culture to the world and for few short years influenced the young people of the world until the reality of drug use hit home. Not many great performances other than Hendrix’s version of the Star Spangled Banner but the atmosphere, the smell of the event and the times was palpable. It was only supposed to be a small music festival for a few thousand punters but caught the imagination of the young people of America who showed up in their hundreds of thousands. The orgainsers were overwhelmed for the three days of the festival – and it descended into chaos. No rules, no boundaries – a big mess for the authorities. Nirvana for the youth of America.

Monterey Pop showed the music establishment trying to deal with changes in music and unleashed the career of Jimi Hendrix. A short time before it had been a folk and jazz festival but all of that changed when Bob Dylan did the unthinkable and went electric. When he did that he was booed by the way! Monterey Pop showed a great diversity of music and performances from mainstream Mamas and Papas to big blues with Big Brother and the Holding Company (lead singer a certain Janis Joplin) to the Who and Hendrix.

My favourite pop music film of that era is The Kids Are Alright featuring the rise of The Who. Or the ‘orrible Who as Roger Daltrey calls them. It shows the group as individuals and what makes them tick interspersed with some electric live performances and iconic TV moments. It conveys a real sense of youthful anger and restlessness not only in the music but in the interviews as well as some madcap moments with Keith Moon and Ringo Starr. See where instrument bashing and destruction originally came from! It’s nice to see that The Who (or the remaining members – Pete Townsend and Roger Daltrey) are still touring and can still see off the young ‘uns – just watch their performance at Glastonbury 2007 to check that out. Getting on a bit now but you still see the odd spark of that unrest and anger. Even something like The Great Rock and Roll Swindle in the seventies featuring the Sex Pistols does not show the rebelliousness of youth so well as The Kids Are Alright.

Are kids still rebellious? Of course they are. But they seem to be channeled through main stream media. The establishment has learnt its lesson from the anarchy of the past. Could a Woodstock happen again? Not likely, too much organization, health and safety etc., rules and regulations. Even Glastonbury is safe, socially and culturally speaking. For goodness sake, parents want to go as well! Management of events and the music industry are tightly controlled and not easily changed. Events rarely have the danger (physical or otherwise) and naughtiness attached to them now. Although it was comforting to see youthful rebellion can still rear its head at events when the crowd invaded the stage during Iggy Pop and The Stooges performance at Glastonbury this year and caused mayhem for several minutes.