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 *

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.

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.

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.

DVD R2 BRAVEHEART Mel Gibson Sophie Marceau Steelbook

The Mel Gibson DVD Legacy Collection New & Sealed

NEW Apocalypto Blu Ray DVD Blu-Ray SEALED Mel Gibson WS

Lethal Weapon 1/2/3/4: 4dvd: Box Set Mel Gibson New

BLU-RAY DISC : SIGNS (Mel Gibson) new good for UK PS3

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

In the last couple of weeks I have been musing again about maybe starting some screenplays. Being the person I am, I do like to prepare everything beforehand and have everything I need before I start. (This is also a convenient excuse when I don’t start or finish something - “I haven’t got the right tools for the job”. My problem)

Anyway, before I engage in too much limiting and negative self talk, I did do some interesting research on screenwriting software to ease the production of a marvelous screenplay. Word processors are all very well but they are not designed for the specific job of producing a screenplay to industry standards. And whilst outliners are useful they do not give you the tools to develop interesting and coherent stories and plots.

So I trawled the net for software that would do the job. Free software preferably. What I did find is that there is an industry (small though it may be) in software packages that purport to make it easy for you to create the next blockbuster screenplay. All slightly different with different strengths and weaknesses.

I suppose the first question to ask is why can’t a word processing package do the job for you. Packages like Microsoft Word or the open source word processing component of Open Office (free) have so many facilities inside them that surely these would be adequate? Well, yes and no. No doubt, if you are very familiar with these packages and have a good level of expertise in these packages you could design the industry standard formats and program macros that imitated some of the better screenplay software packages. But it is all a bit like hard work for a writer who is more bothered about getting on with the writing and having some help in making it easy.

Here are some of the better packages that I have come across in my research:

• Cinergy -  this is provided free and as such deserves an immense amount of respect as it makes writing and editing a draft screen play in industry standard form relatively easy. Creating scenes, dialogue, description, rearranging, editing is all made simple though the use of a few intuitive key depressions. Great for most purposes
• Final Draft - This is the package that most professionals use nowadays for developing and submitting their work to the industry. Slick and easy to use, it also goes that bit further with organization and production tools as part of the package. Costs around $230 at present or £115.
• Sophocles - worth a look at nearly half the price of Final Draft with similar features. You can try before you buy which is always good. Its PR says that it lets you concentrate on the story creation rather than on the format. $120 or £60 at the moment.
• Writer’s Cafe - This is more of a story development package rather than a screenwriting package. By that I mean that it has a number of useful features built into it that help you to research your story, save and bookmark information, to plot your storylines in an easy graphical manner and to inspire you when the going gets tough or the words dry up. A very useful complement to a screenwriting package. This software can be used for writing other than screenwriting and help you organize your work, your drafts, your rough ideas. The really neat part of this package is StoryLines - “The heart of Writer’s Café is StoryLines, a powerful but simple to use story development tool that dramatically accelerates the creation and structuring of your novel or screenplay” - a lovely visual way of plotting your stories from whatever point of view you like. At $66 or £33, it looks to be a worthwhile investment.
• There are other more expensive packages, both screenwriting and story development, that provide similar functions and features but the above list in my opinion are the ones that seem to be most writer-friendly and are understandable.

I have included links to the appropriate sites for these packages to help you assess them for yourself. Before you ask, “no” I am not promoting any of them or getting money for recommending them (what a shame - I could do with the money). I am thinking of buying Writer’s Cafe for my research and story development -  I am checking out the free trial download at the moment. And I think Cinergy will be adequate for my purposes for the time being unless I decide to market a script in Hollywood!

Final Draft 7 Screenwriting Software BNIB

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

I bought a boxed set of the recent Clint Eastwood movies about the battle for Iwo Jima earlier this week from the local supermarket. I had wanted to see them at the cinema but missed them because there was such a short theatrical release for them particularly in the North East of England.

First and foremost, I must say that the sentiment, to try and view the same event from both sides, is highly commendable. It is easier to do it when there is a substantial time elapsed afterwards. It could not be done even handedly nearer the event because of emotions running high on both sides. I can still remember the old John Wayne war film - “The Sands of Iwo Jima” which was basically US propaganda determined to show the Japanese as evil enemies and fuel up support at home for the War. “Flags of Our Fathers” shows the US propaganda machine at work trying to extract money from the American public for the war by using the the remaining soldiers from the iconic photograph of raising the flag on Iwo Jima and parading them as heroes. “Letters from Iwo Jima” traces the last days of the doomed Japanese defenders of the island and the internal conflicts between them as well as the battle raging about them. Both films have a black and gray look taking their cue from the photograph and the barren volcanic rock that is Iwo Jima but the similarities end there. There is no real intermingling of the films.

These films act more as historical documents with the benefit of hindsight, more so “Flags of Our Fathers” which concentrates on what happens to the three remaining soldiers when they are paraded back home to help the war effort. While it is extremely interesting to see ordinary guys being branded as heroes and used by the government and the armed forces, the lack of a strong central performance causes the film to lose its way a little bit. The battle scenes are bloody and harrowing but the lack of character development at the beginning means that the emotional pull is not as strong as it should be. In the heat of battle it is difficult to know who is getting shot or blown up. The use of flashbacks rather than clarifying the story adds to the confusion in my opinion. The later attempts to take you into the later lives of these men are poorly realised.

“Letter from Iwo Jima” on the other hand is the better of the two films simply because the script (by Iris Yamashita)  is better, the characters are better developed in the first half of the film and the use of flashbacks is limited but telling in the overall feel of the film. The internal conflict between the old guard loyal to the Emperor and an honourable death and those just trying to survive is brought out clearly. There is irony and pathos in abundance. Not even the presence of sub titles could detract from the telling of the story.

It is helped by two strong central performances, one by Ken Watanabe as the commander-in-chief of the Japanese defensive force and one by Kazunari Ninomiya as one of the less than willing conscripts. The story is told through their eyes. You cannot help but get emotionally involved with the characters and as one by one they die you are left with the feeling of an awful tragedy. A strong and affecting film which deservedly received an Oscar nomination for best picture.

The two films are nevertheless an outstanding achievement by Clint Eastwood (and Steven Spielberg as producer) and together have added depth and complexity to the war film genre.

BLU-RAY DISC : THE GAUNTLET (Clint Eastwood)region free

CLINT EASTWOOD COLLECTION - 47 DVDS

CLINT EASTWOOD - AUTOGRAPH PLUS COA

BLU-RAY DISC : PALE RIDER (Clint Eastwood) new & sealed

ZF0285S1 Magnum Force Clint Eastwood single film cell