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.

Elizabeth is the story of Elizabeth I just before she came to the throne and her precarious early years as monarch. We are drawn into the dangerous world of 16th century England by means of the first scene where several heretics (protestants in a mainly catholic country) are burnt at the stake. Mary, daughter of Henry VIII, is on the throne and Elizabeth, the offspring of Henry and Ann Boleyn, is in great danger as she is protestant. The threat to her is palpable and many at court are plotting to have her killed. At one point she appears to be on the verge of execution in the Tower of London but manages to stay alive despite the odds.

On the death of Mary, she becomes queen but her perils do not end there. England is weak and bankrupt and she has to play a dangerous political game to avoid being married off to create alliances with the other great European powers, France and Spain. There are also more attempts on her life. Within all of this is a love story between her and Robert, Earl of Dudley, played by Joseph Fiennes, which ends in tears.

The film works so well in that the tension is established early on and continues unabated throughout the film. Cate Blanchett’s performance is a masterclass in moving Elizabeth from a young, selfish and headstrong girl to an assertive, determined and ruthless woman and by the end of the film to a true English icon.

There are many film references. The beginning (yet another Great Beginning) has the same effect as the beginning to Robert Bresson’s Lancelot du Lac where knights fight and kill each other in quite graphic and gory ways over the opening credits of the film. This has the effect of shocking the audience at the beginning and lessens the need for any further gore until much later in the film. At the same time it sets the scene admirably. The burning of the heretics has a similar effect. You are on the edge of your seat from the word go.

The conspiracies at court in Elizabeth mirror the wonderful, swirling court scenes of La Reine Margot, the French film about the massacre of French protestants by the Catholics. The sharp dialogue and the discussions behind closed doors and within the crowds enhance the feeling of foreboding.

Elizabeth even ruthlessly dispatches a number of the conspirators towards the end of the film in a montage sequence not unlike that near the end of The Godfather. However, she leaves her erstwhile lover, Dudley, alive as a reminder of how close she came to death.

Not that the film is totally without humour. There is a hilarious episode where Elizabeth discovers that her French suitor, The Duke of Anjou, is actually a cross dresser. But this is mere comic relief before the tension is ramped up again.

If you like films that have politics, plotting and conspiracy, then Elizabeth is a well-acted piece that delivers. It is a period film but it aspires more to contemporary political thrillers than the English period drama heritage.You are not just wowed with the gowns but the subtlety of the plot and the intrigue woven into the story. It is a very different film to its successor, Elizabeth -The Golden Age, in terms of tone and tension.

Elizabeth is in my list of top films because it has the ingredients for a “great film”. It has an excellent story converted to a riveting screenplay. The acting by the principals is exemplary and believable. Cate Blanchett’s stunning performance shines at the heart of the movie. The direction is sure-footed, without being particularly innovative, and ratchets up the tension at the appropriate points in the film. The film looks good and the period settings don’t disappoint. There are so many pluses to this film that it has to be up in the great films category.

In the same year came one of the best of the recent westerns. Glory was the story of the first black regiment to fight for the North in the civil war and how they overcame prejudice from their own side to gain respect and dignity for blacks in America. Directed by Edward Zwick, it lit the tinderbox for the careers of a young Denzel Washington and Morgan Freeman and told a moving story about the difficulties faced by them and the young white officer charged with leading their regiment.  The ending always brings a lump to my throat when I see it. Oscar glory followed with 3 gongs for best supporting actor (Washington) and best cinematography (Freddie Francis).

Westerns became cool again. The next year we were treated to Dances With Wolves (1990), a stirring Kevin Costner western, looking at prairie life from the point of view of the native Americans and a disaffected cavalry officer. Costner collected 2 Oscars for it and went on to make other westerns but never reached the heights that he did with this film. Open Range was a return to form but Dances With Wolves was the pinnacle.

Clint Eastwood successfully returned to westerns in 1992 both acting in and directing Unforgiven. This film was a gritty and realistic account of how Clint’s character is paid to avenge the disfigurement of a prostitute. It is a character-led piece with occasional bursts of explosive and bloody action. The supporting cast are pitch perfect and some of the myths of the west are exposed. It won 4 Oscars including best picture and best director.

Gettysburg (1993) directed by Ronald F. Maxwell recreated the famous civil war battle and gained many admirers for its attention to detail and stirring battle scenes. It also spawned a prequel – Gods and Generals (2003) – showing the events leading up to civil war.

So the western is alive and well and can still thrive in the mainstream. When Spielberg does mini series about westerns (Into The West) and old stories can be reinvigorated to reach a new generation then it will always have a place in Hollywood.

The most famous mutation of the traditional western was the spaghetti western. These were films made largely in Europe (Spain being the most believable location to double as Arizona or Texas) by Italians mainly that created an identifiable sub genre with its own characteristics.

Important directors on the world stage came out of this movement such as Sergio Leone and Bernardo Bertolucci. Leone put his case forward as one of the world’s great directors with such films as the Fistful of Dollars trilogy and Once upon a Time in the West, a candidate for the greatest western of all time. Bertolucci, at this stage in his career was involved as a scriptwriter for Leone and emerged later on as a fine director in his own right outside the western genre.

There were scores of spaghetti westerns made during the period 1965-1980. They were recognisable for their stylistic differences to the traditional westerns. In particular, the use of closeups of the characters’ expressive faces usually dripping with sweat or smoking a cigarette before an explosively violent scene ramped up the tension in these westerns. The villains were colourful and hideous and psychopathic. No horrific act was out of their range. They even made that Hollywood western stalwart, Henry Fonda, into a steely-eyed child killer in the epic Once Upon a Time in the West.

Heroes were not the archetypal heroes of old westerns. They were much more complex. More like anti heroes. Clint Eastwood’s Man With No Name in the Fistful of Dollars trilogy typifies this. He is probably the least disagreeable character in the film but is no angel himself. In Once Upon  a Time in the West the main protagonists are symbols more than characters telling the painful story of the opening up of the west. None is without sin but there is a chance of redemption by the end for some of them.

Spaghetti westerns are violent and sometimes unpredictable interms of plot and ending. One notable example of this is The Great Silence directed by Sergio Corbucci. It is sometimes referred to as the Alpine western with its backdrop of mountains and snow and is a very dark tale with a completely miserable ending. No heroes riding off into the sunset here. Very little light relief during the film aswell. Italian directors were definitiely experimenting with stories, characters and visuals to create unique films that could still be called westerns.

No self-respecting spaghetti western was complete without a quirky yet mesmerising soundtrack from Ennio Morricone that emphasised the difference between this western and the traditional Hollywood western. Sometimes beautiful and evocative, sometimes downright irritating, Morricone’s soundtracks make the spaghetti westerns even more distinctive.

The western was also influenced from further east, Japan. Hollywood film makers saw the upsurge of spaghetti westerns and knew they would have to up their game. So they looked for new storylines and John Sturges used Kurosawa’s Seven Samurai as the template for The Magnificent Seven. Both of these films were successful in their own genre. Leone used the basic plot of Yojimbo directed by Kurosawa as his base line for A Fistful of Dollars. And yet Kurosawa openly acknowledged his regard for John Ford’s westerns. So chicken… egg?

Despite all the critical acclaim given to westerns, all was not well. By the mid 1980s the western was dead as a genre. Nobody was making significant western films. What happened? I’ll talk about that next time.

The western is as old as Hollywood and is indigenous to America but has influenced many film makers across the world and in turn has itself been influenced by other genres and non US film makers. The development of the western has lead to a genre with many familiar characteristics and stories.

How would you categorize a film as a western?

• Does it have to be set in that period of history between, say, 1800 and 1910 when the country of America was being opened up by white settlers and immigrants?
• Does it have to have cowboys on horses (and, sometimes, “injuns” or native Americans) as the dominant characters?
• Does the film have to be set in the wild and wide open spaces of the mid west prairies, or the dusty expanses of Arizona, New Mexico and Texas or the high country of Montana or Utah?
• Does it have to have recognisable characters – the lone cowboy hero, the black-hearted villain, the wise-cracking tart with the heart of gold, the bar tender, the farming sod buster etc.
• Do guns and violence have to be included in the story?

These are just a few of the things you expect in a traditional western. However, if you pare it back and generalise a little bit there are some key themes that recur in westerns and add to the composition of the genre.

Firstly, the natural world, the environment makes a big contribution to the western genre. Who can forget the iconic images of Monument Valley in the John Ford westerns? The environment is a character which can be helpful or unforgiving to the humans in the film. Big skies, stunning landscapes wild and beautiful. Westerns are about celebrating or taming the natural world of the west. One of my old teachers said it could be seen as gardening! Man’s struggle against the natural elements.

The western tends to have recognisable heroes and villains because it is on the edge of civilisation. We are in the wild west where lawlessness is common. Some people flout the law and others try to enforce it. In the absence of recognised law enforcement, the characters make their own rules. The code of the west. Horse thieves are hung and a man’s got to do what a man’s got to do.

The west is a man’s world. The land of the lone cowboy. The embodiment of the American dream. There are riches out there for you but you have to carve it out yourself. A land of opportunity and danger. The corporations have not got there yet. Few women are seen other than fiances coming to meet their beaus from the civilised east or prostitutes making a living above the saloon from the roving cowboys.

The probability of conflict and violence is high. Most men carry guns. It is easy to pick arguments. There are no wine bars out here, the saloon is a dangerous place. The army is tasked with surpressing the indigenous tribes. Settlers are harrassed by the locals. Sheep herders fight with cow barons. Authority is always mistrusted.

In terms of story types there are several staples. The western is a fertile ground to grow a revenge plot. Unforgiven shows the revenge plot is alive and well in westerns. The cattle drive is usually an epic journey and vehicle for redemption for one or more of the characters. Red River and Lonesome Dove spring to mind as examples. Clash of cultures between the original inhabitants and the newcomers. Dances with Wolves and Cheyenne Autumn are good examples of this. Survival is a key element in many stories about the west – survival against the natural environment or survival against the hostiles. Just watch A Man Called Horse. It is about man’s humanity being tested in harsh and uncontrolled conditions. Basic and raw emotions are on show. There are few nuances here. Only big bold issues.

In the next post I will explore a little how the western has developed over time and its worldwide influence. I will also look at the interesting phenomenon of cross genre films.

This post just sprang to mind as I have watched a few classic films recently that serve to illustrate the point very well.

James Cameron does an incredible job with “Aliens”. We see the lifeboat craft drifting aimlessly in space with Ripley and the cat (Jonesy, I think) still in suspended animation. The door is then burnt open as they are rescued by a deep space salvage team. As Ripley recuperates on a space station near earth, Cameron uses an inventive dream sequence to wrong foot the audience. Ripley’s mind is messed up and we begin to empathise with her immediately particularly as no one seems to want to believe her about the existence of the alien monsters. It’s like a pantomime response but very effective. The rest of the cast are saying they don’t exist while Ripley and the audience are effectively shouting “They’re behind you!”. We’ve seen the previous film, we know what they can do. Even worse to come, as Ripley is “on trial” for destroying the Nostromo and she loses her pilot licence. How unfair, we say. And she finds out that she has been in hypersleep for around seventy years. Her child has grown up, lived a full life and died before she returned. How terrible for her. We are hooked! And then she finds out that the planet where the alien craft crashed is now colonised by a group of terraformers including families with children. This provides the motivation for Ripley to return to the planet as an advisor (and her need to regain her pilot’s licence).

All this is played out very skilfully through fleshing out the back story with some emotional twists to provide the setting for the rest of the film and draw the audience in for the ride. Excellent.

Another good example of a stunning first twenty minutes is a film I have mentioned before in these posts – the remake of “Dawn of the Dead” directed by Zak Snyder. All of the George Romero fans know what is about to happen but the way it is achieved is quite stunning. We see the horror unfolding through the eyes of the nurse (Sarah Polley) as she is coming to the end of her shift at the hospital.  This is inter-cut with newsreels of unrest in the world gradually expanding into anarchy. We’ve all seen news items with video of riots and conflict before. But it quickly shows us that the anarchy is due to a mysterious infection. The nurse unwittingly goes about her routine and leaves the hospital just as patients start arriving with the infection. As she leaves the hospital we see the legs of a man sticking out from an ambulance. Is he infected? Is he dead? No, he’s just resting before the next call out. Phew! The audience starts feeling for the safety of the nurse. Something bad is happening. We know but does she? We want to shout out to warn her.

Cut to suburbia and her car driving back home. Nothing yet to suggest anything abnormal although the tension has been ramped up through the unease felt earlier. She has a conversation with a little girl. But there is a tangible unease established. She is the innocent about to be threatened. She arrives home and goes to sleep with her husband. All is normal until they are woken up by a hungry zombie who just happens to be the little girl she talked to before. Her husband is bitten and turns into a zombie and in turn tries to bite her! Talk about a maiden in peril. She manages to narrowly escape out of the bathroom window and get into her car only to be confronted by a scene of utter carnage and mayhem with neighbours shooting, killing and eating each other, cars crashing and fires breaking out all over suburbia.

The scenes are so effective because that is so like our home, a comforting if boring environment to return to at the end of a hard day’s work. Yet again we are drawn into the story with great skill. In this film,  our “little castle”, our homely comfort blanket has been ripped to shreds at the beginning of the film and we are empathising with the nurse, frightened and at a loss to know what to do next. The rape and mutilation of our home life is shown graphically in the film in a series of scenes as the Sarah Polley character tries to drive out of her suburban estate. Neighbours with guns shooting at anything, homicidal zombies chase the living to taste their flesh, cars collide and crash. There is even an aerial shot (with CGI) showing the mayhem from the air. Will she survive, or won’t she? Who will save her? Or, how will she save herself from this insidious disaster? Brilliant set up for the rest of the film.

Perhaps, one of the most brilliant beginnings to a film must be “Apocalypse Now”. In the opening sequence over the credits, we are shown a patch of jungle with instrumental music from the Doors (The End) playing on the soundtrack. It evokes an oriental and exotic feeling. We hear helicopters whizzing overhead and suddenly the jungle bursts into flames. We know, without a spoken word, we are in Vietnam in the late 1960s early 1970s. Brilliantly concise use of images and sound to set the scene for the movie. If that wasn’t good enough we are treated to a second sequence where the back story is narrated by the Martin Sheen character, a burnt-out special forces assassin on the edge of sanity who, as we find later can only find normality and comfort when on a “mission”, in this case the assassination of a renegade American colonel leading a native army against the North Vietnamese. There are many questions asked in the film about who is sane in a world of insanity and this beginning sets the scene beautifully for the journey to the heart of darkness.

One last and very different example is “Babel” – a recent film which weaves a story that spans a number of different countries and cultures. It intrigues the audience. It starts several seemingly unrelated stories cutting between them and as an audience we begin to feel curious about where this is going. Each story is interesting in its own right but we are not asked to empathise with the charcters involved. It is more intellectual. How are these stories connected? The director gradually unveils the connections throughout the film in very clever ways but you do not know the whole story until the end. It uses the audience’s collective curiosity to establish commitment and interest in the film.

Getting the audience involved as early as possible through emotion, curiosity or clever use of visuals and symbol can set the tone for the rest of the film.

“Interesting” doesn’t come near to describing this film of extremes. It is an assault on the senses, a real shocker in the true sense of the word. I don’t know whether I liked it or not but I will certainly not forget some of the scenes in the film in a hurry.

To pigeonhole it, I suppose you might call it a revenge thriller. You have to admire its bravado and confidence in the cinematography and acting. The premise of the movie is that the central character has been imprisoned in a room for 15 years and it follows his escape and his attempts to find out who imprisoned him and why. If you can suspend disbelief at the start it becomes a roller coaster of a film charting the effect on him of regaining his freedom and his eventual search and revenge on his captor.

There are scenes of extreme torture, memorable fight sequences, graphic sex and one scene where the central character eats a live octopus! The tentacles were still wriggling around his chin during the scene. And there is a twist involving incest near the end which heightens the extreme nature of the film.

The acting is very good. “Over the top” works very well in this film and seems normal. It is not a film for subtle acting. The screenplay on the face of it should not work as it is unbelievable and it is difficult to empathise with most of the characters. The plot is convoluted but if you can stay with it (I got lost a couple of times but regained it later) it has a feel of “Seven” about it especially with the late realisation of a horrific act.

There are some wonderfully realised scenes during the film, quite bretahtaking really. Some of the earlier scenes showing his madness during captivity and the 2D fight sequence as the “hero” fights his way through a dozen or so thugs to reach the end of a corridor show a very creative visual force behind the film. This force is ever present during the movie and is surely the work of the director Park Chan Wook.

Why is it that Asian film directors are so adept at creating such gut-churning violence and shocks? And then Hollywood does a remake that sanitises the film to make it palatable for western audiences. The shocks are not the “jump out of your seat” variety but more the “why would you ever consider showing THAT!” variety.

But with Old Boy you have a director who is clearly gifted in translating the implausible narrative into a coherent set of images and scenes that draw you into the film. You have to admire the creative force that spawned this movie, his confidence with the extreme subject matter and his mastery of the film making arts.

Whether you like the movie… well that’s another matter.

]]> http://films.davesinfocafe.com/old-boy-asian-extremism/feed/ 0 http://films.davesinfocafe.com/more-thoughts-about-montage/ http://films.davesinfocafe.com/more-thoughts-about-montage/#comments Sat, 13 Dec 2008 10:06:06 +0000 Dave http://films.davesinfocafe.com/168/more-thoughts-about-montage/ I know I’ve already done a post about Continuity and Montage editing some time ago but I’ve had some more thoughts recently that help explain and develop the idea of Montage. As you will know from my previous post, the idea of montage is to put seemingly unrelated pictures or scenes together that leaves the viewer to make sense of the order and sequence of the film and attach meaning to it.

I had trouble coming up with examples in films although I am sure there are many splendid ones over the years. However, after a long period of reflection (too long), it dawned on me that we see montage in action every day. Think of adverts on TV. Think of film trailers. Time is precious in these media so traditional continuity editing cannot get the job done here. So what they use is a very fast and compact montage technique to get a message across or a set of values. The viewer’s brain is an active participant in this process.

In fact the development of montage in the area of advertising is very sophisticated. It uses the latest insights in psychology both individual and social and taps into various concerns that we have. It is actually very powerful and in many ways works at the sub conscious level. We can make sense of images quicker and better than text or audio so the old adage “a picture is worth a thousand words” is undeniably true. If certain pictures evoke a certain response in people then it follows that certain sequences of pictures can also evoke predictable responses in the viewer.

What is interesting in some film trailers nowadays, particularly thrillers, is that the montage of scenes is put together to deliberately wrong foot the viewer and keep them guessing. Some film trailers are actually better than the film they are promoting because the montage allows your brain to create its own imaginary film before you see it. Very clever stuff. A little bit worrying if you are worried about brain washing and mind control and that sort of thing.

But the real beauty of montage in films is that every viewer can potentially have a slightly different understanding of the film. It engages the viewer’s brain and from an artist’s point of view that must be a good thing. In genre, say a western, you know what the rules are and when they are being broken. In montage there are no hard and fast rules; it is inherently more creative. As a film maker you have to experiment with images and sequences until you hit upon the right combination to evoke the response or feeling that you are looking for. Not only that but the great film makers can come up with new ways of getting their message across merely by using a unique series of images in a unique sequence. By the same token viewers can be confused by poorly structured montage sequences.

Maybe that is why there are so many film directors currently working who cut their teeth on adverts and commercials. We have seen many thirty second films in the advert break between the real films. Just watch them and maybe analyse them. They tell a story and they have a message. And the images are laden with meaning and action. And the sequence will have a beginning, a middle and an end. And they can be wildly creative. Maybe this is the real home of montage although it still does have a place in films.

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.

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.