I am not a great fan of film remakes as they rarely live up to the original but when I heard that George Romero’s cult classic “Zombies - Dawn of the Dead” (or better, Zombies at Woolworth’s) was to be remade then my ears pricked up a little.

I first tried to see the original in a cinema in Sunderland in the NE of England many years ago. I only managed to see about twenty minutes of it before my then-girlfriend decided that she could stomach no more and we had to leave. The sight of a zombie having the top of his head sliced off by a helicopter blade and the shooting of two young child zombies just about finished her off. I couldn’t see what all the fuss was about (only kidding).

I eventually got to see it one video several years later. For the late 1970s this was graphic, gut churning stuff and extremely scary in a very creepy way.   The special effects make-up was great, pieces of flesh hanging off faces. Zombies blindly following the smell of live humans around. The rigor mortis-type walks. And the all-important eating of limbs with relish.

Any one could out run one of Romero’s zombies but they just kept on coming at you. Just wait till you run out of bullets.It was a case of how long could you postpone the inevitable. It created a siege mentality in the audience particularly in the scenes within the shopping mall. Could they escape? If so, which ones? Would there be a happy ending? (I don’t think we knew at the time that this was the second in a trilogy). It delivered quite a punch at the time and, although time has dulled its effect a tad, it can still shock and disgust in equal measure.

I was never one to invest much time in the notion that it was a hidden swipe at the consumer society (mindless morons going shopping?). It’s just a superb working piece of horror history.

In the intervening period the boundaries of horror have been pushed ever further outwards and our expectations have been raised. Indeed our constitutions have been lined with steel. It takes a lot to shock people any more.

So when I saw the remake I was a little trepidatious. I needn’t have been anxious though. The story was remarkably similar to the original but the realization was very, very different. It works more as a superior Hollywood action thriller with a few twists and turns and is all the better for it. Rather than creeping up on you, it slaps you in the first right from the get go.

The first twenty minutes of the film is absolutely fantastic. The threat and peril to the heroine is cranked up so highly that you are holding your breath to see if she can survive. And all set in a middle class housing area that any one can recognize. But in this case the zombies are like world class sprinters. There is a clear, present and immediate danger from these suckers. Which makes for a much faster pace of film (with much faster editing). The scenes in the shopping mall are a time to catch your breath before the final action sequences.

I think this is a case of a film and a remake being able to happily co-exist with detriment to one another. It is interesting to see the difference in the endings though. Remarkably, Romero’s Dawn of the Dead has the happier ending with the survivors managing to land their helicopter on a deserted island. The remake has no such happy ending as, over the credits, you see that their escape by boat in an effort to try and reach an island haven is short-lived.

£37.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 22:55:15 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

Isn’t it wonderful how the mind works? No matter what pictures are put in front of our eyes our mind tries to make sense of it. It took a Russian called Kuleshev near the turn of the 20th century to bring it to the world’s attention and had a profound effect on film art and particularly early Russian cinema.

Kuleshev found out that if you linked several unrelated shots to the same facial gesture then different interpretations of the meaning of that gesture could be reached. The mind tries to make sense of the gesture in the context of the what it sees around the gesture. Perhaps, an example will clarify. If we see a person crying but we see a coffin beforehand then our mind will surmise that the tears are expressing sadness at a person dying. However, if we see the same crying gesture juxtaposed with a shot of a mother smiling with a new born baby then the mind is likely to interpret the crying as tears of joy. I hope that explains it better. As editing is the process of putting bits of film together in a particular sequence to convey meaning, this discovery lead to development of two strands of editing - Continuity and Montage editing.

Continuity editing is by far the most prevalent form of editing and is seen as being in the Western story telling tradition. Its whole purpose is to knit together scenes seamlessly in a chronological order in order to provide a continuity of narrative. There is a grammar within this for pauses, new chapters, action etc. Most Hollywood movies use continuity editing although some have montage type sequences within the film.

Montage editing was developed in the early Russian cinema and is based on discontinuity and has affected a lot of European cinema. Art House cinema thrives on it. It is more expressive and “arty” but is still used today. In many of the early Russian films you regularly see two very different short sequences of film followed by a third which leads you in the direction of the meaning. It makes you think (it’s designed to make you think) and is difficult to appreciate at first particularly for people brought up on the Hollywood style of continuity editing. The apparent clash of images brings about new meaning to the shots that follow. In the film Strike by Eisenstein, shots of a slaughterhouse which on the face of it seem out of context are used to depict the killing of strikers by soldiers. A couple of examples. In The Godfather a series of killings in different locations  are cut with scenes of the baptism of Michael Corleone’s child towards the end of the film. There is a sharp contrast betwen the pious religious context of the baptism and the business and culture of revenge. The continuity of the church service soundtrack over all the events gives the cue that the events are happening at the same time. Another example can be seen in Apocalypse Now (right) where the execution of the renegade Colnel Kurtz is cut with the slaughter of an ox by the tribesmen who follow him. Interesting that both examples feature in films by the same director, Francis Ford Coppolla. Even in the film Gladiator the early sequences where the muddy preparations for the battle in the forest and cut with and contrasted with Maximus’ hand serenely stroking the barley in a field.

Both types of editing can exist in the same movie and produce very satisfying results for the filmgoer.

£659.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Tuesday Sep-09-2008 8:10:59 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£22.24 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 9:53:43 BST Buy It Now for only: £22.24 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£22.24 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 9:09:57 BST Buy It Now for only: £22.24 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£22.24 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 8:09:39 BST Buy It Now for only: £22.24 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£19.57 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 4:55:09 BST Buy It Now for only: £19.57 Buy it now | Add to watch list

I’ve always had a fascination for this film. I’m not quite sure whether it’s the sort of fascination you get when you stumble upon a car crash (a rubber-necking sort of fascination) or an admiration for what the film was striving for and, maybe, could have been. The facts and figures around Heaven’s Gate are astounding. Michael Cimino’s vision of the Johnson County Wars was not only the costliest film of its time but its burgeoning budget brought down a Hollywood studio - United Artists. Its takings were miniscule in America as the public stayed away in their hordes. You do actually see a lot of the money up there on the screen in the form of authentic-looking costumes and massive sets. This film effectively ended Cimino’s career as a director in Hollywood. Cimino, after his critical and financial success with The Deer Hunter, was the darling of Hollywood. He was given free rein on Heaven’s Gate, a western covering a particularly nasty episode in the development of the USA. The story had some broad similarities to The Deer Hunter - the struggle of immigrants to survive in a terrible situation, the loss of innocence and hope. However, instead of fighting the Vietnamese as in The Deer Hunter, the immigrants in Heaven’s Gate were fighting their own adopted country or the people who ran it.

Masterpiece?

• Fantastic cinematography - you get a real sense of size and proportion of the landscape which gives a real epic feel to the film. Scenes on the prairies with the big open sky are breathtaking.
• Authenticity - millions of dollars were spent trying to make the film look representative of the period. Thousands of handmade costumes and many newly built sets.
• Action - when the action does come, it is brutal, bloody and believable
• Experimentation - Cimino clearly borrows techniques and style from the European Cinema to try and give this western a different edge and feel. The use of a circling camera in action scenes is reminiscent of the work of the obscure Hungarian film director Miklos Jansco. In many ways, it is successful in conveying the clash of cultures

Mess!

• No big stars - For a big budget epic it had no bankable star. Of the main stars only Kris Kristofferson had any sort of kudos for a Western as he had taken one of the leads in Peckinpah’s iconic Pat Garret ad Billy the Kid. Isabelle Hupert, as the love interest, was virtually unknown in America although well respected in Europe.
• Film Length - The film is either too long or too short depending on who you talk to. The original cut of the film was over three and a half hours which was cut by the studio by nearly an hour after a week’s performance. This created problems for the narrative and played havoc with the cadence of the film. It became disjointed and difficult to follow. A Director’s Cut was unveiled in 2004 being nearer the original length and addresses some of the narrative problems.
• Characters - It is difficult to identify with the main characters and warm to them. The film revolves around the Kristofferson character. However, the performance isn’t large enough to fill the hole at the centre of the film.
• Problematic subject - a story about genocide planned by the establishment and a storyline with a whiff of communism about it did not endear itself to the American public at that time. The western had all but died after The Wild Bunch so its timing was poor.
• Poor sound quality - you may think I’m nit-picking here but when important developments in the story are missed because you didn’t hear what the characters were saying…
• Out of Control Director - indulgence on a grand scale proving that more can be less

I would definitely recommend you to go and see whatever version of the film you can get to see although I also recommend you take a comfy cushion to sit on. I’m sure you can get it on DVD. I think it is a magnificent, interesting, infuriating mess with the odd touch of masterpiece about it. You don’t always want to see the best films do you? There is a famous book - Final Cut - written by one of the production executives in charge of the film (haha) detailing the progress of the fated production and the downfall of the studio. An interesting read on its own.

When I was following my Film Studies A Level course I got the chance to brush up on my auteurs or authors. Kubrick is usually held up as the quintessential example of the auteur. An auteur or author is a concept developed by French critics to denote a director (usually) who is more than just the guy who makes sure the job gets done. They actually put their own unique and indelible stamp on a production. Typically, you can look at the body of work from an author director and see his signature whether it be in the form of recurring themes in the subject matter, visual style, etc. Stanley Kubrick is a great example because his films cross a whole range of genres. Just think of :

• War films (Paths of Glory, Full Metal Jacket),
• Sci Fi (2001 - A Space Odyssey, A Clockwork Orange),
• Horror (The Shining),
• Historical Epic (Spartacus, Barry Lyndon),
• Comedy/ Satire (Dr Strangelove)
• Love and Sex (Lolita, Eyes Wide Shut).

With a Kubrick film you expect to see certain things like:

• Controversy - a lot of his films entertained controversy at the time of their release. Lolita was about adaptation of a controversial novel about what we would now see as paedophilia; Paths of Glory portrayed the shocking treatment of French soldiers in the trenches by their generals; and, A Clockwork Orange was banned because of its graphic violence before Kubrick himself withdrew it from general circulation.
• Arresting images - In each of Kubrick’s films there are images that linger on in the memory. The battle scenes in Spartacus, the balletic violence of the fight scenes in A Clockwork Orange, Slim Pickens final hurrah astride a nuclear warhead in Dr Strangelove…There are so many.
• Technical Excellence and Innovation - For a great many of his later films Kubrick experimented with the latest technology to achieve originality on screen. Barry Lyndon is a good example. Kubrick and his cinematographer found a way to shoot scenes in candlelight and the results achieved provide a remarkable quality of picture. In 2001 - A Space Odyssey, a highly-engineered, circular, revolving stage with camera set up was built to simulate the scenes in a space station. In addition, some of the most sophisticated special effects of that time went into that movie.
• Recurrent themes - Don’t expect a happy ending in a Kubrick film. Even the funniest (Dr Strangelove) ends with the world being destroyed by nuclear bombs! The stench of death is never very far away. Society brutalising the common man - the soldiers in Paths of Glory and Full Metal Jacket, the slaves in Spartacus, Alex in A Clockwork Orange (eventually). There always seems to be an objectivity or detachment in Kubrick’s work. There is always something that makes you think, some shock or contravention of the genre rules. The Shining was described by some critics as the first horror film with the lights on. Music is used in subtle ways to heighten the message being conveyed. Who can forget the spaceships in 2001 waltzing in space to the Blue Danube. Or the world ending in Dr Strangelove to the strains of Vera Lynn singing We’ll Meet Again. And where music met controversy when Kubrick had the temerity to use electronic synthesiser versions of Beethoven’s Ode to Joy in A Clockwork Orange.
• Control -  Ever since his early films up to and including Spartacus, Kubrick would always have total control over the output and finished product. This personal requirement meant that he did not work that often (only 16 films in over 48 years) as studios shyed away from giving a director that much control. He was a perfectionist and would only release a film when he was happy with it. That also meant painstaking and long shooting schedules. Obsessive might be one way of describing him.

As he is no longer with us we can only look back at the significant body of films he left rather than anticipating the next Kubrick controversy.

£49.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Monday Sep-15-2008 19:04:00 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£69.99 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 21:22:32 BST Buy It Now for only: £84.99 Bid now | Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 19:24:41 BST Buy It Now for only: £29.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 End Date: Tuesday Sep-09-2008 19:23:04 BST Buy It Now for only: £29.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£29.99 End Date: Thursday Sep-11-2008 19:22:57 BST Buy It Now for only: £29.99 Buy it now | Add to watch list

Many critics place Citizen Kane at the top of their list of best films of all time. I think it would be best described as the most influential film of all time.

Personally, I have no great love for the film. I find it hard to have empathy for the central characters and it leaves me rather cold. But I do have tons of admiration for it. Orson Welles’ film was ground-breaking in many senses of the word. Its greatest gift was that of a new grammar for film-makers.

There are so many technical and stylistic innovations in the film that any audience at the time of its release would have been wowed by the “special effects”. Do you remember seeing Star Wars or The Matrix for the first time? Something like that!

Just to list a few of the innovations (mainly cinematography):

• Camera Angles - upward and downward camera angles to help create moods and points of view
• Depth of field - camera shots that show the back and the foreground in focus to create space and depth between the characters
• Tracking shots - camera movement over buildings, through windows to follow the action
• Use of flashbacks - creative use to dramatise the narrative
• Editing - different types of editing to convey pace and time and place

I am sure that there are many more if you analyse the film in detail but the point to be made was that it provided film makers who followed a broader range of techniques to call on to enhance their story telling and set the mood of their films. Welles was pronounced a genius after the opening of the film but it is Greg Toland’s photography that sets it apart from the films of that time. Was it Welles or Toland that was the genius?

Citizen Kane has its rightful place in history because it moved the film community forward and lit the fire of imagination for many generations to come. And in that respect it is by far the most influential film of all time.

£35.00 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 23:52:29 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£35.00 (0 Bid) End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 23:16:32 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£450.00 (0 Bid) End Date: Thursday Sep-11-2008 22:14:17 BST Bid now | Add to watch list

£24.95 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 19:11:10 BST Buy It Now for only: £24.95 Buy it now | Add to watch list

£39.95 End Date: Sunday Sep-14-2008 19:10:38 BST Buy It Now for only: £39.95 Buy it now | Add to watch list

I have been interested in screen writing for some time. I found this article which I thought would be worthwhile sharing. It is very concise and lean but manages to give a real sense of experience and knowledge

Screenwriting - How to Write A Copper Bottom Real Life Work of Shattering Genius in Ten Easy Steps
By John Smithery

I once got really angry with my agent. Real, bile seeping, coffee cup flinging, head pounding on wall angry. He had dared to suggest some rewrites for a screenplay that had sold twice, but hadn’t got made either time. Feet on desk, hands behind his head, beatific smile across his smarmy agent’s face, he had dared to utter one highly loaded phrase. He had dared to say: ‘it’s not rocket science, is it?’

Bombshell. Things between us crash landed. I shed him, like a hand grenade sheds its shell, there and then. How dare he…?!?

But, now I’ve several years perspective on the row, I am big enough, I have the heart enough, to be able to admit: He was right. Reworking a script isn’t rocket science. If you know what you are doing.

That’s a very important If.

“If you know what you are doing…”

If you’ve spent any time trying to write, and you’ve got any kind of internet connection at all, you will have realised there are a million other guys out there hacking away at screenplays, all apparently convinced they know what they are up to, and shouting like wild animals at anyone who dares disagree. They sound so authoritative, so compelling, so right - and yet so few of their screenplays ever get past the first hurdle of the initial slushpile reader, let alone to the desk of anyone with any commissioning power.

Meanwhile the people who do sell scripts seem to go on selling, and selling. Common sense would tell you they are obviously doing something different. Common sense would tell you that what they are submitting to the production companies is quantitatively different to what you are submitting.

How hard can it be to work out what the differences are?

As you are probably aware, its very, very hard.

In fact it’s so hard it took me about ten years before I cracked it.

Here’s the ten headlines. Ten rules of thumb. Ten stepping stones I follow religiously. Follow them conscientiously in order and you WILL see results. I promise.

1. Make your audience care. Get a person at the heart of your story who is deeply loved. Make terrible, awful things happen to them.

2. Make sure you are writing in a genre.

3. Happy Ending. You need one.

4. Love your hero, and force them to choose between two equally powerful alternatives at the end.

5. Design your villain so they can attack your hero in the most personal, damaging, agonising way. Love your villain as much as your hero.

6. Get your story right before you write a word of dialogue. Write a ten page treatment of this story, describing what happens to your beloved lead character.

7. Get a gang of your friends to read the treatment. If three or more of them pick up on a point independently, you might have a problem there. If enough people say something it is probably true.

8. Pick the first paragraph in your treatment. Think about it over and over again, visualise it in the bath, when you wake up, when you are walking along the street. Visualise what happens until you can run it through like a little movie in your mind, seeing what happens, almost hearing the dialogue. This will be your first sequence.

9. Get out your word processor, or your script writing software, whatever, doesn’t matter. You can format it later. Get that sequence down now. Write the scenes. Make the characters move, and talk, and feel.

10. Repeat steps 8 and 9 over and over again, until you have got to the end of your treatment.

You have just finished your first draft.

Format it. Print it. Weigh it in your hand. Admire it. You should be proud. Few people get this far. And if you followed these steps, it’s going to be far more readable than anything else you have written.

I hope you are intrigued by my stepping stones. Most writers take years and years of trial and error before they discover how to write in a way that people want to read. Many of them never ever get there, and give up, having wasted years of their life. Click here if you want a shortcut. (Oh, and John Smithery is a pen name. I’m still in the business, and there’s no way I want the producers I work for so see how easy it is. I like the way they pay for my time…)

Nicely written!

We have all seen these lists published everywhere. You will have your own list. I have mine. The British Film Institute will have theirs. The Screen Actors Guild will have theirs too. But how do you arrive at this list? It’s a very subjective thing isn’t it? My list will be very different to yours (I can assure you). And there are reasons for that. The main factor I use in my analysis are the effect that film had on me when I saw it for the first time. The emotion that it evoked in me. After all, most of us go to the cinema to watch films that will entertain, thrill, shock, frighten, educate us or make us laugh and cry. Good films help us forget about the humdrum here-and-now and take us to another place for a couple of hours or so. An issue arises though when some one or some body wants create a list of the top 10 BEST films of all time. How do you make a choice between Citizen Kane and The Lord of the Rings Trilogy, the Seven Samurai and The Seventh Seal or Some Like It Hot and Casablanca? Best in what terms? Biggest audience viewing figures? Gone With The Wind would be at number one under that criterion. Biggest grossing film - isn’t Titanic number one here? Best acting, best cinematography, best story/ narrative etc? Do you see what I mean. There used to be a poll every so often amongst film critics and they would ruminate on their best 100 films. These results would be aggregated and, hey presto, a definitive list would come out. These must be the best, right? There is a degree of objectivity being brought into the process but, after all, the raw data is still only various people’s subjective evaluations. But what you tend to see in these lists are older and more esoteric films with Citizen Kane being at number one. However, in the past few years there has been a trend of television companies doing large polls of their audiences (more likely to be representative of you and me) and coming up with lists like The 100 Best War Films of All Time etc. Here the general film going public has its chance to have an opinion and the results tend to differ significantly from the critics. But again it’s all subjective. People are not using the same criteria to judge the films, not every body has seen the same films. I don’t know whether it would be worth trying to come up with a sound formal method for evaluating a film based on objective criteria so that we could come up with THE BEST FILMS. I suspect that there will always be elements of the process subject to criticism by people like myself. So, why don’t we keep it as an interesting entertainment in itself and a topic of conversation and not take it too seriously. After all, your opinion is as valid as mine. But appreciation of film, in my terms, is knowing why you liked or disliked a film and being able to express it; being aware of the criteria you yourself use in judging a film; and listening to and considering alternative views. I won’t list my Top 10 Films of All Time yet but there is a picture from one of them at the top of this post? Any guesses?