'Lebanon' review and interview with Sam Maoz at OWF now!

Samuel Maoz's tough, award winning Israeli war film, 'Lebanon', has now been reviewed over at Obsessed With Film by yours truly. I was also lucky enough to interview Mr. Maoz back in late April and that too is now available to read on the site. There is also (and sorry if it's 'Lebanon' overkill over at OWF right now!) a podcast which covers the movie, with me and Jon also discussing 'Life During Wartime'.

Interested in 'Lebanon'? Here is the trailer:



'Lebanon' is out tomorrow (14th May) and is rated '15' by the BBFC.

Reversing my position, plus a new article, an interview and reviews at OWF

I have some new stuff up at Obsessed With Film as of today: a full interview with Lucy Bailey and Andrew Thompson (directors of the documentary 'Mugabe and the White African'), a review of the 'Caligula' Blu-ray release and a review of the documentary 'One Night in Turin', which is screening for one night only across the nation (11th May). Aside from this I also have a load of news stories up on the site and, of course, the podcast.

Speaking of which, Jon and I recorded no less than two new episodes the other night (Jon is going away for a week and we needed one in the bag for then). The first covers 'Life During Wartime' (which I still need to review for this blog since seeing it weeks back) and 'Lebanon', whilst the second was about 'Iron Man 2', 'The Avengers' and a nice Romanian film called 'The Happiest Girl in the World' (which I'll write a review for nearer the time of release).

Anyway, now to the bit about "reversing my position": I wrote this in my review of Chris Morris' excellent 'Four Lions':

"Where the film differs from the rest of the Morris oeuvre is that his work usually combines incisive satire of both form and content. The way things are said is always as rich and funny as what is being said. However, in ‘Four Lions’... this formal and generic parody is absent... stylistically there is none of the directorial wit and experimentation seen in Morris’ series ‘Jam’... there is a sizable portion of what makes Morris pioneering and unique that is clearly missing."

The more I have thought about that since I have begun to change my mind. I saw the film again last night and it confirmed that I was probably wrong about the lack of satire of the form of film itself. (Potential spoilers ahead) I think that actually Morris is playing with the structure of movies and the way in which they can manipulate audiences to sympathise with potentially nasty characters.

I a lot of films you follow a gangster, a bank robber or some other kind of violent criminal (or even violent anti-hero) and the film is constructed in a way which makes you identify with that protagonist. When the police almost catch the crook you get nervous. If the movie was about the police, however, you'd anxiously want them to best the crook.

In 'Four Lions' Morris sticks to a conventional structure where Omar (Riz Ahmed) faces a crisis of confidence just prior to the films third act. In typical movie style he is given a pep-talk by his wife and young son, who persuade him he should, in fact, destroy himself. It's a dark and disturbing scene and the more I think about it the more I think that Morris knows exactly what he is doing by combining that sort of scene with this sort of character. He is playing with convention and structure and highlighting, almost, the dangerous power of film to manipulate an audience. The home-life scenes with Omar are quite sweet and sometimes a little cheesy, but I now think this is part of the satire.

Of both form AND content.

Anyway, that's how I feel about it now.

On a side note, I saw Bogdanovich's 'The Last Picture Show' yesterday and it was amazing from start to finish. Here is the trailer... for no real reason.

'Iron Man 2' review, plus a new Blu-ray review

I haven't updated on here for a few days (thanks in no small part to writing for Obsessed with Film), but I now have a double helping of Beames on Film action for you, with a link to a new Blu-ray review (of 'The Railway Children') and a new instalment of the podcast (in which Jon and I discuss our trip to a Disney trade expo and give our impressions of 'The Prince of Persia').

However, that is not all I present to you here today, as I have also gotten round to writing my impressions of one of this year's biggest blockbuster movies, 'Iron Man 2'. Here goes (don't read on if you are afraid of reading spoilers):



‘Iron Man 2’, Jon Favreau’s follow-up to his original 2008 Marvel comic adaptation, is probably the purest fun I have had in the cinema so far this year. There are some amazing set pieces (as in when War Machine and Iron Man team up to fight an army of robots), brilliant choreography (as in when Black Widow dispatches of a load of security goons with ease) and a great cast of actors (as in Mickey Rourke, Scarlett Johansson, Robert Downey Jr and the incredible Sam Rockwell). All of these elements combine to make ‘Iron Man 2’ one of the most enjoyable super hero movies yet.

Downey Jr is again at his charismatic and cynical best as Tony Stark (the titular Iron Man). At the very end of last year he was brilliant in Guy Ritchie’s ‘Sherlock Holmes’ and he brings this fine form into this new instalment in the ‘Iron Man’ series. Mickey Rourke does exactly as well as you’d expect as a villain (Whiplash) and Scarlett Johansson is solid as Black Widow. The stand-out performer, however, must be Rockwell who is hilarious as Stark’s business rival, Justin Hammer. His delivery is terrific, though some may be fooled by how seemingly effortless he is, for me Rockwell’s reading of the dialogue is pitch-perfect and intelligent. Admittedly a lot of Rockwell’s comic power is helped by Justin Theroux’s script, which I probably the finest superhero movie screenplay not written by Christopher Nolan.

On the downside, Don Cheadle is no replacement for Terrence Howard as Rhodey (who becomes the War Machine in this instalment). Cheadle isn’t bad exactly. He just isn’t anything like as charismatic and, well, “cool” as Howard. When Howard eyes up the Iron Man suit in the first movie and says “Maybe next time”, you think “yeah!”. But honestly, Cheadle doesn’t inspire the same excitement in me (though the War Machine scenes are still awesome). Gwyneth Paltrow is also ever so slightly annoying as Pepper Potts (Stark’s assistant) and Jon Favreau (who had a cameo in the first movie) seems to have cynically given his character (Stark’s driver) a bigger role, including his own fight scene.


There is also the matter of Samuel L. Jackson as Nick Fury. It was ok when he played Fury in a post-credits “Easter egg” at the end of the first film, but Jackson, as an actor, just seems cheap. The days where he seemed to represent some form of liquid cool are long behind him and (especially with his eye patch) he just cheapens every scene he is in throughout this sequel. And there are probably too many of those as the film gears up towards Joss Wheadon’s 2012 ‘Avengers’ movie.

The liberal in me hates hearing Tony Stark gloat that he has "successfully privatized peace", but to take this to heart would be a step too far. In all the Stark character is just fantastic. It is refreshing to see a super hero movie without secret identities. Everyone knows who Stark is and they love it... and he loves it. This is the main element that makes Downey Jr's Iron Man so fun to watch on screen. Stark is enjoying being a super hero most of the time and he is cocky and egotistical (without needing to wear a venom suit too).

In all though, the film is great. Really good fun. The action scenes are exciting, the funny bits are funny and the things that are supposed to excite you about future projects (nods to Captain America and Thor are present) generally do. Like its predecessor, it is no ‘Dark Knight’. But it is in that next bracket down, reserved for (in my opinion anyway) Ang Lee’s ‘Hulk’ and ‘The Incredibles’. It is certainly a lot better than ‘The Incredible Hulk’ and ‘The Fantastic Four’. For that matter it is better than ‘Clash of the Titans’ and ‘Prince of Persia’, making this the best movie of the blockbusting summer. At least until Nolan’s ‘Inception’ comes out in a few months!

'Iron Man 2' is playing wherever there are cinema screens and is rated '12a' by the BBFC.

New podcast as the Splendor returns!!!

Just to contradict my earlier remarks, the Splendor Podcast has been re-born! Originally out new home at Obsessed with Film changed the name to "Barrenechea and Beames", but Jon smartly figured that name would be too difficult for those looking on iTunes to spell correctly. So we've gone back to calling it Splendor. The added bonus of this is that the Picturehouse website have agreed to keep putting it up there too! This is happy, happy news and I'm excited that we can continue to reach Picturehouse customers with our weekly film-based musings.

The latest episode, in which Jon and I review 'The Ghost', can be streamed now at OWF and I'm told it will soon be available on iTunes too (although old subscribers may have to subscribe all over again).

Blu-ray reviews and the new podcast now up at Obsessed with Film

Obsessed with Film is the place to go right now to read a couple of new Blu-ray reviews I have written. Reviews of high-definition releases of both Bertolucci's 'The Last Emperor' and David Lynch's 'Inland Empire' can now be found there for your reading pleasure as of today.

As mentioned last week, Obsessed with Film is also the new home of Jon and I's regular movie podcast (previously Splendor Cinema, now apparently entitled 'Barrenechea and Beames'). Our maiden voyage for OWF features reviews of 'Dogtooth' and 'Whip It' (reviewed in textual form here last week), as well as a competition to win a copy of Mark Kermode's book "It's Only a Movie". The podcast itself is much the same: it's still hosted by Jon Barrenechea and myself and still recorded in the projection booth of the UK's oldest cinema (the Duke of York's in Brighton). So no cause for concern, gentle listener!

Anyway, I hope you follow the podcast to its new home and check out my reviews and Jon's brilliant article on piracy whilst you're there!

'I Am Love' review, plus the new (and last?) Splendor podcast...

Regular readers (hello mum and dad) may have noticed that this blog has not really been updated with its usual frequency in the last week or so. This has been due to my work for Obsessed With Film, for whom I interviewed Ricky Gervais and Stephen Merchant and reviewed their latest film 'Cemetery Junction'. During that time I saw 'I Am Love', but have only just been able to take the time to review it here. It is a bit shorter than my usual reviews on here, but I wanted to get something down before I forgot everything about the film! On a seperate note: there is a new Splendor Cinema podcast up in the player at the side of this blog. It is labelled episode seven because whilst the 'Kick-Ass' episode got put up on iTunes, it was the victim of a staff holiday at the Picturehouse site and so seems to have been passed by. When the latest episode appears on iTunes it will (correctly) be number eight.

And number eight, in which Jon and I tackle the subject of the future of cinema and of piracy, may well be the last Splendor Cinema podcast... ever. But have no fear gentle listener! We are re-branding it the "Obsessed With Film" podcast and it will continue in the same vein, but hopefully reaching a larger audience. So keep on listening.

Anyway, here is the 'I Am Love' review:



‘I Am Love’ is an Italian film produced by (and starring) Tilda Swinton and directed by Luca Guadagnino. According to Swinton the film was conceived in part as a tribute to filmmakers “whose claim on the development of the cinematic language is unassailable”. ‘I Am Love’ is apparently “an attempt to honour this kind of bravado” from these great artists who so advanced film as an art form. But whereas the works of Hitchock, Huston and Kubrick (three of the filmmakers cited as influences) were always constructed to appeal to an audience and to provide entertainment, ‘I Am Love’ is content to pander to an art house crowd who will no doubt call it “a sumptuous and sublime work” and will remind us that “Swinton is superb!”. Guadagnino and Swinton may feel that they have paid a tribute to the greats in terms of their execution of the cinematic form as a “toolkit” (again Swinton’s words), but none of the excitement of ‘North by Northwest’ or ‘The Maltese Falcon’ or ‘A Clockwork Orange’ can be felt in this formal exercise in pretension.

Some individual scenes are truly excellent. The film expertly evokes the feeling of a late summer afternoon, with especially beautiful sunlit scenes depicted on Yorick Le Saux’s camera. Le Saux also worked with Swinton on ‘Julia’ and it is easy to see why she would have asked him back for this project: the cinematography is faultless. Similarly evocative is John Adams operatic score, which lends a level of grandeur to the occasion and renders the films visual elegance audible. I would also say that some key scenes and moments did affect me, with one of the film’s key revelations occurring in a purely visual way – surely the mark of the purest kind of cinema. Furthermore, I enjoyed the way in which Edo (Swinton’s favourite son) subtly mirrors his father (and the whole family) in his treatment of women throughout the film and also how the daughter’s homosexuality (an early plot development) is treated with tenderness and real love.

However, despite these admirable qualities the film generally kept me at arms length throughout. It feels like more of a showcase for Tilda Swinton’s undoubted talent, rather than a story that needed to be told. There was one brief chase sequence that alluded to the Hitchcockian influence with it’s pacing and sense of urgency. But the rest of film moves at a wearying pace, as the filmmakers hope that the undoubted visual splendor will keep you hooked. Long, well-composed shots of people sitting around nicely-lit tables can only hold my attention for so long and as early as twenty minutes into the films two hours I found myself bored, however much I really want to admire and applaud anyone who so earnestly celebrates the cinematic.

I can see how, in the age of ‘Transformers 2’ and ‘The Bounty Hunter’, this sort of ambitious and self-indulgent cinema might appeal to those who hunger for something with a bit of substance. But for me, ‘I Am Love’ is an example of the opposite extreme, for as much as ‘Transformers’ is so brazenly artless, ‘I Am Love’ is an example of art for arts sake - which to my mind is ultimately just as artless in the final analysis. Great art doesn’t (or shouldn’t) primarily aspire to be art. ‘I Am Love’ certainly sings of its artiness from the well-lit rooftops of its many splendid Milanese villas. But then maybe it is only fitting that a film entitled ‘I Am Love’ should be so enamored with itself.

'I Am Love' is still playing across the UK in selected screens, including Brighton's own Duke of York's Picturehouse. It is rated '15' by the BBFC.

IQGamer's David Bierton turns his attention to Kick-Ass...

My good friend Dave Bierton has kindly offered his impressions of 'Kick-Ass' which I reviewed last month on this blog. Dave is generally a video games journalist and has left his comfort zone to contribute this interesting and comprehensive review, which provides a second opinion to my own:

"I went into seeing ‘Kick-Ass’ not knowing what to expect, and left particularly impressed after witnessing what can only be described as an alternative take on the superhero movie. In fact the film isn’t actually a superhero movie at all. Instead it takes inspiration from a number of sources from ‘The Dark Knight’, ‘Kill Bill’, ‘Superbad’, even ‘The Matrix’ and just briefly, Sergio Leone’s Dollars series. The result is a fresh look at what it is like for an ordinary man to become a so-called superhero, with no powers, no cool weapons, just a sheer determination to make a difference, and a lot of luck and chaos which comes his way.

The main reason for me why I enjoyed the film so much, and also why in my opinion it works so well, is down to the mixture of styles and characters, along with the superbly choreographed action sequences, which all balance out and give a grounding to the film’s somewhat ridiculous premise. A kid in high school is as unlikely to become a fighting avenger as much as a multi million-dollar tycoon is to become Batman in real life. However, seeing such a social misfit, a loser lost in the land of the ordinary, as people go, make this almost comedic attempt at vigilantism makes for an entertaining caper in which we all can relate to.

‘Kick-Ass’ as a character provides much of the films comic relief. He can barely stand up the most meagre of street thugs, let alone against a crew of experienced Mafia-style heavies. However he takes on the challenge with all the determination in the world, naivety intact, without really thinking anything through beforehand. It provides the film with some of its funniest scenes, but also its message that there are some serious consequences when taking things into your own hands. Violence always comes at a price, and the question is: is that price one worth paying?

The real star of the show, however, is Chloe Moretz as the pint-sized Hot Girl. The sight of seeing a small thirteen year old girl slicing and dicing her way through a room of hoodlums was particularly amusing, and somewhat shocking at times. Her brutality is only matched by her resolve, never flinching and seemingly enjoying her sadistic antics. Her role, like with Nicholas Cage’s Big Daddy, is played straight, without the intention of comedic effect outside of her outlandish actions. Though hearing her shouting out the ‘c word’ before ripping through her adversaries was a particular highlight, and one of the films most amusing moments. The whole scene felt like some homage to the typical Japanese Anime, with the eclectic score and Moretz’s portrayal of an almost perverse form of innocents and naivety.

I found ‘Kick-Ass’ to be a polished mixture of high-kicking comic book fantasy, combined with the stark realities showcased in ‘The Dark Knight’, along various nods at other superhero and action movies of the last decade or so. It’s all delivered in a reserved, almost understated manner, making some of its more ridiculous characters not only believable, but also integral to making the whole thing work. The combination of comedic elements in the dialogue and action, with serious delivery by Moretz, Cage, and Mark Strong as the villain of the piece, take Kick-Ass from being just another ‘different’ attempt at making a comic book movie into something else entirely. Something much better if you ask me, and one of the most enjoyable films I have seen in a long time.

With regards to a sequel potentially being made at some point -the end of the film sets itself up for one –maybe they shouldn’t really go down that route, especially seeing how the characters progress and develop, the dynamics between them, and the grounded reality of this film. As it stands Kick-Ass works so well as it is, I’d rather not have a cleaver attempt to make the film become a franchise, losing its uniqueness and the things which made it work so well in the first place.

I’d have to say that everyone should at least attempt to see the film at some point, preferably with all the impact that comes with seeing it on the big screen, surround sound and wide viewing angle and all. I’ll be doing just that on Monday at the Dukes, along with my other work cohorts, which should make for a very entertaining evening."

Thanks again to Dave, whose video game analysis can be read on his own blog: IQGamer. We both seem to agree that it is a film well worth watching, so check it out! A conversation about the film between Splendor Cinema's Jon Barrenechea and myself can be heard in our latest podcast, whilst I have also previously written about attending the film's London Premiere.

'Kick-Ass' is still playing regularly at the Duke of York's Picturehouse cinema in Brighton and is rated '15' by the BBFC.

Competition time!

Just a quick entry here to say that the latest podcast is up on iTunes and should soon be available on the Picturehouse website and on this blog (literally within hours of this post). It's a really good episode as Jon and I discuss 'Kick-Ass', both the premiere and the movie itself. We also talk about Jon's time in Toulouse at the Latin American Film Festival.

Most exciting is the fact that we are offering our first giveaway! It's a copy of last year's disaster-porn-fest '2012' and it's on sparkling, HD Blu-Ray disc for your viewing pleasure. To "win" the film just e-mail me (r.beames@hotmail.co.uk), or Jon, and give us some feedback on the podcast. The best comment wins the Blu-Ray. Enjoy!

Up on the air...

Update: Due to illness the show didn't go out this Thursday. However, I have been told it will be going out next Thursday, and hopefully every Thursday from then on.

Just a quick post to plug my new radio show, which is airing on Thursday mornings at 11 o’clock on Radio Free Brighton starting tomorrow, and can be streamed online. I was very pleased to have two friends of mine as guests on the first show, which was recorded yesterday afternoon. I was lucky enough to be joined by my friends Arabella Stanger and Adam Whitehall (both of whom work with me at the Duke of York’s cinema), who joined me to discuss the 2006 film ‘Juno’, more specifically the idea that it contains conservative themes within the formal trappings of quirky indie comedy. I don’t know that we covered everything we wanted to on this topic within our 30 minute time slot, but we gave it a go and hopefully can provoke some more discussion!

The idea of the ‘Beames on Film’ radio programme is that people from the local community can come on and discuss anything film-related that they feel strongly about. I don’t want this to be a review programme, as I review films on this blog, as well as with Jon Barrenechea in our Splendor Cinema podcast. Rather, I want a forum for in-depth discussion on a range of topics. I have already had some suggestions for future program ideas and I encourage more. In fact I would urge people to visit the Radio Free Brighton facebook page (or e-mail me personally) and make comments on past episodes as well as making suggestions for the future, especially if anyone wants to come on air and dicsuss anything in person. I would love this show to involve the local community as much as possible.

In the mean time, I hope you listen to the show and leave comments here. As I say, the first episode was imperfect due having to get used to how fast a half-hour can go by. But the show will certainly find its feet in the coming weeks (with your help).

'Micmacs' Review: The best film I saw last year...

In the first edition of the Splendor Cinema podcast Jon and I discussed out favourite movies of 2009. Missing from my list was a film I considered one of the very best and most enjoyable of the year, but as the film in question was not then on general release in the UK, I opted to consider it a film of 2010 and exclude it from my thinking for the time being. However, as of the 26th of February, Jean-Pierre Jeunet’s ‘Micmacs’ is officially showing nationwide in UK cinemas, and the time is therefore right to post my appraisal of it here.

As previously mentioned, ‘Micmacs’ is the new film by the director of ‘Amélie’ Jean-Pierre Jeunet, and is his first film since 2004’s ‘A Very Long Engagement’. The story concerns a man named Bazil (Dany Boon) who finds himself the innocent victim of gangland violence on the streets of Paris - taking a gunshot wound to the head. Luckily Bazil survives the wound (albeit with the bullet permanently lodged in his brain) and befriends a gang of social misfits: featuring the usual array of quirky oddballs and cheerful grotesques, with parts for Jeunet regulars Dominique Pinon and Yolande Moreau. Together they conspire to bring down two international arms dealers, each guilty in their own way for crimes against both Bazil and the world in which he lives. It’s a darkly comic farce, with elements of social satire, not just of the arms trade and of corporations, but also broadly of Sarkozy-era France.

Of course the success of ‘Amélie’ can be attributed (for a large part) to the star-making central performance of Audrey Tautou in the title role, whose effervescent screen presence captivated audiences. But if Tautou was crucial to the success of that film, Dany Boon is equally crucial here. Boon (apparently already a huge comedy star in France) is quite brilliant, especially in one scene which requires him to convince an onlooker that he has entered a car – in what is surly a direct homage to a piece of Chaplin business seen in ‘City Lights’. Boon proves at moments like this that he is a naturally gifted silent comedian, and that if the sort of films made by Buster Keaton or Harold Lloyd were still being made today, then Boon would be a huge international star. It also helps that matters that Boon is ably supported by a host of talented character actors who each pull off their own peculiar part with considerable skill.



Whilst I would usually try to steer clear of making simplistic “if you like ‘Three Amigos’, you’ll LOVE ‘Tropic Thunder’” type comments, I do think it’s probably quite accurate to say from the off that if you are one of those who didn’t get swept up in the whimsical charms of ‘Amélie’, then I would suggest you will not find much more to enjoy in ‘Micmacs’. If you hated that film's sensibilities (as a great many seem to do) then I don’t think this is the film for you. Conversely, I think fans of that film will find much to recommend about ‘Micmacs’, as it has the same oddball sensibility, along with many of Jeunet’s familiar visual motifs and thematic preoccupations.

Whilst I can see how the hyper-stylised world of the Jeunet film will not be to everyone’s taste, I found ‘Micmacs’ consistently entertaining. It was frequently funny, in parts touching and never less than beautiful to look at. Furthermore, it always has its heart exactly in the right place. And what more can you ask of a film than that?

'Micmacs' (rated '12A' by the BBFC) is now on general release across the UK, and is playing all week at the Duke of York's in Brighton. Also, on the subject of the long running 'Alice' boycott saga, the Odeon have relented to Disney's terms, a full look at which can be found here.

The latest Splendor podcast is up...

As the title says, the latest Splendor Cinema/Duke of York's podcast is now on the right-hand side of this very blog. You can also now listen to it on the Duke of York's Picturehouse official website, where it can be streamed at your will. It should be up on iTunes in the near future, but (as is so often the case) there has been a hitch there for the time being.

This time Jon and I discuss the recent BAFTAs, the Berlin Film Festival and we also take a look at a couple of upcoming features: 'Amelie' director Jean-Pierre Jeunet's 'Micmacs' and Michael Moore's latest documentary, 'Capitalism: A Love Story'.

The podcast is now hosted by the Picturehouse website, but thanks must go to Eurogamer's Craig Munroe, who heroically hosted the first four editions out of the kindness of his own heart. Thanks Craig!

Finally, Dennis at Wrapped in Brown Paper has published his review of 'The Lovely Bones', so check that out!

Both 'Micmacs' and 'Capitalism: A Love Story' can be seen at the Duke of York's Picturehouse from Friday 26th of February.

A good year for British film?

Jon Barrenechea, of Splendor Cinema, is back in the country now after attending the Berlin Film Festival. So expect a new edition of our podcast within the next week. We will, of course, be covering the highs and lows of Jon's time in Berlin, as well as looking at the winners and losers from the BAFTA award ceremony this weekend.

Personally, I'm hoping Armando Iannucci's sublime satirical debut feature 'In the Loop' (Iannucci and cast members pictured above) wins the award for 'Outstanding British Film', which is arguably the ceremonies most interesting category this year with the others being very similar to recent award shortlists in terms of the films nominated. With that category also featuring nominations for the low-budget Sci-fi 'Moon', Andrea Arnold's 'Fish Tank', Sam Taylor-Wood's John Lennon biopic 'Nowhere Boy' and the multi Oscar-nominated 'An Education' (which being nominated for the overall Best Film prize, must be the favourite here?) it looks like a decent year for British film, especially considering that films of the quality of 'Looking for Eric' and 'Sleep Furiously' failed to make the shortlist.

Finally, my good friend Dennis at Wrapped in Brown Paper has written a cracking review of a recent British crime film I have never heard of called 'Tony'. He highly recommends it and it's worth checking out his review if you are interested in British independent cinema or the crime genre in general. Apparently it's available on DVD and on the strength of Dennis's review it maybe one to check out soon.

Watch this space for the next Splendor Cinema/Duke of York's podcast!

Support Armando and co by watching the BAFTAs award ceremony in full on BBC1, Sunday the 21st February at 21.00.

It's alive! The most splendid Splendor podcast yet is here!

It’s finally here! After a technical hitch that involved the host thinking he’d accidentally deleted the entire recording, the latest Splendor Cinema/Duke of York’s podcast is up. Of course you already know that if you subscribed to it on iTunes. For everyone else, what’s keeping you?

This time around Jon and I talk about the Oscar nominations and discuss who should win and who will win the coveted awards in March. It’s pod gold. Sadly, it may also be the last podcast for a few weeks as Jon is off to Berlin to catch the festival, the lucky devil. On the bright side he will be back with news of the latest films from Scorsese and Polanski, as well as insights on a whole host of other interesting movies and events. So watch this space for that report.

Why I still care about the Oscars

Unfortunately a technical error has delayed the latest ‘Splendor Cinema/Duke of York’s’ podcast. In it, Jon and I, discuss the Oscar nominations predicting who should win and who will win. It should be up this week. However, there are friends of mine who would question the wisdom of devoting as much (or any) attention to the Oscars. Some really hate the Academy Awards and will say that they don’t care who wins on the big night. To them, I say, there are so many reasons to care.

Obviously the Academy Awards can rarely be looked at as the definitive summary of that year in film, especially as they ignore foreign language film in the major categories to such a degree. But the awards are of interest because they interest the industry itself. It matters who wins because they will find it easier to get work, and if a film you like wins an Oscar then more people will be encouraged to go to see it. OK, ‘Avatar’, a likely winner of Best Picture this year, doesn’t need a boost to its box office. But imagine if ‘A Serious Man’ won. It would probably more than double the number of people who see that film. In 2008, when Paul Thomas Anderson was nominated for Best Director, I was thrilled, because that sort of recognition counts for something in Hollywood. Maybe he’ll find it a little easier to make his next film, or to attract the actors he wants or whatever. I care if films I like win awards because I want to see more films like them. Mostly though, I cover the Oscars, not because of what they say about art, but because they impact upon cinema as a business in a way BAFTAs, Golden Globes and SAG awards just don’t.

In an earlier post I predicted who I thought would be nominated this time around (and was fairly accurate). Today I thought it would be a bit of self-indulgent fun to hand out my own awards for last year in film. Now, if I were a one-man award academy, ‘A Serious Man’ would win Best Picture, with ‘The White Ribbon’ and ‘A Prophet’ nominated in the category. I would also include the mumblecore gem ‘Humpday’ and the brilliant British satire ‘In the Loop’. The Best Director would be Lars Von Trier (already self-proclaimed greatest in the world: why not make it official?) for ‘Antichrist’, the beautiful and haunting movie that became so notorious last year. ‘In the Loop’ would win the screenplay award it so richly deserves (and is really nominated for) and ‘Ponyo’ would win Best Animated Film (for which it isn’t even a nominee). In terms of actors, I would award Michael Stuhlbarg and nominate Max Records (the little boy from ‘Where the Wild Things Are’). Both are intense and interesting screen performers. The actress category would be won by Carey Mulligan, for ‘An Education’, who is deservedly actually nominated outside of this fantasy.

If, somehow, you aren’t all Oscar-ed out by now, stay tuned for the aforementioned podcast later this week to hear Jon and I predict the winners and losers for the real event.

The latest Dukes/Splendor podcast is here!

That's right, it's that time again. Last Friday Jon Barrenechea and I sat down to discuss 'A Prophet' and 'Up in the Air' and, as usual, there was some general chatter about film distribution. You can listen to the episode here or by downloading it from iTunes (where you'd be a fool not to subscribe).

Jon also makes some interesting points about protection and exhibition of domestic cinema, which he goes into in more detail on his blog (with regards to the "banning" of 'Avatar' in China). The man makes a lot of sense.

Apologies for some issues with sound quality this week. I have found an external mic, and it will hopefully be better next time.
Finally, for those with an interest, I have just started a "sister" blog to this one with a focus on video games. Please give it a look, if you are so inclined.

My big important opinions

I must admit I'm a little self conscious writing this: my first transmission into the blogosphere (surprisingly spell check agrees that it’s a word). This is mostly because having a blog in the first place sounds like I’m shouting “come and read my big important opinions”. I feel a bit arrogant and a little presumptuous to be writing my thoughts on here. So why am I doing it? That’s a question I’ve just asked myself.

There are many reasons why I am writing this blog. Partly it’s because I see this as something to keep me thinking and writing (since graduating from University it has been easy to do little of either). Partly it’s because I usually feel at odds with what I read in film journalism. I love to read Sight and Sound every month and I listen to my fair share of film podcasts, so I’m not against hearing other people’s point of view on film at all, but I disagree so often with so much of it that this blog is hopefully going to be a healthy outlet for some (until now) impotent rage. Mostly though I need this forum because I almost take it personally when I hear someone dislike a film I am really attached to. For instance I could scarcely contain my bewilderment when a film tutor told me she had walked out of Paul Thomas Anderson’s 'Punch-Drunk Love' in the cinema. It is this indignation which is to be the driving force behind much of what I write on this blog. Well, that and my sincere love of the art of cinema.

It is with this in mind that I humbly, scratch that, egotistically invite you to hear my big important opinions.

Also, stay tuned for the latest Duke of York’s podcast. As always I’ll be talking with (and sometimes over) art-cinema manager, and the author of the excellent SPLENDOR CINEMA blog, Jon Barrenechea.
Thanks for reading!