3D: a low-end gimmick or the future of cinema?

I'm back in Brighton now after a week and a bit working as a sub-editor on the Cambridge Film Festival Daily, and I thought I'd post an example of the sort of thing I've been writing whilst I've been away. This was in yesterday's paper:



Mark Kermode has confidently predicted the end of it within two years. On the other side of the Atlantic, Roger Ebert has told Newsweek that “It is unsuitable for grown-up films of any seriousness. It limits the freedom of directors to make films as they choose.” The industry-led resurgence of 3D films has steadily gained momentum over the last few years, reaching an all-time high with James Cameron's box office conquering Goliath, AVATAR, at the start of this year and attracting the ire of traditionalist movie critics the world over. Since then 3D films have looked set to become even more prevalent. Even features not shot purposefully for 3D, such as ALICE IN WONDERLAND and CLASH OF THE TITANS, have been taken into the world of plastic glasses and inflated ticket prices using a widely criticised post-production conversion process.

Some filmmakers have even begun to challenge the studios, speaking out against the ubiquitous use of 3D – including TRANSFORMERS helmer Michael Bay. I asked long-time Stanley Kubrick collaborator, Jan Harlan, whether he suspects the master filmmaker (ever the innovator) would have been at the forefront of this current craze. “He was interested in all technology that improved the image that he wanted to portray, and 3D isn't one of them... The only film he made where 3D could be interesting was 2001, in parts. But with a film like EYES WIDE SHUT why would you bother?” Echoing those comments of Ebert, Harlan added, ”if you want to make a deep film, it's distracting almost.” Bill Lawrence, an expert in the history of filmic innovations, is similarly unconvinced, seeing it as just one in a long line of gimmicks which diminish the quality of films made: “Quite often now they use the 3D effect to sell poor stories... to try and get an audience in.”



Many of these critics are willing to write the practice off, but film historian Ian Christie sees something fundamentally different in the current push towards the format, that sets it apart from attempts made in the fifties, seventies and eighties. For one thing, Christie suggests the technology behind it now is much better, giving it more appeal. But more important than that is the business side. ”I think now the mainstream industry is throwing a lot more behind it than was ever the case in the past.” Big electronics firms in particular are putting a lot of investment into it too: “the technology companies are determined to make it work. Sony in particular are throwing everything at it, and they see it as a massive solution to a lot of problems they've got.” Not to mention the fact that massive investment has already gone into upgrading many of Britain's projectors to support the push.

Another factor counting in 3D's favour, is that attitudes towards it have changed from within the creative side of the film industry. Speaking of earlier attempts he says, “It was seen as a gimmick, and it was actually seen as a sort of low-end gimmick. There is still a lot of that about at the moment... with PIRANHA 3D. But the difference is that some pretty serious filmmakers want to do something with it.” He was of course referring to the likes of James Cameron, but also more critically revered directors. “Scorsese's current picture is 3D as well. And I think that's going to be a real game-changer, because it's going to be hard for people to just write it off.” Meanwhile, Werner Herzog just premiered his first 3D film, a documentary on cave paintings, in Toronto.




Speaking to Christie is refreshing, as he expresses a sincere interest not really in vogue in film criticism. “I personally feel very enthusiastic about 3D, it's a wonderful resource and a whole new generation of filmmakers has to learn how to use it. It's not immediately obvious, it's a learning process. So if it can establish itself, then I think we might see a new generation coming through.” Perhaps the reluctance of people to seriously consider the process is not wholly unprecedented: “Cinemascope was bitterly attacked on all sides... and sound, was bitterly opposed, and colour. Just about every big development in the history of film has had its detractors – by defenders of what they consider to be true cinema.”

For Christie 3D is full of possibilities, and certainly nothing to be dismissed out of hand. “Cinema thrives on novelty” he enthuses. He ends our conversation on a similarly excitable note: ”I'd just like to see some more varied 3D films made. Bring them on, I say!”

Photos provided by the Festival's official photographer, Tom Catchesides. Thanks Tom!

'Empire of Silver' review:

Oliver Stone is not the only filmmaker with an upcoming movie about corruption on Wall Street. Chinese filmmaker Christina Yao also has her eye on many of the same timely themes in her film 'Empire of Silver' ('Baiyin Diguo') – which is set during the Boxer Rebellion in the closing days of the nineteenth century, in Shanxi: then considered the Wall Street of China.

'Empire of Silver' is a story of rivalry, ambition and corruption, centering on a family who control the vast majority of China's silver in the days before paper currency. The film's central focus is on a ruthless and powerful patriarch, Lord Kang (Zhang Tie Lin), and his relationship with his third son, played by Aaron Kwok. The central conflict is set around Lord Kang's demand that his heir consolidates the families wealth and power for the future of his dynasty, whereas the son is more compassionate, and unwilling to follow so closely in his father's footsteps. This is complicated further by the presence of Lord Kang's young wife (Lei Hao), who is also the son's one true love.

In many ways 'Empire of Silver' is everything we have come to expect from products of China's booming film industry. It is beautifully photographed and realised on a large scale, with emphasis on sets and costumes. However, this film is rather light on martial arts compared to the most successful Chinese exports! There is one unnecessary action sequence in the middle section that reeks of lack of confidence in the material's ability to entertain an audience, as two men square off against around thirty unconvincing CGI wolves. There is also a much more relevant and brief skirmish near the film's conclusion. But mainly the film eschews action – focusing on the human drama, the banking crisis and Chinese politics: both familial and international.



This makes for an interesting film, even for someone with a sketchy grasp of Chinese history, such as myself. The lead actors are compelling, with supporting players also decent – including a very small role for Jennifer Tilly as an English teacher.

The film is also quite accomplished in its unflinching depiction of the great poverty suffered by many of China's poorest people. Sometimes this falls into sentimentality, as when we get a shot of a small girl crying to emphasis the plight, but generally this is well handled. Lord Kang is an exploiter of poverty for economic gain, withholding resources to create a demand and raise prices, increasing his profit. He is not so far removed from today's business leaders – giving 'Empire of Silver' a striking relevance. It is a well-intentioned piece of cinema, with the central point being that there is nothing honorable about the accumulation of wealth and power. The noble and heroic deed is ultimately one born of compassion for those at the bottom, rather than ambition and greed – even at the price of lost status.

Unusually for a mainstream Chinese film, 'Empire of Silver' is also quite mature in it's depiction of sex. There was an uproar in China when 'Curse of the Golden Flower' featured, what was deemed, excessive amounts of cleavage. Likewise, the most recent Chinese films I have seen (including the likes of 'Reign of Assassins' and 'Di Renjie', in Venice) do contain female nudity, but usually artfully shot so as to conceal anything that could be deemed more explicit than the lower back. By contrast (and although very tame by Western standards), 'Empire of Silver' is fairly explicit, and its brief love scene is made all the more tender by its relative frankness.



'Empire of Silver' is an intelligent and well-made Chinese drama, which – like every good historical film you could name – works equally well as a story about more recent concerns. It could have done without the silly CGI wolves, which strike me as the most overt insertion of irrelevant action since Toshiro Mifune's aging doctor crippled a gang of heavies midway through Kurosawa's nineteenth century medical epic 'Red Beard'. But other than that, there is little to criticise about this effective and engaging film.

A UK general release is yet to be confirmed for 'Empire of Silver', which has not yet been rated by the BBFC.

'Tamara Drewe' review:

I have to admit I was a little prejudiced towards Stephen Frears' latest film, 'Tamara Drewe'. For every good review (like Peter Bradshaw's intriguing write up in The Guardian), there was a nagging doubt based on several, admittedly superficial, factors. First among these was the horrible trailer in which a character says “she doesn't need a boy... she needs a man” (a line which never actually appears in the film). Then there was the poster, which generally just displayed Gemma Arterton in hot pants, resting on a fence in a bright and cheerful Dorset setting. These efforts to promote the film actually sold it short, giving little indication of the loose morals, black comedy and violent tragedy that actually lay within.

'Tamara Drewe' is based on a newspaper comic of the same name by Posy Simmonds, and sees Tamara (Arterton), an attractive young journalist, return to the quaint village of her youth in order to sell her family home. However, she soon disrupts the equilibrium of the village with her beauty, and her new rock star boyfriend (Dominic Cooper). The original comic was a reworking of Thomas Hardy's Far From the Madding Crowd - a fact that the film pays homage to with frequent references to Hardy's life and work, via a socially awkward American academic (a touching underdog played by Bill Camp).



In fact 'Tamara Drewe' is pretty solidly entertaining. It was never as sidesplittingly funny for me as it was for the rest of the audience (though I did laugh), but what won me over was the characters, who seem like broad archetypes from the outset but reveal more depth and complexity as the film goes on. By the its climax, the film has taken many unexpected turns and shunned many established conventions. For example, none of the characters are purely good or bad, with the adultery of Roger Allam's pompous author not able to completely diminish his wife's affection for him by the film's conclusion. Similarly, a less interesting film would have seen the “good” boyfriend (the boring Andy, played by Luke Evans) getting one over Dominic Cooper's indie hellraiser Ben, but again this never really materialises.

Instead there are performances of disarming depth and subtlety. Notably from Tamsin Grieg, who is the emotional centre of the film. Arterton is passable as Tamara, although she is probably the film's weakest suit. But it doesn't matter at all, because every other performer is really appealing. It is also of note that 'Tamara Drewe' features some of the best screen depictions of children that I have ever seen (Jessica Barden being the standout case), as two young girls gossip and bitch throughout the film – refreshingly not played by actors in their mid-twenties. They too are afforded a degree of emotional complexity and depth that goes beyond their comic exterior.

I can't say I ever need to see 'Tamara Drewe' again. But I was never bored and was always kept pleasantly entertained by a film with more to offer than perhaps immediately meets the eye.

'Tamara Drewe' is still on general release in the UK and is rated '15' by the BBFC. Also, check out my other recent reviews for 'A Town Called Panic' and 'Round Ireland With a Fridge'.

Cambridge reviews, so far...

I've been lucky so far at the 30th Cambridge Film Festival, in that between working as a sub-editor for the daily paper here I have also been able to see a few films. I have been reviewing them over at Obsessed with Film, so I'll post the links here:

'The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec'
'Enter the Void'
'Police, Adjective'
'World's Greatest Dad'

'The Dispensables' review/The start of the Cambridge Film Festival...

Venice is now a thing of the past and I have just landed at another film festival: Cambridge Film Festival. It starts today at the Arts Picturehouse and I will be working as one of two sub-editors on the daily paper here. I had hoped to watch the opening night movie, the next Luc Besson film 'The Extraordinary Adventures of Adèle Blanc-Sec'. But instead I have been roped into presenting the on-stage Q+A tonight for the first film in the festival German Cinema Season: 'The Dispensables'. I'll be talking to director and writer Andreas Arnstedt about the movie... and so I better end this now and write down some questions...



I'll fill this entry out by putting my review of the film here, an expanded version of one published in today's daily:

The Dispensables, which played as the opening of the German Film Season here at the 30th Cambridge Film Festival, is the debut feature written and directed by Andreas Arnstedt – a well-known TV actor in his native country. Set in contemporary Berlin, it is the story of those who fall through the cracks of society – focussing primarily on one working class family. It is a universal story of poverty, that its director told me has been best received in festivals in some of the world's poorest countries (notably winning top prizes in Sao Paulo,Brazil).

It is the complex and uncomfortable, true-life tale of a boy who,fearing life in an orphanage, continues living with his father's corpse in their squalid flat. It shines a light on problems not
normally associated with the cities of Europe's most affluent nations – but which is actually always right under our nose, unreported. As a result, the film has been a tough sell in Germany (and currently has no distribution deal outside that country). Arnstedt was in fact forced to fund the film entirely out of his own pocket, and the great personal attachment he has to this story is evident and sincere.

Traumatic events in recent German history are in the background here, but often go unaddressed, from the neo-Nazis in the street, to the old man still fighting the Second World War with an army of garden gnomes. There is a socially satirical streak here and some black comedy, in this gritty social drama that feels more similar to something offered by Ken Loach or even the late great Rainer Werner Fassbinder (Arnstedt's idol), as opposed to anything else in recent German cinema.

Told from the perspective of the young boy, Jacob (Oskar Bökelmann), the film goes backwards and forwards in time with some considerable skill. The transitions are seamless and flow naturally, whilst the narrative line is always coherent. The film is a real triumph of editing, and perhaps a genuine fascination with film editing is the reason for the film’s running joke about the superior editorial skills of Steven Spielberg.

There are some really good performances here too, especially from the actors playing Jacob’s parents, André Hennicke and Steffi Kühnert. Hannicke manages to portray the temperamental “master painter”, Jürgen in a way which is sympathetic, despite the jarring physical abuse he inflicts upon his family. There is always a pitiful sadness behind his eyes. Kühnert is better still as Jacob’s alcoholic mother, Silke, never straying into cliché or playing the victim.

The Dispensables is tragic, gritty and unflinching, yet also moving without ever verging on sentimentality. It is also made with style and confidence uncommon in a debut feature.

The last word on Venice...

This is the last post I imagine I'll post on the 2010 Venice Film Festival. I head off to work as a sub-editor in the festival daily in Cambridge from Thursday, so I'll be keeping very busy - and I'll have a new festival to bang on about here. But in the meantime, I wanted (pretty much for my own amusement) to hand out my own "awards" for the best of the 67th Venice International Film Festival. I more or less did this when discussing the actual awards in my last post here, as well as in a piece on Obsessed with Film, where I suggested my favourites as I looked at those actually rewarded by Tarantino's jury.

These fake awards take on new significance today too (even if only in my own head), as many in the Italian press - and now influential American journalists have joined them - have accused the 'Pulp Fiction' director of favouritism, as many of the awards went to friends of his.

I don't know whether those charges are fair. Of course, Tarantino himself has been keen to insist that he picked the winners based on their merits and not on friendship. But in any case, here are my two cents, and my final word on the festival:

GOLDEN LION for Best Film:
BLACK SWAN - Darren Aronofsky (USA)
No doubt in my mind whatsoever here. Darren Aronofsky's 'Black Swan' was simply perfect. It played on the opening night of the festival and set a really high standard for all that followed. Really intense, it scared me, moved me and excited me. Really amazing. A film that reminded me why I love cinema.



SILVER LION for Best Director to:
13 ASSASSINS - Takeshi Mike (JAP)
Darren Aronofsky was the "best director" in fairness, but this award is traditionally give as a runner-up prize. And in that spirit I have given it my second favourite film, '13 Assassins'. In my review I compared it favourably to Kurosawa's 'Seven Samurai', so I could hardly not reward Mike if it is that good. The most fun and exciting film in competition, in terms of action. The battle in the last half hour is as good as any I've ever seen in the cinema. The film also deals with interesting themes, namely the contradictions between and evils of traditionalism and formal beauty in Japanese culture.



SPECIAL JURY PRIZE to:
NOI CREDEVAMO - Mario Martone (ITA)
I don't really know what this award is for. I suppose it's the award for "we wanted to give this film an award but it really wasn't the best at anything in particular". In that case, I will award it to the Italian nationalism epic, Noi credevamo - directed by Mario Martone. There was no trailer, so watch this clip (in Italian) to get a sense of how "well made" it is. It reminds me a little of 'Barry Lyndon' in terms of the lighting (and obviously the period). One of my favourite films from the festival and a rare three hour plus movie that doesn't feel overlong.



COPPA VOLPI
for Best Actor:
BARNEY'S VERSION - Paul Giamatti (USA)
If there was one award I didn't strongly disagree with the other night, it was the decision to give Vincent Gallo the best actor prize for his role in 'Essential Killing' - a damn good thriller with a brilliant central performance. However, I'm just going to be contrarian and go with the equally excellent Paul Giamatti, whose performance in Richard J. Lewis' 'Barney's Version' proved the festival's only real tearjerker. Giamatti's performance in this film, as he plays a man over three decades, is a masterclass. This trailer doesn't really do it justice, but here it is anyway.



COPPA VOLPI
for Best Actress:
BLACK SWAN - Natalie Portman (USA)
I don't know if I should gush about 'Black Swan' any more than I already have (at some length). I'll just say that Portman's dedication to this role - which required extensive ballet lessons - is matched by the intensity and emotional depth of her performance. I'll also say here (so I can post another trailer) that Michele Williams excelled in the fairly boring Western, 'Meek's Cutoff'.



MARCELLO MASTROIANNI AWARD
for Best Young Actor or Actress:
LA PECORA NERA - Luigi Fedele (ITA)
The 27 year old Mila Kunis won this award the other night, which was a little odd if you ask me. So instead I've plumbed for Luigi Fedele, a newcomer who really shone playing the childhood version of the central character in the charming Italian comedy La pecora nera. He's the kid on the left at the start of the clip below.



OSELLA for Best Cinematography to:
OVSYANKI (SILENT SOULS) - Mikhail Krichman (RUS)
I won't dare go against the grain here. The critics favourite movie here (at least based on aggregate scores taken for the festival's daily trade paper), 'Ovsyanki' is a remarkable Russian drama about an obscure, now forgotten burial ritual, directed by Aleksei Fedorchenko. Mikhail Krichman's cinematography is suburb here, especially in its treatment of bleak, yet beautiful Russian landscapes. Some of the shots in this film blew my mind.



OSELLA for Best Screenplay to:
LA PASSION - Umberto Contarello, Doriana Leondeff, Carlo Mazzacurati, Marco Pettenello (ITA)
This quirky little Italian comedy, about a film-maker who is roped into directing an amateur production of The Passion of Christ after he inadvertently destroys an old fresco, was really funny and took a delightfully irreverent look at Catholicism, film-making and acting. I doubt it'll get much distribution outside of Italy, which is a pitty.



SPECIAL LION FOR AN OVERALL WORK to:
The Chinese film industry
This award was made up by the jury in order to give a statue to Tarantino's mentor, Monte Hellman ('The Road Nowhere'). But I'm giving it to the Chinese film industry, which is giving Hollywood a run for its money. I saw around nine Chinese film's in Venice, ranging from a youth-orientated dance flick ('Showtime'), to martial arts movies ('Di Renjie' (below), 'Reign of Assassins' and 'Legend of the Fist'), to the gritty, realist historical drama 'The Ditch' - as well as one 3D animated short film, 'Space Guy'.

I didn't like all of them, but they were all pretty well made and interesting in their own way. What I reall admire is that there are so many. OK, I understand China is a pretty huge country, but all the same: there were no British films in competition at all. And the only British movies that did play at the festival were small, installation art pieces (like the dreary 'Robinson in Ruins') and not "entertainment" aimed at audiences. The British industry needs to order whatever the Chinese are drinking.


So there you have it! My picks of the best from Venice 2010.

Back in the UK! Final stuff from Venice...

Back from Venice now (finally) and there are a few more reviews I want to link to from my time there, including one I've written for the Sunday Telegraph. It is in today's paper:

The Tempest
Barney's Version
Drei

You may or may not know, but the winners this year were announced last night, and were as follows (copied from the official festival web page):

VENEZIA 67
The Venezia 67 Jury, chaired by Quentin Tarantino and comprised of Guillermo Arriaga, Ingeborga Dapkunaite, Arnaud Desplechin, Danny Elfman, Luca Guadagnino, Gabriele Salvatores, having viewed all twenty-four films in competition, has decided as follows:

GOLDEN LION for Best Film:
SOMEWHERE by Sofia COPPOLA (USA)

SILVER LION for Best Director to:
Álex de la Iglesia for the film BALADA TRISTE DE TROMPETA
(Spain, France)

SPECIAL JURY PRIZE to:
ESSENTIAL KILLINGby Jerzy SKOLIMOWSKI
(Poland, Norway, Hungary, Ireland)

COPPA VOLPI
for Best Actor:
Vincent GALLO
in the film ESSENTIAL KILLING by Jerzy SKOLIMOWSKI
(Poland, Norway, Hungary, Ireland)

COPPA VOLPI
for Best Actress:
Ariane LABED
in the film ATTENBERG by Athina Rachel TSANGARI (Greece)

MARCELLO MASTROIANNI AWARD
for Best Young Actor or Actress:
Mila KUNIS
in the film BLACK SWAN by Darren ARONOFSKY (USA)

OSELLA for Best Cinematography to:
MIKHAIL KRICHMAN
for the film SILENT SOULS (OVSYANKI) by Aleksei FEDORCHENKO (Russia)

OSELLA for Best Screenplay to:
Álex de la Iglesia
for the film BALADA TRISTE DE TROMPETA by Álex de la Iglesia
(Spain, France)

SPECIAL LION FOR AN OVERALL WORK to:
Monte HELLMAN

In brief summary, I am not too unhappy to see Sofia Coppola's 'Somewhere' win the award, although I would personally have liked to see 'Black Swan' emerge victorious. There was a rumour going around on the Saturday morning that the Russian film 'Ovsyanki' was going to win. Instead it took a deserved award for cinematography. It was the highest rated film at the festival, according to the festival daily's look at newspaper review scores ('Somewhere' is placed 9th on that list - but what do critics know?).

I am genuinely surprised that Natalie Portman didn't get the actress nod, although 'Black Swan' did get the award for the best young actor, which went to Mila Kunis (who is 27!). Instead the actress category was a real shock, with the unfancied 'Attenberg' taking it via Ariane Labed. Vincent Gallo is good value for his best actor award, for his silent part in 'Essential Killing' - as an Afghan man on the run from US forces. I would like to have seen Paul Giamatti rewarded for the title role in 'Barney's Version', but Gallo was my next choice.

I had mixed feelings about 'Balada triste de trompeta' but I don't begrudge Álex de la Iglesia his best director award, or the screenplay one. You need to see the film to understand, but it is unlike anything else I have seen.

On an non-Venice note, my review of Herzog's 'My Son, My Son What Have Ye Done?' is up at Obsessed with Film.