This Is England, but only if you're a grown-up

Yesterday Shane Meadow's latest This Is England was released, and please go to see it. It's brilliant.

The one thing wrong with it is that it's rated certificate 18 by the BBFC, which several people are strongly opposed to. These people include me, Mark Kermode and Shane Meadows himself. The film contains a lot of swearing and a bit of violence, yes, but definitely no more than the 15-rated Shaun of the Dead. What the BBFC are worried about are the racial swear words used frequently throughout the film, and how they might be misinterpreted by a younger audience.

And this irks me. The thing which I liked most about This Is England is its challenging portrayal of racism - it neither glorified it or shyed away from the allure of it for people without a community. It takes a neo-Nazi character and turns him into a complex, difficult character, who is brutal, caring, vulnerable, hateful and pathetic all at once. The BBFC are probably worried that anyone younger than 18 won't understand these complicated issues and simply hear the racism and latch onto that.

Okay, I turned 18 3 months ago after watching films commissioned by the BBFC for the majority of my life. So, to my surprise, I didn't suddenly become more intelligent and manly overnight. Okay, most 18 year olds are more mature than most 15 year olds, but to suggest that 15 year olds are so blindly succeptible that they can't understand an exploration of racist behaviour is just patronising. As well as being intellectually challenging, the film has a weighty emtional punch as well - but if this is the BBFC's reasoning, then they're suggesting that no one reaches emotional maturity until they're an adult.

This film isn't for kids. In fact, one of the first things I thought after walking out of the cinema was 'I wouldn't show that to my pre-teen kid' - and that's something I rarely think. But the film IS for teenagers, as well as being about teenagers and from the perspective of teenagers. Meadows captures youth culture incredibly well, and I throughout the film I was struck by the realism and believability of the characters. This just makes the fact that it's censored so much worse. If I saw this film 3 months ago, or 3 years ago, I wouldn't have turned into a racist skinhead because it looked like fun in the film. The purpose of this film is to challenge a 2007 audience in what skinhead culture means to them; it explores the motivations behind racism instead of simply condemning it.

I have to say, thank goodness for Bristol, where the film IS being shown with a 15 certificate. Damn the man, etc.

If you're still a minor and you want to see this film, go to your local Cineworld, where it's generally quite easy to sneak into a screen.

Sci-five

Oh man, that's a good pun right there.

Time to quickly run down some sci-fi films I saw recently, my sci-fi phase arriving slightly before Film4's, which was a bit annoying (although both were prompted by the first film on the list).


Sunshine: This is a great film. Yes, the ending is a bit rubbish and abrupt, but up until that it's amazing visuals and brilliant music all the way. Considering it's such a ridiculous concept, all of the action is entirely convincing, and it delivers completely for any nerds wanting glory shots of the sun and spaceships and the sun in front of spaceships. It just gives a view of space that is both pleasing and intriguing, combining 2001 intrigue with Alien convictions.

Solaris: The Steven Soderbergh one. This one really surprised me, mostly because all of the marketing was pictures of a spaceship or George Clooney in a really awesome spacesuit - in fact, this is pretty much just a love story in space. I still really liked it, however, because the atmosphere was both sinister and tranquil - quite a unique film. Right after watching this, I read the book, which is pretty amazing.

Alien: The Director's Cut: The production design, the realism, the pant-messing...yes, we all love Alien. But you know what I loved most about it this time? Ian Holm. That dude can act. But with Harry Dean Stanton and John Hurt along too, the cast couldn't really fail. A simple idea, portraying space as just as rubbish as Earth.

Cypher: This was a pretty enjoyable mystery-sci-fi, that set up an interesting concept, got a bit confused halfway through and then made a complete balls-up of the ending. For the most part, it was stylish and fast-paced enough to maintain interest, but it all got a bit silly.

The Thing: Okay, more of a horror than a sci-fi, and a very effective horror at that. The special effects still hold up today purely becuase of the gag reflex, and it never tries to be something it's not. A brilliant sci-fi creature feature, again not afraid of giving us a grim atmosphere and just killing everybody in nasty ways.

So there it is. It got me thinking - just how do you define sci-fi? If the science is what's important, can The Day After Tomorrow be considered more sci-fi than Star Wars? Isn't the nature of science to contrast with fiction directly? Is science just an excuse that writers use to make the impossible happen, therefore going straight against science?
Anyhow, I like space. I think there should be more than a few elite films that are 'good' space films. As much as real-life space travel both excites and guilt-trips me out, it's nice to see it on screen where we really can fly into the Sun.

In the Cannes

I really have to stop those puns.
Jesus.

It was revealed today that the opening night film for this year's Cannes film festival will be Wong Kar-Wai's latest, My Blueberry Nights.
Before I go into any more depth, let's identify Wong for a second:

Wong Kar-Wai is one of my favourite, if not my absolute favourite, filmmakers working today. His films are consistently and reliably brilliant in a very original way. When you first watch one of his films, you think 'Gosh, that's stylish!' and you can just get caught up in the style and technique without even considering the plot (although they're very slight in his films). This is largely due to Christopher Doyle, his frequent collaborator and amazing cinematographer.

It's easy to think that the incredible atmosphere and mood conveyed in his films are enough to justify his status as a genius auteur, but you can tell, as one reviewer put it, that his films are so obviously about something. Wong explores themes of memory, time, identity, alienation, loneliness, love and sex - all the good stuff. Whether his ideas are universal or specific to his native Hong Kong, he always conveys them in a style that is at once accomplished and entirely unique. If you're new to him, I recommend Chungking Express, although In the Mood for Love is my personal favourite, simply because it's possibly the most watchable, seductive and atmospheric thing to ever grace a screen. Heck, even this blog site is named after one of his films.

All in all, I love Wong Kar-Wai. There we go.
Anyway, back to My Blueberry Nights.
This is how the film is being summarised:

"The Norah Jones road movie.

With Jude Law.
And Rachel Weisz."

That's right, like so many promising Chinese filmmakers, Wong Kar-Wai has gone all English language on us. And chosen to feature Norah Jones in her film debut. As I understand it, the plot goes something like 'Norah Jones goes on a road trip across America, looking for love and some blueberry pie.'
Yeah. The word WTF comes to mind.

Now, I'm not too well-versed on the acting talent of Hong Kong and China, but I'm pretty sure that they can't all be of the same excellent calibre as Tony Leung, Faye Wong, Leslie Cheung, Andy Lau or Maggie Cheung - all of whom Wong has worked with previously.
And now? Jude Law.
Jude. Law.

I'm not abandoning my hopes just yet - Jude Law was actually fairly good in I Heart Huckabee's, and maybe...Norah Jones...will...be good?
Okay, so I'm worried. Chris Doyle isn't even on board, for goodness' sake.

But let's have faith.

In other Chinese film news, Curse of the Golden Flower is not worth seeing. I seem to have a problem with period melodramas, unless they're American or Japanese. But Zhang Yimou just re-hashes exactly what he did with Hero and House of Flying Daggers, except with a different colour scheme and a more boring plot. The visual excess is oppressive, the plot ridiculous, and Chow Yun Fat is in it but doesn't kick any ass until the end.

Hopefully there are some good Chinese directors left.

Gangsters Night

Gangsters is a cult crime drama that was made in Birmingham in the Seventies.
Recently, thanks to 7 Inch Cinema, I watched both series back-to-back through Saturday night to Sunday morning, as part of their Gangsters Night.
Watching 11 hours of a TV show through the night in an abandoned warehouse in Digbeth and having only cake to eat is the kind of thing that should come with a health warning.
Also, it's not the most suitable substitute for sleep. But you probably already knew that.
As for the show itself, it's a cracker.
It started as a 'Play for Today' on the BBC, which effectively acted as the pilot for the series. This installment was a gritty, fairly realistic crime show which recalled Get Carter and The Long Good Friday. It follows John Kline, recently out of prison and the assassination target for just about every other character in the multicultural mileu.
The rest of the first series follows in much the same way, with every episode following the basic structure of Kline looks moody-someone tries to kill him-Kline gets away. One thing I was particularly impressed with was that not once (and I saw the whole series, so I can't exaggerate) did the music on the soundtrack correspond to what was on screen.
Woman in a phone box? Epic church organ music.
Man at a train station? Guitar/synth chase music.
Gangsters brutally trying to kill people in a house? Comedy polka.
The consistency of this unconsistency was remarkable.
So far, so cheesy and dated.
But it gets better.
The second series didn't make a jot of sense. My guess is they were commissioned for another series, couldn't believe their luck, and though "Hey, let's have some fun."
It just grew increasingly bizarre and surreal, and I'll just say that by the end of the series Gangsters had successfuly incorporated elements of crime, bollywood, porno, kicthen-sink drama, musical, kung-fu, comedy, slapstick, western, horror and post-modern self-referential writing (the writer of the series appeared occasionally, both as himself and various characters).
Frankly, I admire a programme that has the nerve to keep its options open to such an extent. I can honestly say that I never knew what was going to happen next.
Casual racial slur? Spaghetti Western striptease? Live folk performance?
It also has to be a contender for 'Worst kung-fu training montage of all time', basically featuring the resident martial arse expert 'Red Stick' running a bit and then hitting a tree.
All in all, I'm glad I sacrificed my state of health and mind to watch Gangsters. I couldn't stay until the very, very end, but 13 hours is time enough to spend in a warehouse.
Also at the evening were Birmingham band Pram, who provided some excellent accompanying music of the 70s variety.
Big well done and thank you to 7 inch cinema, for making the warehouse look as seedy as possible and all the rest.

The Greatest Faces of Film and Television Part 2: The Women

I have a dream...

This dream sees the end to rubbish dream sequences.
They're tricky. And too often botched beyond any reason. It's nigh-on impossible to try and portray a dream on film, and the only times it's been done well is when the filmmakers don't try really hard to portray a dream on film.
I'm not against dream sequences in general - The Big Lebowski and Buffy feature some hum-dingers - but the majority just seem like an excuse for the director to really exercise their artistic talents. Visual metaphors! Strange dialogue! People looking all serious and stuff! Restricting creative filmmaking to dreams makes its appearance all the more rubbish.
For example, Summer of Sam - a very, very good film with a lot of style and convincing character portrayal. The film's serial killer, Son of Sam, is featured in several creepy Se7en-style scenes that are disturbing and doom-laden. All of this is almost completely ruined, however, when in one scene a dog walks up to the killer and says 'Kill. Kill! Kill them all!'.
The effect is laughable, unsubtle and annoying.
On the other hand, look at someone like David Lynch: in many of his films, there is generally always something vaguely dreamlike or disturbing about every one of his shots. So, we don't need to be told that a character is dreaming and have a load of obtuse cues to try and convey information about the film; he makes his films that way anyway.
But the worst crime against dream sequences is the one that's most committed; characters learning vital plot information in a dream. WHY?! This is lazy writing and it is inexplicable but constantly gotten away with because 'oh, it was done so cool like'.
Dreams are not places that tell you about the location of the bomb or the villain's weakness - they're places for implausibly attractive people and tiny men with fruit for heads.
You try writing down information from dreams. Try it, and I promise you that the only thing you will learn is
'REMEMBER THE SWEDISH MAN! DEFEND THE CHEESE OR KOALAS WILL SURELY FAIL!'



In other news, Meet The Robinsons is being screened with the 1938 Mickey Mouse short Boat Builders - this is very good news, as Meet The Robinsons is another bog-standard CGI film so it's good that children get to see where animation came from, when the fact that films didn't make sense was the point.
As for Meet The Robinsons itself, it's unnecessarily complicated and quite boring. But it does have a T-Rex fighting a Giant Squid, which is nice, because despite what John Patterson says most films would be improved with the presence of Dinosaurs.

days of being mild proudly presents: The Greatest Faces of Film and Television Part 1: The Men