Showing posts with label Cinema. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Cinema. Show all posts

16 August 2013

The blue, the blue, the blue!

Unreal Nature's "Rather than presumption" post, earlier today, quotes from a Vivian Sobchack essay on Derk Jarman's film Blue:
...the image is not "empty"...
How I wish that I could persuade the rows of art lovers who have sat, stony faced, before me as I talked myself blue (!) in the face, vainly trying to put over that very point.
Audiences whom I seek to similarly persuade of the depth and passion in Yves Klein's IKB works are equally unimpressed. I show them the intense blue of the sky between tall buildings (though not as intense as that in the steep Virginian valleys where Unreal nature is written) and invite them to wonder ... for a moment their eyes show recognition of how amazing that blue is; but when they drop their eyes again they have not altered their opinion of Klein.
I have often wondered whether Jarman had Klein in mind when he chose blue for that magical rectangle in the luminous dark ... or whether both of them were, like Robert Frost in Fragmentary blue, simply responding to a shared human entrancement described by Doris Lessing:
She had clung here and looked up and out and it had been as if her whole self had filled with a need to leave here and let herself be absorbed by that endless blue — the blue, the blue, the blue!

15 July 2011

Last waltz

Last night (or, more accurately, since it started just after midnight, this morning) we took three boys to see the last Harry Potter film. The oldest, now fifteen, went with me to see the first almost ten years ago, on his sixth birthday. That started a tradition which first his cousin, then his brother (now eleven), finally my partner, joined at intervals of a couple of years or so.

We have, in the past, gone to the earliest convenient showing. This time, however, as with the last book, it seemed important to take the last opportunity to experience a collective event ... so, school and work this morning not withstanding, there we were at CineWorld for the midnight première.

The boys, I'm glad to say, thought it was “definitely the best” in the series. Me, though of course I didn't say so (who wants to be the one who spoils the fun?), I am less sure.

Though the books come emphatically first for me, I have always regarded the films as an excellent separate stream which expands their world. This one, based on the second half of the seventh book, though very good in its own right, seemed to me the least of the franchise as a whole.

I can't, at the moment, be sure why that is. I probably won't really be able to start sorting out an answer to that until we have (as we intend to) seen it again on our own. It's possible that the very fact that I find Deathly hallows the best book in an always superb set (I've read it six times now) has, in my own mind, set an impossibly high bar for the film. Or perhaps wearing 3D spectacles (not my own preference; I'd prefer to watch the 2D version; but 3D was part of the experience for the three boys, who were the priority here) took the edge off it for me.

Or, perhaps I was disappointed to see two key moral foci from the book either skimmed over (the debate over what to do with the elder wand) or simply not included at all (Harry's gratuitous torture of Amycus Carrow, in a fit of thoroughly personal rage). But really, this is a perennial matter of judgment. A film maker cannot possibly include more than a small fraction of the content from any novel, never mind one as long and full as Deathly hallows. I could probably find similar omissions from every one of the films, if I was in the wrong mood.

Or perhaps I really, subconsciously, felt that the show was over already, with the final book, and the film was always on a losing streak because it came later and I unwittingly condemned it to anticlimax?

Or ... uncomfortable thought ... perhaps I'm just too old, these days, to cope with watching films which debouch me onto Capel Street in search of a five seat taxi at half past two in the morning.

One way and another, the evidence seems to suggest that I'm probably just a grumpy old sod, and the film deserves a second chance. So, some time in the next couple of weeks or so, I'll go to an afternoon 2D screening and settle down to watch it properly.


  • J K Rowling, Harry Potter and the deathly hallows. London, 2007, London: Bloomsbury. 9780747591054

  • David Yates (dir), Harry Potter and the deathly hallows: part 2. 2011, London: Heyday films.

20 November 2010

The adventure begins to end

As I've made abundantly clear elsewhere, I have a very high opinion of J K Rowling's "Harry Potter" novels. I pay a considerable price in academic street cred by stubbornly sticking to this view ... but, my admiration remains nevertheless undimmed.
The films are, of course, as all films must be, immensely stripped down and cannot ever give even a hint of what is in the books – especially as the books become longer and more complex in line with their characters' developing intellectual and moral awareness (not to mention puberty) – but they are, in themselves, a pretty wonderful achievement.
That development mentioned in the last para reaches its zenith in what is, for me and for that very reason, the finest book in the series: Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows. So, I'm very much looking forward to this afternoon when I will, under cover of fifteen year old and eleven year old companions, see how the first half of the book is handled on screen in the latest film.
If you haven't read it, that first half of the book includes a highly impressive portrayal of resistance in a Britain post (magical) coup d'état, with our three primary protagonists on the run with a tent in the countryside. Grubbing for food, getting cold and wet, looking always over their shoulders, betrayed and alone, bickering and almost at times falling apart, it's a superb achievement. (The sociopolitical mechanisms also sent me back to reread Scwabach's paper on rule of law in Harry Potter's world, originally mentioned and considered in depth by Ray Girvan in JSBlog's "Law and the Potter mythos".)

  • J K Rowling, Harry Potter and the deathly hallows. 2007, London: Bloomsbury. 9780747591061 (hbk). Also 2008, 9780747595823 (pbk)
  • Schwabach, A., Harry Potter and the Unforgivable Curses: Norm-formation, Inconsistency, and the Rule of Law in the Wizarding World. Roger Williams University Law Review, 2006. 11(2): p. 309.

26 September 2010

Synchronicity, yet again...

My brother recently asked about the (social interaction) process by which I arrived at the "On the bench" photographs. (Several others have asked related questions.)

In the course of answering, yesterday morning, I made reference to portraiture as a joint enterprise between portrayer and portrayed (in this case, photographer and subject). While still thinking about that, I found the following Unreal Nature extract from Deleuze's Cinema 2: The Time-Image:

… The author takes a step towards his characters, but the characters take a step towards the author: double becoming. Story-telling is not an impersonal myth, but neither is it a personal fiction: it is a word in act, a speech-act through which the character continually crosses the boundary …

Which seems much the same thing ... and could apply as much to characters in a novel as in a film. Perhaps all arts are a similar contract. Perhaps social interaction itself is, too.


  • Gilles Deleuze, Cinema 2 : the time-image. 2005, London: Continuum. 0826477062. (Original: Cinéma II: L'image-temps, Collection "Critique", 1985, Paris; first English trans 1989).

09 April 2010

An education

Today I saw the film An education for the first time. It's a real gem ... Carey Mulligan was award nominated for her leading part as Jenny but, to my mind, the performances of Alfred Molina (as Jenny's father), Cara Seymour (her mother) and Rosamund Pike (Helen) are equally deserving. And smaller parts, like that of Matthew Beard (as outgunned suitor Graham) demand real attention.

I shall be watching it again (or rewatching it, or rereading it, if Unreal Nature is listening!) more than once, at the earliest opportunity.

11 October 2009

UP!

Nearly four months ago, TTMF's Jim Putnam recommended the new Pixar film UP:

I've just seen it, and it's wonderful – especially the beautifully done opening sequence in which Carl Fredricksen conceives his hero worship of explorer Charles Muntz, meets his lifelong sweetheart Ellie, grows up, marries, grows old, is bereaved.

Fredrickson reminded me of a mutual (to Jim and to me) friend, Mac: a brusque front with a warm and generous heart behind it.

01 July 2009

The bad lieutenant as crucifixion myth

One of the blogs which hadn't floated to the top of my “other voices” sidebar for a while is Simon says, which yesterday popped into view with a live event notification. Simon says is the low key window onto a quiet but very interesting person: Simon Taylor, "a human being, a father, a husband, a Christan, a priest and a theologian (in something like that order)", whom I met through an education day responding to the Boxing Day tsunami of 2004. As I've said several times before: being an atheist myself doesn't mean I can't recognise a good person or good mind in believer's clothing.

Having been alerted by appearance of Simon says at the most recent update position in the list, and having popped over there t see what what had been added, I followed an article link. Since the article is dated more than six years ago, I am obviously very slow off the mark ... but hey, better late than never.

Every major society on earth, however secular it may be, is shaped by its history and, thus, by its religions/mythologies (take your pick, according to your viewpoint). In the case of western Europe and its new world descendants that means the abrahamic religions in general, christianity in particular, with the crucifixion as a central dominant image. Simon Taylor's examination of the film The bad lieutenant, from his theological perspective, though the crucifixion metaphor, is fascinating reading regardless of where you stand on belief.

As Unreal Nature often rightly points out, disagreement stimulates us to think; Simon Taylor always delivers on stimulation, and this example is (however belatedly) no exception.


14 February 2009


Memory is a peculiar thing.

Publicity for the new film from Bernard Schlink's The Reader concentrates on the affair between Hanna and Michael, and particularly on images of Kate Winslet in the bath.

I knew it was time to reread the book (ten years after I last did so) because I didn't remember this aspect of it at all.

Sure enough, when I reread it yesterday, there were both the affair and the bath ... and fairly crucial, too, as a foundation for the story though not to the point of it.


Bernard Schlink, The reader. 1997, London: Phoenix House. 1861590636

24 October 2008

Feeling the way to moral philosophy 101

Better late than never ... since the 12th of October, I've been turning over in my mind various spin off from JSBlog's interesting and thought provoking Law and the Potter mythos and the intriguing source papers (especially Schwabach) which prompted it. I agree with Ray on almost everything he says; there is only one point on which I differ, and then it's an only partial difference in expectation of moral affect. Will Rowling's depiction of a society under a largely arbitrary emergency powers régime cause young readers to confront and think through legal issues, or will they just accept "the usual action story convention that a hero's violent actions against villains are rarely questioned"?

I certainly agree that that action story convention is harmful, and I also fear that it reinforces the strongman myth model of justice. However, I also suspect that the only way to tempt young minds away from this convention is to present them with situations where they are asked to consider it.

Children are naturally inclined to a warlord view of the world: "it's all ranks, being a boy, like the army" as David Mitchell's thirteen year old protagonist comments in Black Swan Green. At home, parents dictate rules; outside it, a popularity fuelled gang hierarchy does the same. Socialisation is a gradual weaning from this to a more polity based view – by communal pressure, by replacement of parent with police, or by thought through moral frameworks. Fiction which explicitly tells the young reader what to think will either lead to the second (replacement) or trigger rejection of the whole message. Inviting the reader to empathise with the protagonist's own moral dilemmas may not work at all; but it is the only hope of triggering them in that reader. If the reader admires Harry and identifies with him, then either the identification breaks or Harry's dilemma becomes the reader's. This, I think, is why Harry is presented as realistically indecisive; it is left to Ron to be the action advocate, Hermione the thinker (no accident that Ron and Hermione are mutually attracted and eventually marry).

In my Harry Potter and the war on terror post, just over a year back, I suggested that Harry's own arbitrary use of an unforgivable curse for trivial reasons (late in The deathly hallows) is, while very emphatically wrong, also realistic. Under stress, people become irrational and act on impulse. In danger, people react violently. In war, the fabric of socialisation is disrupted and people fall back on more visceral drives. I, at least, have to confess to having done things in the heat of the moment which I cannot defend – starting with the day when I deflected the attentions of a primary school bully onto my smaller friend. Harry (and, in theory, his readership) is, by the time of that action, eighteen – of military age, of voting age, of an age when he is required to take ownership of his society's strengths and failings. To pretend that such things don't happen would be to abdicate reality; to admit and confront them is more honest.

There are, I'm glad to say, a fair few authors around who try to pull off this valuable balancing act. Two examples which I've mentioned before are Philip Reeve's Mortal engines (et seq) and Jeanne DuPrau's The city of Ember (also et seq). Reeve's hero, Tom Natsworthy, is forced to kill those who would kill him, but never loses his revulsion or grief at that necessity – nor his agonised moral hesitation over it before the act. DuPrau's Doon and Lena try very hard to do everything within the laws of their community, only stepping outside those laws when they are left with no other moral choice – and in the sequel, The people of sparks, they are saddened by the accidental drowning of immoral and corrupt officials who sought to suppress them.

Film has much greater pressures on its bandwidth than text, and these moral subtleties are often amongst the first to be squeezed. In the film interpretation of The city of Ember, for instance, Lena and Doon spend little time on trying to work through their society's mechanisms before taking the law into their own hands, and the corrupt mayor meets prompt summary justice in the jaws of a giant mutant mole.

In none of these books are the moral issues explicitly sign posted; but they are, in my opinion, all the more powerful for that. Returning to Harry Potter, the almost nonexistent judicial and legal systems jostle with racism, compassion and redemption, the balance of security and liberty, and others too numerous to list. Ember and Engines each have their own, different but equally rich, spectra of moral issues. I'm glad of them, and glad that children are so captured by them. Both moral conscience and moral thinking are muscles, best developed by exercising them rather than instilling them. They are education at its best.


  • David Mitchell, Black Swan Green. 2006, London: Sceptre. 0340822791 (cased) and [978]340839260 (pbk)
  • J K Rowling, Harry Potter and the deathly hallows. 2007, London: Bloomsbury. [978]0747591061 (hbk.)
  • 25 March 2008

    The postscript to Yonwood

    Regarding my third post in the set on Jeanne DuPrau's novels for imminent adults (Ember, Sparks and Yonwood), I have had several emails pointing out that Yonwood is not the final volume of a trilogy but the penultimate in a quartet.

    I have to put up my hand and sheepishly admit to being lazy, to put it kindly. Negligent is probably a better word. On Ms DuPrau's own website , in her publisher's forward catalogue, and on several third party sites only a mouse click away, the forthcoming publication is clearly mentioned. Shame on me.

    The first correction came from the author - though it didn't feel at all like a correction, since her manner displays all the open hearted generosity of spirit which is evident in her books. Then, in a rush over last night (my blog is obviously kept for Monday evening reading!), came a flurry of others - thank you, all.

    So, to put the record straight: in Autumn of this year, a "fourth and final book of Ember" is due, under the title The diamond of Darkhold. Those who have (I'm flattered to hear) gone out and bought the story so far on my recommendation: put a note in your diary.

    There is, of course, also a film of Ember, also due out in the Autumn of this year, and which I have also failed to mention. I have promised to go and see it with Cameron, who first introduced me to the book.


    Addendum for other sad gits who share my tendency to over-philosophise when they should be smelling the flowers ...

    I am still musing on whether the result will be a "quartet". Since the new volume will return to the same characters and time frame as Ember and Sparks, forming a third continuation in sequential time from the other two, I feel inclined to call it a trilogy plus precursor. On the other hand, Lawrence Durrell's "Alexandria quartet" comprises three coeval stories and one which follows them in time - and nobody calls that a trilogy plus successor. Who am I to argue with Durrell? So, I shall bow gracefully and refer henceforth to the "Ember quartet".


    • DuPrau, Jeanne, The diamond of Darkhold. 2008, New York: Random House Children's Books.ISBN: 9780375855719 (hbk), 9780375855726 (pbk).

    16 January 2008

    More from the Pit

    Monday's Quatermass and the Pit post has generated a surprisingly large postbag. Larger than I can answer properly, so a mass acknowledgement here will have to suffice. The replies fall roughly into two halves: those which comment on aspects of the film which I either missed or left out of my short commentary, and those which take issue with my criticism of artificially happy film endings. The question of endings I shall try to grapple with in a separate post. To those who highlighted additional aspects of the film, many thanks: all were valuable, many new.

    Jacquie Swann rightly points out that the Miss Judd character is unusual for the era in which this film was made. At a time when female characters were usually floss, included for their visual or (often the same thing) sexual appeal, Miss Judd is a perceptive, confident, and pivotal component of the plot line. Though Quatermass battles (unsuccessfully) with complacent officialdom, and Roney does the heroic sacrifice bit, it is Judd who sees and researches the connections which reveal the truth - and insists on Quatermass looking at her findings when he tries to brush her off. She is also the one who volunteers to subject herself to the mind scan experiment which yields race memory evidence (though it's unfortunate that in this context she is referred to as "the mind of this impressionable young lady"!) Overall, as Jacquie puts it, "Miss Judd is a manifestation of intellectual competence".

    Ray Girvan, of The Apothecary's Drawer, adds to my impressions a dimension which I had completely missed:

    "The intro with the policeman and the cat has a corresponding outro when we hear police bells and the dogs start barking again. Normality is rule of benign law and coexistence with animals, in contrast with the Martian society that has a draconian law and destruction of anything biologically different."

    14 January 2008

    Return to the pit

    When I was a teenager, the big screen version of Quatermass and the Pit scared me witless.

    Forty years on, a couple of weeks ago, I noticed that it was showing on TV in the wee small hours of the morning. Would it still have the same effect on me? I set the recorder to capture it.

    Now I've finally gotten around to watching it. And no, it didn't frighten me at all this time round (I'm glad to say - I'm no fan of horror); but I'm glad that I revisited it because this time I enjoyed it. I also appreciated a lot of other things which passed me by in my teens.

    The first thing I noticed about it was obvious in the opening credits. A London "Bobby" (beat policeman) walks slowly across an empty street. It is early morning, still almost dark, and the shot is made entirely by available light; the televised digitisation flickers with blocky artefacts as it tries to cope with the resulting wash of shadows. He checks a doorway. A white cat miaows, gets up to met him, winds about his legs. He moves on. It's a beautiful piece of cinema, all on its own, that opening sequence, and I've played it over and over again, at least thirty times, since watching the film. This was a time when film could luxuriate in pure visual quality.

    In fact, although I no longer feel the shocks of the film, I realise now that it was the tranquil, low key quality of the surrounding scenes which made them so effective at the time. Because this willingness to embrace a "less is more" philosophy pervades the whole film. I'll only dwell on two more of them, though. My next choice is the character Miss Judd (played by Barbara Shelley), assistant to an anthropologist.

    Throughout the film, Miss Judd's face is frequently allowed to occupy the screen in close up: not saying anything, but conveying impressions of surprise, puzzlement, concern, realisation, all through very small, subtle changes of facial expression which would be neither allowed nor noticed today. It's an education; some time, I would like to go through and isolate some of these little "scenettes" for closer study.

    Having talked about the opening credits, I may as well visit the closing sequence as well. There is even less movement here. Quatermass (Andrew Keir) and Miss Judd frame the screen, he leaning against a wall for support at camera left and she sitting collapsed into her own lap on the right. Only their heads occasionally turn slightly: to look at each other or to look away, to stare back into what they have just witnessed or to avoid it. They express, through their minimalist movements, exhaustion and trauma. This almost static scene addresses a criticism I have often made of film endings: the way characters go through extremities of fear and pain, then laugh and joke about it light heartedly in the final scene. Quatermass and Judd, by contrast, having seen their fellow Londoners reduced to a ravening, murderous mob and watched Judd's boss Roney sacrifice himself to bring down the alien threat, are (as they bloody well ought to be) wiped out by it. The film closes there, with no a attempt to jolly over the cracks: the world has been saved, Quatermass and Judd vindicated, but they have nothing whatsoever to feel cheerful about.

    That closing credit sequence, too, I have played several times: another self contained marvel of understated quality.

    It's not just a collection of Zen visual moments for fiction geeks, though. The whole film is worth watching both as a window onto the worldview of the mid 1960s and, equally important, a mid sixties window onto our own time as well. There are a lot of prescient glimpses here.

    "How was it controlled?" someone wonders, of the buried Martian spacecraft. "Unless ... the craft itself did much of the thinking?" He is told not to be ridiculous; but now, of course, four decades on, the idea of an artificial intelligence controlling routine functions of a complex machine is commonplace.

    More emotionally piercing, though, is a throwaway fragment within a conversation between Quatermass and Roney. Quatermass is musing on what we, the human race, would we do if our planet was dying, our atmosphere degrading, our whole environment becoming hostile to our existence? This is a common theme of science fiction, and the answer is usually that everyone pulls together in a heroic effort which ultimately saves the race (see, for example, Clarke and Baxter's Sunstorm) or else a small band of survivors setting off to establish colonies elsewhere. But: "Nothing." replies Roney, "We'd just go on squabbling and fighting amongst ourselves, the same as usual." In our present age of failure to ratify, deliver on, or follow up the Kyoto agreement despite evidence of climate change, this fragment acquires blackly humorous weight.

    It's no longer horror, but it's a gem of a film. If you get the opportunity to see it, especially if you are old enough to remember 1967, I recommend that you take it.


    1. Kneale/Ward, Quatermass and the Pit, Hammer 1967

    03 May 2007

    Tube Tales

    There's something very atavistic about responses to the tunnels of underground rapid transit systems. Perhaps I should say all tunnel systems; folklore is, after all, full of goblin tunnels and the like, probably born of similar feelings about mines and quarries. But it seems to me that rapid transit tunnels, with their endlessly unvarying fluorescent striplights, are a new variant. The Tube (London's underground railway network) is the structural skeleton of London Below, the convolutedly anarchic and claustrophobic setting of Neil Gaiman's modern folktale Neverwhere, and for good reason.

    Most of the time I don't notice; a tunnel is just one more connecting thoroughfare from A and B. But sometimes the ancient irrationalities show through. Just now, for instance, I was ambling along a foot tunnel from Hyde Park to Marble Arch tube station (a familiar autopilot run which I've taken a hundred times) when two unusual things things happened at once.

    The first unusual thing was that I was the only person in the tunnel. It's a busy route, in a busy part of a busy city, and to be alone in it is rare - but there I was, the only human being in sight, halfway along a hundred metres of tiled concrete cylinder.

    The second was that, passing a junction with a side tunnel, I automatically glanced up at the wall to check my location against the direction signs on junction walls - and there was no sign.

    So now the wild animal which lurks at the heart of each of us wasn't just alone - it was alone and lost. It was an extraordinary feeling. I wasn't really lost, of course: I knew perfectly well where I was, and there were arrows pointing ahead of me (Marble Arch) and back the way I'd come (Hyde Park). But the inner savage was looking only at that unmarked side tunnel, a downward curving grade restricting vision to about ten metres, shrieking "Unknown! Potential hazard!"

    But the unknown is also potential opportunity, and my feet took me unbidden down the side tunnel for several seconds before, my subconscious full of images from Thomas Disch's Descending, Dante's Inferno (where the straight way was lost) and Poul Anderson's The Corridors of Time, I deliberately turned back and rejoined the main route.

    The sensation of raised hairs on the back of my neck stayed strong. even back on the known way, until the solitude was broken by a sudden flow of other pedestrians who swept past both me and the unmarked tunnel without noticing. At which point, feeling very foolish, I've paused to note it all down here before it disappears from mind.

    (The title of this post, by the way, is misappropriated from an excellent set of short TV psychomyths, available on one DVD and thoroughly recommended viewing - see below.)


    • Dante Aligheri and M. Palma, Inferno. New York & London, 2002, Norton. 039304341X
    • Poul Anderson.The corridors of time. London, 1965, Century. 0712610502
    • Thomas Disch. Fundamental Disch: "Descending". 1980 (1964), Bantam Books.
    • Neil Gaiman. Neverwhere. London, 1996, BBC.
    • Various directors. Tube Tales. London, 1999, Sky Television and Horsepower Films.