brought to you by

MAde By TV

Product Placement

How can a TV show be a success on the Big Screen?

How do modern Fifilms advertise to us?

ContentsDecember 2011

December Features

Page 4: Are You Trying To Seduce Me?

Page 11: 3D or not 3D

Page 14: Made By TV

Page 18: Soundtrack Festival Re-view

Regulars

Page 3: Editor’s Note & Contributors

Page 32: Things to See in December

Reviews Section

Page 22: Shame

Page 23: Coriolanus

Page 24: Snowtown

Page 25: 50/50

Page 26: The Rum Diary

Page 27: Moneyball

Page 28: The Thing

Page 29: Lawrence Of Belgravia

Page 30: Take Shelter

Page 31: Hugo

Contributors Editor’s NoteWelcome back to PictureShow Magazine!

What a great month for movies. Aside from a few missteps like The Rum Diary

and some films we just avoided like Break-ing Dawn, November has been a superb month for cinema, just look at the great

films the PictureShow team have been lucky enough to see on the big screen.

This issue is the first issue which has some exclusive advance reviews. We were lucky enough to be able to see Shame and Co-riolanus before their wide release and you can read what we thought in the reviews

section.

We have some great articles too, after the announcement of a new Doctor Who Mov-ie we were compelled to look at adapta-

tions of TV series on the big screen. There’s also an interesting look at product place-

ment in the movies on page...

Next month we won’t be able to be with you on the first Monday of January (we’ll

probably still be recovering from the many different indulgences that December affords

us). So instead we’ll be with you on the first Friday, the 6th of January and normal

service will resume in Febraury

See you next monthJoshua Hammond,

Editor-in-Chief

EditorsJoshua Hammond: Editor-in-Chief

joshua@pictureshow-magazine.com

Dale Pearson: Editordale@ pictureshow-magazine.com

WordsJoshua Hammond

Dale PearsonBenjamin Schwarz

Chris BindingEdward MasonKieran Owen

OnlineFind us at

pictureshow-magazine.com

Like us on facebook

Follow us@PictureShowMag

Are you trying to seduce me?

BY CHRIS BINDING

Chris Binding takes a look at branded product placement in

contemporary cinema.

As any art-form develops there comes a point when commercial influence intervenes dragging it wholeheartedly into the capitalist system and third –party influences. As cinema has historically de-veloped into a hugely profitable populist medium, corporations looking to advertise and market prod-ucts must have salivated at the opportunity to reach such worldwide potential consumers. The act of ad-vertising within films or television coined ‘product placement’ from its first appearance in 1927 has developed into a stable and influential component in filmmaking , with companies paying huge finan-cial sums to showcase and ensure their products get exposure in the latest box –office releases. As Mor-gan Spurlock’s recent documentary The Greatest

Movie Ever Sold explored, product placement is a controversial and fiercely debated practice sublimi-nally influencing sales and consumer trends. While some directors such as David Lynch and Quentin Tarantino parody the practice with fictional brands and postmodern dialogue, others succumbing to the financial allures of companies produce glorified feature length commercials. As an external process essentially handing artistic control to advertisers, the most heavily advertised products will remain the most consumed, aided greatly by the influential scope and power of cinema, with the ‘brand-cam-eo product placement awards’ from website ‘Brand channel’ celebrating the process. Whether aimed at children or adults, hidden or blatant, ‘product placement’ and its causes and effects can be exam-ined by looking at the films that have spawned and embraced it. Now a message from our sponsors…

Iron Man

Robert Downey Jr has just survived being held hos-tage by Iraqi Guerrillas forging a mechanical based reactor to himself as a substitute for his own heart, hungry work. What better to defile this masterful work of engineering than filling it with the copious amount of saturated fat from a ‘Burger King Whop-per’. Although the product placement may have seemed shameful, it has its origins in Downey’s drug addiction with the riddled star stating that ‘it saved his life’. Regardless of this, the shameful plug-ging in the film coincided with a burger king kid’s meal ‘free Iron Man toy’ giveaway. Not to mention

the other shameful examples including LG Phones, Wired, Rolling Stone magazine and the entire US military. With Iron Man 2 building upon this for-mula with even more placement and advertising, the popularity of superhero films has emerged as a breeding ground for this type of practice. The moral question that is raised here, especially in tackling public attitudes and obesity, is that super-heroes’ are now owned, patented and sold by the ‘evil’ corporations that they fictionally once fought against. Just wait for The Avengers ...

Castaway

Tom Hanks stars in Castaway as a Fedex employee stuck on a deserted island, a paradise where natu-ralism thrives and man can once again rediscover his true nature. An unknown deserted island un-known to everyone apart from global postal agen-cy Fedex which in a plane crash washes up items on the beach. Pre crash, in a number of dynamic montage scenes, Fedex is represented as a saviour to un- developed countries and the only hope of civilisation to stranded Tom hanks, claiming their superiority in service over the American postal ser-

vice. Also the Wilson sporting goods centred a promotion on the fact that one of its products was ‘co-starring’ with Tom- hanks. The Wilson volley-ball in the film is a major character and actually produces some genuinely poignant moments with Wilson actually marketing a special collector’s edi-tions of the ball after the release. The Fedex plane may have crashed but almost a decade later at the films end point; Tom Hanks still delivers the pack-age. Now that’s good service.

Independence Day

A blatant American propaganda blockbuster and celebration of patriotism the film was guaranteed to contain product placement but the scale is quite unbelievable. Back in the mid 90s most computer companies were making quite modest claims about the quality of their products, you could play a CD while waiting for your dial-up internet to connect, simultaneously playing a bit of minesweeper. Ap-ple was facing this crisis as computer sales were down so they need publicity in a positive way and what better way than through the silver screen.

Independence Day places the future of humankind upon a 6K Apple Mac which would fly an alien spaceship, destroy the monolith mother ship and save Earth from obliteration. Since then, if any film shows scenes of intense research, it often happens in the dark with a clear lengthy shot of the apple logo on the back of a laptop. If aliens learnt any-thing about us as a species from mainstream cin-ema, they could determine that we are all immacu-lately good looking and that we all use a Mac.

Transformers

For anyone familiar with Micheal Bay’s filmogra-phy, the stereotype that pervades is intimidating barrages of action and explosions at the expense of any character development. When it came to the release of transformers, his approach to prod-uct placement was no different. For a film based around robots that spend most of their dormant state as vehicles, Bay collaboration with GM cars led to their most stylish models literally becoming the heroic characters, with Shia leBeouf’s co –star Bumblebee being a Chevrolet Camaro. In return Bay directed five of GM’s car commercials and as-sociate director of branded entertainment at GM boasted ‘You’re going to see the cars as heroes.

You’re not going to see the other actors’. Add to this the over –saturation of other brand names, Ebay, Mountain Dew and tie –ins with Hasbro toys, the film as a business model worked to benefit as many corporations as possible. Despite the huge critical barrage launched at the further sequels in the series the films still produce huge revenue, breaking Box Office records and lining the pockets of all those involved. Looking at the huge corporate Hollywood partnerships of late and the requisite sensational-ist ‘popcorn’ films that are produced beckons the Transformers famous tagline itself. ‘More than meets the eye’.

Wayne’s WorldMike Myers comedy Wayne’s World satirically poked fun at a lot of conservative topics in America at the time, most notably product placement. In the 80s it was becoming more and more prominent. In an Orwellian prediction, judging by the other examples, the film was right and product placement has become a stable entity in film. The sequence includes the two fictional rockers Myers and Garth being approached by a record executive into sign-ing a contract. They adamantly refuse they are not selling out with jump cuts between them saying it and them obviously flaunting products in front of the camera. Character Garth causally sits there

donned in a ridiculous full Reebok tracksuit and headband while saying ‘its like people only do things because they get payed, it’s just really sad’. While Michael Myers character says ‘contract or not I will not bow to any sponsor’, opening a pizza box with the clear logo of pizza hut shown, pick-ing up a piece of pizza and smiling cheekily at the camera. As musicians are criticized for selling-out to major labels, films did not face the same criticism; and the comedy induced skit does not comprehend the scale of the problem today. The sequence may be a satirical look on product placement but in to-days box-office it has become reality.

I, RObot

I, Robot based in name from science-fiction novelist Issac Asimov, is a futuristic action film set in a ki-netic and vibrant utopian city, but although product placement in cityscapes is inevitable (Think Times Square or Piccadilly Circus without billboards), the placement is shameless, sold overtly by the smooth-est of operators, Will Smith. Converse sneakers are shown in the first sequence when Will Smith picks them out of a box and his mother asks him what they are… cue advertising pitch, ‘2004 Con-verse Vintage All-Stars…. A thing of beauty’. An-other shameful example is the futuristic Audi car he

flaunted in a notable scene where it drives into shot and pauses for at least five seconds with just the car on screen. Fittingly Audi advertising television spots simply re-used the same clip from the film in the advert of the car driving into shot. Audi created Smith’s wheels especially for the movie spending as much time and money on it as they would for a concept car for exhibition, but I guess you could debate that I- Robot was its exhibition. Talk about technology becoming self –aware, Asimov would be turning in his grave.

The Back to the future franchise

The tense socio cultural background of the 80s was reflected inherently in cinema , with America fac-ing the cold war and also the ‘cola war’, that be-ing Coca Cola and Pepsi. The conflict was raging violently in 1985 when the first instalment of Back to the Future premiered and Pepsi made sure it was featured prominently. A particular scene is when Marty Mcfly goes into a 1955 café and asks for a ‘Pepsi Free’, Pepsi’s diet drink. The soda clerk tell him if he wants one he’s ‘gonna have to pay for it’. The Nike trainers are often fixed in many shots dur-ing the film, the brand- awareness coupled with Mi-chael J. Fox’s rebellious nature and skateboarding, presumably resulting in hordes of children flocking

to get Nike pumps. In fact today, with today’s retro fashion trends, Marty Mcfly’s Nike trainers can sell for thousands of pounds. In the second instalment he travels to 2015 where Doc Brown tells him to visit Café 80s and to order a Pepsi … he pays with a 50 dollar bill. Also Fox’s character revels in excitement at his futuristic ‘self lacing’ Nike Pumps describing the features on film as if he were on QVC. The films product placement aimed the primarily young de-mographic of the films paid off for companies and as a result of the success of the franchise, you can’t look at a branded Delorian automobile in the same way again.

Space Jam

Apologies for deconstructing a nostalgic gem but a revisionist perspective of Space Jam leaves it corporate intentions devilishly bare. The film was literally a commercial aimed at young children; the combination of the popular Looney Toons car-toons and basketball star Michael Jordan attracted the children; and what the film lacked in narrative and acting it made up with product placement. In the 90s Nike had a advertising strategy to launch the new ‘Air Jordans’ trainers striking a deal with Warner brothers for Jordan and Looney Toons

characters to appear in many successful commer-cials. The next logical step was to go bigger turning the commercial into a movie, thereby turning the movie into a commercial, every advertiser’s wildest fantasy. Obviously the scriptwriters hid their inten-tions cleverly, and yes this really is a dialogue from the film. ‘Get your Hanes on, Lace up your Nike’s; grab your Weeties and your Gatorade we’ll pick up a Big Mac on the way to the ball park’. Talk about elephant in the room … I don’t mean Jordan.

E.T.

Director Steven Spielberg has always been one step ahead of the competition and his classic 1982 alien tale saw him getting dipping his hands into product placement, producing one of the earliest and suc-cessful examples. Looking for a candy brand used during a scene where a child lures E.T, in border-line sex offender process of leaving a trail of candy on the dirty floor. Spielberg eventually teamed up with Hershey and the specific candy Reese’s Pieces , with recognisable flashes of packaging during the film producing a 65% rise in sales after the release

of the film. That and the fact that the candy compa-ny plastered E.T’s face on their packaging. Twenty years later in co –junction with 20th anniversary of Spielberg’s classic, commercials still align the can-dy with iconic images from the Spielberg film and as a instance of product placement unashamedly aimed at children, is one that still endures today. If anything, E.T proves how placement in a successful film can effectively function as a long term advert, ensuring profits for years to come.

The entire James Bond Franchise

The James Bond films have amassed over 50 years so it would be impossible to accurately track the entire catalogue of product placement imple-mented. As an entirely British franchise we have actually seen brand name’s being made with the new technological advancement in every film be-ing explained by marketing wizard Q. Some men-tionable brands include the ‘Aston Martin’ a British car which has definitely achieved some mystique and presence through the film’s themes. Other items include watches, clothing makes, more cars and notably cigarettes; flaunted by Timothy Dalton and Pierce Bronson before the American medi-

cal bureaucracy of the Surgeon General banned them. James’s Bond’s attractive espionage lifestyle of women , action and luxury, gives the products a positive representation to the consumer with the franchise gaining a living quality and changing to the consumer trends of the present. Even the mod-ern Bond Films such as Casino Royale in 2006, show Daniel Craig’s watch suspiciously pointing at the camera during all major angles with cringe worthy dialogue from character Vesper Lynd look-ing at James Bond’s Rolex watch and exclaiming ‘beautiful’. Product what?

3D: Just a Thought

BY DALE JARED PEARSON

Dale Pearson looks at the other side of the 3D argument.

Up until now, we, here at PictureShow, have stayed out of the great 3D debate; mainly because it has not been a debate so much as it has a been a pub-lic lynching. It is hard to overstate how immensely unpopular 3D has become with audiences, at least ever since Avatar turned out not to be the most life-changing film of all time...as we all definitely expected it to be. No, for those of us who have wanted to defend 3D, it has been simply an impos-sibility; not because the technology itself is crafted by Lucifer (as many would have you believe) but because Hollywood, the people who actually make the films, have given us nothing to defend it with. But with the recent release of Hugo (and very much at the risk of counting one’s chickens, as it were) we feel that the time is right to at least start the rebuttal.

3D undisputedly has problems: the glasses make the screen look darker and a portion of people get headaches. And if it will not satisfy the reader enough to say ‘they are working on it’, then maybe this won’t be a very satisfying article. But it is hard to believe that these problems can’t be righted - it is a technological industry after all, and if there is one thing technology likes to do, it is right itself.

Furthermore, this isn’t the real reason why people have grown spiteful of 3D anyway. The real reason is much closer to the fact that people are not hap-py about paying more money for something that seems to add no real meaningful effect to the cin-ema experience. Hollywood has either taken good

films (like Clash of The Titans) and retro-fitted the technology (a practice which is, frankly, just silly) or commissioned subpar work to be made into 3D films. Even the few good films to be made in 3D, Toy Story 3 for example, have only been good be-cause they have been good films, and nothing to do with the technology. Understandably, this Hol-lywood pressure to reap the profits of 3D has been something that the filmmakers, the people who ac-tually have to make cinematography work, have been unprepared for, and the results have shown.

Nobody could deny that Avatar showed promise, at least visually. But it needed somebody with a working knowledge of film to have a good sit down and think about how 3D could be made to work. Hollywood hasn’t been so keen on this ‘waiting’ part, and as a result, this can probably explain the lack of 3D quality over the last 2 years. But now we are starting to see the results of the more well-re-garded directors’ 3D efforts. Steven Spielberg’s The Adventures of Tintin premiered this month to criti-cal acclaim. It still may fall into the ‘animated ad-venture’ bracket, which 3D will eventually need to move away from if it is to really prove itself; but by all accounts it worked well as a 3D film. The reason for this can only be that it was entirely conceived in three dimensions by somebody who knows what they are doing. Spielberg has even commented on the changes he has had to make to his directing style to really get the best out of the technology.

The real 3D winner this month, however, was Mar-tin Scorsese’s Hugo. In a film that was all about the technical development of cinema, you really couldn’t help getting the feeling that Scorsese was making a point to all the 3D cynics. And what’s more, the film wasn’t a great film in spite of 3D; it was a great film because it utilised the technology, and incorporated it into the entirety of the narra-tive, with no hint of a gimmick.

So how did he do it? Well, in many simple, but well thought-out ways. Shots were not conceived as just capturings of images, but as perspectives within ar-chitectural spaces. This may sound like artistic hog-wash, but it actually makes quite a bit of difference to what you are watching in front of you. There was no simple establishing shot of Paris for example, as we have become used to in films about Paris, but a whole sweeping track of the city, in which we are very aware of the distance relationships between every building in the city. It was not just a picture of Paris, but an entire model city. Furthermore, Martin Scorsese keeps up this effort in every single shot. And because every shot is designed as more than just a two-dimensional frame, suddenly, watching a film in 3D starts to make sense.

Even the subject matter of the film is influenced by the way in which it is filmed. The motifs Scorsese uses are not just 2D images, or simple inanimate objects, but working clockwork contraptions that move in all three dimensions. He constantly hark-

ens back to and updates the cinematic image of a train, which 1895 audiences actually did think would come out of the cinema screen and crash into them. All the while, Scorsese is showing us why it makes sense to have a narrative in 3D, in a way nobody has done before.

In the coming year we can hope to see other skilled directors try their hand at 3D. 2012 will see Baz Luhrmann release The Great Gatsby. Many have tried (unsuccessfully) to realise the potential of the F. Scott Fitzgerald classic on the big screen. Those who have tried have generally failed because they have not been able to fully display the complexity and nuance of the books narration. That is not to say Luhrmann and his special 3D cameras will be an instant hit, but it would be a crying shame if we were to allow our cynicisms to get in the way of what is, after all, experimentation in the art form. The point is that we should be excited for such am-bition, not despairing (as many already have been)

3D technology, in and of itself, is neither a good thing nor a bad thing. Thus, Hollywood were wrong to expect the 3 dimensionalising of films to be an instant hit, and they can lampooned for that. But by the same stroke of the brush, to disown ourselves from 3D, for no other reason than cynicism, when such exciting experimentation lies ahead, could turn out to be an even bigger mistake. It’s still in its infancy, after all, lets give it a chance.

Made by Tv

How easy is it to ADAPT A tv SERIES FOR THE bIG sCREEN?

BY JOSHUA HAMMOND

This month, plans for a film based on Doctor Who, the incredibly successful British Sci-Fi TV Se-ries, were revealed to mixed reactions from the fans of the show. Various TV shows have been adapted for the big screen with differing amounts of suc-cess; many are either commercially successful or critically successful. It is rare that a movie based on a TV property can create both commercial and critical success. So what does any hopeful television show have to bear in mind, if it is to make the jump to cinema?

It is understandable that the BBC is working to capi-talise on one of their most popular and critically acclaimed properties. On the surface, Doctor Who seems to naturally lend itself to a venture on the big screen: there is our charismatic lead, his numerous undefeatable foes and huge set pieces (that could benefit). Doctor Who is also wildly popular in the United States, one of the biggest markets that could generate a great deal of return for the BBC. The time and space travelling element of the series also means that the film could be set anywhere and at any time. However, television shows which have

trod this tightrope before have found it to be a very tricky walk indeed; will it be able to capture the magic of the TV show, whilst at the same time being suitably epic for the big screen without alienating its core audience?

The best parallel to Doctor Who would have to be Star Trek, a science fiction TV series with a vast mythology and a series of villains that just keep coming back. Star Trek capitalised on its popular-ity much earlier than Doctor Who and Star Trek is now as well known for the film series as the origi-nal television series. The transition to film, however, was a mess. Before Star Trek’s first film, the series was cancelled, a film was then commissioned and abandoned, the series was then recommissioned, then Star Wars came out and the series was swiftly dropped and adapted into a film for a speedy re-lease. There was an entire decade of to-ing and fro-ing between the cancellation of the original series and the release of the film. It was only af-ter these numerous setbacks that Star Trek became the billion dollar industry we know it to be today. Hopefully these difficulties will not beset the Doctor Who production, a series whose history has been just as convoluted and confusing.

Despite its cult following, the Star Trek film series has never been met with total critical acclaim - there was even talk of a curse (every odd numbered Star Trek film is significantly worse than the even numbered versions). The series is very commercially success-ful, but critical success has often alluded it. It seems that it could never decide whether it was making films for the diehard few, or the mainstream many. As a result, Star Trek could never be said to be the perfect model for a truly successful filmic realisation of a television series.

Armando Iannucci’s In The Loop, an absolutely sav-age attack on both the UK and US governments in the lead up to the 2003 invasion of Iraq, released in 2009 to incredibly good reviews. In The Loop was based on the Iannucci’s TV Series, The Thick Of It, which involved the same characters but in a largely different setting, politically and geographi-cally. The Thick Of It was successfully transformed into a successful film by keeping the elements of the series that worked, like the characters and the stunningly crafted dialogue, and moved them to a different setting to make the film totally distinct from the series and created a unique feel for the film. It is not surprising that In The Loop was so critically successful, however, In The Loop hardly made an impact at the box office. Even though the budget for the film was miniscule, a return of less than £8 mil-lion is underwhelming at best. By not compromis-ing on the quality that made the original series so

successful, the film lost its wide mainstream appeal (granted, not something the original show ever had in droves, or ever intended to have) - something forgivable in the ratings wars, but not easily for-given at the box office.

This Summer’s The Inbetweeners Movie learnt from the successes of In The Loop, it took everything that made the TV show brilliant and then gave it a big-ger scale. So instead of being set in Rudge Park Comp, it was set in Malia as the four guys go on a on a lads holiday. The Inbetweeners Movie has been very successful critically and at the UK Box Office, staying at number one for four weeks, only to lose its spot to Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy. Even though The Inbetweeners Movie was well received (read our review in Issue 1) and made a huge im-pact at the UK Box Office, it had no impact abroad. Unsurprisingly a very British comedy about a very British holiday has limited appeal.

The Sex and The City movies have both been in-credibly successful, raking in hundreds of millions of dollars, but they have been absolutely derided by critics for being vacuous and grotesque in stark contrast to the largely positive response to the tel-evision series. Something (wit) was lost in the tran-sition from small to big screens which meant that even though the audience for the film was mas-sive, the critics were merciless and tore the films to shreds.

After a great deal of searching, it would appear that the only television series that was well received as a television show and as a film, in critical and financial terms, was The Muppet Show and the various Muppet Movies. The Muppet Show, put simply was genius, it was Studio 60 On The Sun-set Strip, 30 years before Aaron Sorkin even put pen to paper. Following the success of The Mup-pet Show, The Muppet Movie hit the screens. The Muppet Movie was released in the same year as Star Trek: The Motion Picture and made far more money, to boot. Adjusted for inflation The Muppet Movie has made more money than ALL of the Star Trek Films. AND it had Orson Welles. The Mup-pet Movie set the standard that almost all successful adaptations have adhered to. Like In The Loop, The Muppet Movie kept all the elements of the series that worked, like the writing and the characters, and put them in a bigger more exciting setting to

stop the film feeling like a TV programme. And with its enduring popularity as a show, the box office figures did not disappoint.

It appears that to really make a television pro-gramme work on the big screen, all the hallmarks of its original brilliance must be retained. Without this, it won’t please fans of the original show, and it will very rarely please the intended newcomer audience. Chiselling may be needed to be done (minor characters dropped, settings changed) oth-erwise it begs the question of why it has been made into a feature film at all. However, the real caveat then of staying true to a show’s roots is that it will rarely appeal to those who didn’t watch the show in the first place, and if you don’t have the viewing figures, you will most certainly not have the box of-fice returns.

Soundtrack festival focusses of Films and events that are unique in their perspective

on modern soundtracks.

PictureShow gained Exclusive access to their most interesting events.

CoriolanusAfter almost 6 months of doing the rounds at various film festivals Coriolanus landed in Cardiff for a screeing and a Q&A with the man behind the Coriolanus Soundtrack Ilan Eshkeri and Bafta Cymru winning com-poser John Hardy.

The Soundtrack was the main topic of dis-cussion between Eshkeri and Hardy. Almost tribal in it’s make-up, the score involved a great deal of metallic noises and individual distorted strings. Though audience involve-ment was limited it was interesting to watch the discussion.

You can find the review on page 23 and It is worth noting that Coriolanus was a fine choice for Soundtrack Festival, it perfectly complimented the rest of the festival’s pro-gramme with a mixture of the incredibly modern set up and the very traditional sub-ject matter. JH

ShameThe choice of opening night film was always going to be interesting and Soundtrack Fes-tival chose one of the most interesting films in recent years. Just a few months after it’s release at the Venice Film Festival and weeks after the screening at the London Film Festi-val, Shame landed in Cardiff.

Michael Fassbender plays Brandon a sex-addict in New York whose incredibly con-structed life falls apart when his younger sis-ter moves into his apartment.

One of the main attractions to this event was not just the film but also the exclusive Q&A with Oscar winning producer Iain Canning, the composer Harry Escott and and John Hardy. Though the Q&A was initially over-shadowed by interference from a rogue mi-crophone, it was quickly found and there was a lively interaction between and the audience and the special guests. JH

Harry Escott, Iain Canning and John Hardy

Lawrence of Belgravia

It is encouraging to see such bustle in an independent cinema, so far away from Car-diff’s City Centre. There is some excitement on a for the screening of long awaited doc-umentary about cult indie musician and ex Felt and Denim frontman Lawrence. By the time the credits roll the applause tells us that this excitement has not been met with disap-pointment. Sitting one row in front of me, in the tiny capacity of Cinema 2 in Chapter Arts Centre, is the film’s director, Paul Kelly.

Kelly’s manner is warm. In a brief introduc-tion to the film, he describes his attempt to create a different spin on the form of the music documentary. His film has no archive footage of Lawrence in his hey-day, on the cusp of fame. There’s no bold text at the end wrapping up, what Lawrence ‘did next.’ And best of all there are no other musician types acting like know it all talking heads. If there’s another film about Joe Strum-mer, John Lennon or any other rock legend spoiled by Bono’s smug and irrelevant mug popping up on the screen it may be worth giving up on rock and roll altogether.

In the Q and A afterwards Kelly cited Rich-ard Oliver’s doc on Marvin Gaye, ‘Transit Ostend’ as a major influence. This film fol-lows the soul legend during his self-imposed exile in the early eighties. Lawrence is in the midst of a similar sort of wilderness and down-time as Gaye. The music during the film is mainly quirky-rock, bubbling synths a la Stereolab and Roxy Music. In the Q and A Kelly declared that he’s been a fan of Lawrence’s music since they first met in the eighties. This great film is surely the best bit of fan mail Lawrence has ever received. KO

It is always a treat to see A Clockwork Or-ange on the Big Screen. So many of the great qualities of the film do not always make the transition to a smaller TV screen.

A perfect choice of screening for Soundtrack Ferstival, the opportunity to hear Ludwig Van on a real sound system is irresitable. The film is as shocking and as brilliant as it was on it’s release 40 years ago.

However, the real triumph at this particu-lar screening of A Clockwork Orange was the extras before and after the film. Before the film you could browse a small exhibition of articles detailing A Clockwork Orange’s troubled release.

After the film was an enlightening Question and Answer ssession between the audience and Richard Daniels (archivist at the Stan-ley Kubrick Archive), Craig Lapper (from the BBFC) and Peter Kramer (Author of the A Clockwork Orange element of Palgrave Macmillan’s Controversies).

Though the initial discussion was dry it be-gan to liven up and discussions continued after the audience was sent from the screen and into the Restaurant. JH

A Clockwork Orange

Paul Kelly

CoriolanusRalph Fiennes’ directorial debut is an adaptation of Shakespeare’s Coriolanus that uses original dialogue from the play and transfers it to screen. Setting the action in a fictional modern day Rome, the film follows the war hero Coriolanus (Ralph Fiennes) as he protects his city from the invading Volscians led by Tullus Aufidius (Gerard Butler) and tries to move into a position of power in the political battlefield. Once retired from Military service, Co-riolanus makes his attempt for political power only to be duped by his rivals and banished from Rome leading him to make an unlikely partnership.

Ralph Fiennes’ directorial debut is a staggering piece of work. Though Coriolanus has been lib-erated from the constraints of the stage, Fiennes’ directorial methods are similar to that of a thea-tre director, which is understandable with Fiennes’ history in theatre. The little differences in direction elevate Coriolanus and stop it from becoming just another dull adaptation of a Shakespeare play or a live action version of Call of Duty. There is very little music in the whole film, the music never under-scores dialogue whether for dramatic effect or for background noise. The music that does feature is a mixture of metallic clangs and single scratchy violin notes echoing the noises of war.

Coriolanus is not only a stunning directorial move by Fiennes, his performance as the titular Corio-lanus is incredible. More unhinged than Voldemort, Coriolanus is a purely destructive force and Fiennes

plays this well with a brilliant mixture of quiet inten-sity and terrfiying screaming fits. Tullus Aufidius is possibly the most interesting role that Gerard Butler has ever played, though Aufidius is still a soldier and a leader like King Leonidas, the performance feels a great deal more raw and angry. There are also great supporting roles for Brian Cox, James Nesbitt and John Kani.

However, the standout performance is Vanessa Redgrave’s Volumnia, Coriolanus’ Mother. The relationship between Coriolanus and Volumnia is pivotal to film. Volumnia’s hold over her son is in-credible, gently persuading him to do her bidding and Redgrave seems to relish the role. In a film that revolves around the very masculine worlds of poli-tics and warfare the presence of such a formidable female character is interesting.

The set pieces in Coriolanus are incredible, the ini-tial battle scene between Coriolanus’ troops and the Volscians is incredible. The sounds of battle are mirrored by the less than conventional score. The little riffs on the original play are very clever, including a superb cameo from John Snow as an anchorman.

Though it may feel like the modern day Shake-speare with original dialogue has been done be-fore, it has rarely been done with such finesse and care. Ralph Fiennes directorial debut is a stagger-ing piece of work with exceptional performances from the cast. Fiennes has clearly brought together his love of Shakespeare with the possibilities cin-ema can afford to create a stunning feature. JH

ShameShame follows the life of Brandon (Michael Fass-bender), a successful middle aged man living in New York who suffers from sex adddiction. Bran-don’s life is carefully constructed but begins to un-ravel as his younger sister Sissy (Carey Mulligan) moves in with him.

Shame is the product of the same team behind 2008’s Hunger. Director Steve McQueen’s second feature and his second with lead actor Michael Fassbender and producer Iain Canning. The film has already garnered a number of awards at inter-national festivals and is gearing itself up for the big awards season in the new year. Michael Fassbend-er’s portrayal of Brandon has been attracting a lot of attention and Fassbender won the Volpi Cup for best actor at the Venice Film Festival.

Turner Prize winning McQueen’s backround as a visual artist is evident in every frame of Shame. Shame is shot incredibly well, the use of different colours for various scenes is subtle but effective, of-ten switching between pink and grey depending on the subject of the scene. The use of tracking shots through New York is incredibly effective. The choice of music is also incredibly effective, ranging from classical pieces to 80’s new-wave pop. McQueen’s portrayal of New York is stunning, combining the muted colours, the music and the dirt to create the perfect location for Brandon’s story. The opening and closing shots that bookend the film are both haunting and stunning.

There is no doubt that Michael Fassbender’s per-formance is incredible, beautifully conveying the ugliness and numbness of Brandon’s life as a sex addict. Brandon’s relationships with his co-workers and his sister are incredibly uncomfortable and this is largely down to Fassbender’s incredible talents and his use of body language. For large parts of the film, Brandon does not have to say anything to communicate what is going on inside his head, whether it be devious or incredibly sad, so much is expressed through Brandon’s eyes.

There is a great deal about Shame that is worth a look, unfortunately the character of Sissy seems substantially underwritten. Carey Mulligan’s per-formance is good, almost fearless. Sissy’s rendition of New York, New York accompanied only by a piano is intoxicating, and was done by Mulligan

herself. Unfortunately the role of Sissy seems far too simple to be truly effective, Sissy is a combination of the many creative yet destructive roles in cinema history. The culmination of Brandon’s and Sissy’s relationship seems obvious and somehow unneces-sary.

There is a great deal to admire about Shame. It cer-tainly shows a great deal of promise in the director Steve McQueen and proves that Michael Fassbend-er has a great deal to give o the world of cinema. Though the final few scenes of the film seem cliched and are largely expected from the outset, Shame is still an interesting, beautiful and well crafted film with a standout central performance. JH

HugoGenerally speaking, there are two types of excel-lent children’s film. The first is the film that does not underestimate a child’s desire for the gro-tesque (Coraline, anything by Roald Dahl); the second is the film that does not underestimate a child’s intelligence. Martin Scorsese’s Hugo works so well because not once does it ever question whether a young mind really has the capability of appreciating true quality.

Hugo follows the story of an orphan, Hugo Ca-bret, who lives and works in a Paris train station, maintaining the station clocks. Surviving by petty theft, he attempts to rebuild an automaton, the last memento of his father he owns. Exhilarating at points, emotional at others, ultimately, Hugo is an ode to the birth of cinema - documenting the his-tory of the art form and celebrating the intricacies of its technology. A topic Scorsese has obviously put much of himself into.

Based on the recent bestseller (The Invention of Hugo Cabret) the story hangs together very well. Motif and narrative device are very much in the foreground, but this only serves to lend charm to the innocence of the story. That said, for what is a relatively simple story, it asks a great deal of ma-turity from a young audience. There are no cheap jokes or gratuitous action-sequences here, and there are certainly no Alvin and the Chipmunks-esque renditions of Lady Gaga songs. It relies on good old-fashioned story-telling, and does so with

good reason.

At times it feels, however, that Scorsese runs the risk of being over nostalgic - painting his heroes as having intricate appreciation for old films, old literature and clockwork toys. One more Victor Hugo reference and it may have felt as if the di-rector was playing to a child audience that simply does not exist anymore. But as the film unfolds, and the plot features become gripping, this shows such prejudices to be based in cynicism of a gen-eration probably doesn’t get enough chances to watch films like Hugo. As a result, there may be a few parents out there who are suddenly reminded to crack out some of the old classic children’s films when they get home - films that require thoughtful-ness and patience.

The all-star cast is generally very entertaining to watch. Sasha Baron Cohen is hardly Robert Helpmann in his ‘child-catcher’ role, but serves a purpose nonetheless. There are promising per-formances from Asa Butterfield and Chloë Grace Moretz but now and again it does feel as if you are watching child-actors and not children. Where this film really shines however is in its cinema-tography and visual execution. Furthermore, its necessary to state that in Hugo we have our first great 3D film.

Hugo probably doesn’t break so far ahead of itself that it will ever be much more than a children’s film. But it is a film that parents certainly wont walk away feeling disappointed. As for the chil-dren themselves, Hugo should be watched by all, partly because it is an excellent exposition in the craft of cinema and story telling, but mainly be-cause it is thoroughly entertaining film. DJP

SnowtownWith a host of Christmas films out this festive month, a lot of releases will be flaunting winter themed taglines, drawing those stragglers in look-ing for the saccharine cinematic equivalent of a hot drink. Australian independent film Snowtown, is far from festive happily families, exploring the darkest acts that humans can inflict upon each other in a cold vacuum like portrayal of social un-derclass and Australia’s most notorious convicted serial killer, John Bunting. With a limited personal experience of Australian cinema coming from sickening Wolf Creek (2005) and brutal venge-ance flick The Horseman (2008), Snowtown did very little to change my stereotypes, as a film that tests the limits of taste and endurance.

The narrative focuses on Lucas Pittaway (Jamie Vlassakis), the eldest child in a single parent fam-ily in an underprivileged slum. After his mother’s potential new partner engages in paedophilic ac-tivities with Lucas and his brothers, Lucas loses all sense of self –worth becoming victim to the verbal and sexual torments of his step –brother. When a new father figure steps into his life in the form of John Bunting, he is influenced into standing up for himself and is indoctrinated into the vigilante mind-set of Bunting, who makes no disguises of his disgust towards everyone from the obese, drug addicts and sexual deviants. What follows is a bizarre, impressionistic series of initiations where Lucas is fights to retain his humanity against an increasing multitude of torture, animal cruelty and threatening behaviour, slowly becoming part of Bunting’s murderous gang. Snowtown is far from festive, but a place fittingly inhabited with drug addicts, rapists and paedophiles, people as equal-ly ‘cold’ as the town name suggests.

The main challenge of the film is undoubtedly its subject matter, with the narrative getting gradu-ally darker and more horrific with each act. With torture acts reminiscent of Ken Loaches The Wind that Shakes the Barley, there are disgusting scenes involving nail removal along with other elliptic scenes of less visible violence, which terrifying sound design bringing sickening images to the imagination. A brilliantly minimalist soundtrack mirrors the dark tone of the film with long drone like notes, creating unease and a sense of the desolation of the Australian wilderness and its lack of escape. The performances of the two leads

are also incredible with Jamie Vlassakis placid-ity and hysterical outbursts contrasting brilliantly with Daniel Henshall as John Bunting, his paternal likability punctuated by self –righteous intensity, creating terror from nothing from nothing but a black eyed stare, containing a brooding psycho-pathic intensity waiting to explode.

However at the heart of the film lies a debate between nature and nurture. As the film chroni-cles a child’s indoctrination from abused victim to sadistic murderer it is debatable how much of these tendencies were inherited rather than innate. The true dilemma remains with whether audiences can empathise with Lucas and his innocence, rounded off nicely at the end of the film with a reminder that the character is indeed still alive and to receive bail hearing in the not too distant future. Unlike torture –porn films of late, Snowtown’s violence gains its most visceral punch from char-acterisation and director Justin Kurzel’s direction ; and although not cathartic to any extent, is an incredibly unforgettable account of the infamous ‘Snowtown Murders’. CB

50/5050/50 is not the funniest film you will ever see, nor is it the funniest film this year even. This may not be all that surprising given that it is a film about cancer. What makes it so exceptional amongst comedies is its use of non-comedic ele-ments. These can easily be over-looked resulting in a film that seems somewhat empty. 50/50 realises that laughter must be earned, and by paradoxi-cally focussing on such wayward things like script and character, it makes the laughs deeper and harder. Yes, they are fewer than in a script littered with cheap jokes like Anchorman, but ultimately the audience feels more satisfied at the close. Perhaps the most impressive thing about the script is the restraint employed, particularly in regards to the romantic portion of the film. It would be all too easy to turn it into a romantic comedy, but that simply is not what the film is about. The ending is particularly restrained, and it was spectacular for it - the audience is neither smothered nor bored, but the main thrust of the film (a man suffering from cancer) was allowed to stand fully in the limelight. Joseph Gordon-Levitt’s performance in the lead is a strong one. Inception and (500) Days of Sum-mer proved his acting abilities, but neither really threw off the shackles of the likes of 10 Things I hate About You or Third Rock From the Sun. 50/50 casts him as just shy of thirty - close to his actual age - and he convinces, delivering his

difficult part with a style and maturity that makes such acting appear much easier than it is. It would be surprising if more lead roles were not coming his way soon. Seth Rogen once again proves his talent in sup-port, counterpointing some of the more emotional parts of the film with his easy way with humour. Rogen also shows his skill at contributing to the emotion of the film as the aggrieved best-friend. As a regular partner with Judd Apatow, this role may not be unfamiliar to audiences, but his skill at performing such roles more than makes up for it. As this is not a romantic comedy, the female parts are more interesting with no discernable female lead: Anna Kendrick and Bryce Dallas Howard seem to share parts of similar weight. While both have romantic connections to Levitt’s character, their parts are not defined by these relationships and are thus allowed more room in which to de-velop. Both are written with plenty of subtext and subtlety and both actors bring these to the fore stylishly. In a good film, the form should be practically invisible, so consequently it is a compliment to its construction that it seems to be of indeterminate genre, sitting somewhere between comedy and drama. While this may cause producers and studios to worry, it falls to the audience simply to enjoy. This film is a great piece of entertainment in every sense of the word and ultimately, what else is there? BS

The Rum DiaryThe Rum Diary is an adaptation of the Hunter S Thompson’s novel reflecting on his trip as a young writer to Puerto Rico. Johnny Depp plays Paul Kemp, a pseudonym for Thompson, a young jour-nalist who maneuvres his way into a job at the San Juan Star and moves in with a photographer. In his time at the San Juan Star, Kemp discovers the differences between the wealthy and the poor in society and how they act around one another. Af-ter Kemp falls for Chenault, the girlfriend of a local magnate his situation moves from better to worse.

The Rum Diary has the air of a “coming of age” story, a young journalist goes in search of a story and gets caught up in the new world he has been thrust into. Interestingly, Paul Kemp is described as being in his early twenties, young and full of ideals, meaning that there is a difference of approximately 25 years between the age of Paul Kemp and John-ny Depp. It would not be surprising if Depp in his role as producer did not want anyone else to por-tray Kemp and do the role an injustice, but Depp’s portrayal is responsible for constantly throwing viewers out of the action.

Bruce Robinson, who both directed the film and adapted the novel for the screen has not directed a film in almost twenty years and seems out of practise. Even though Robinson was the director of Withnail and I, by far one of the most ethanol infused films ever, he fails to find the same energy and enthusiasm for crazed behaviour as he did with Withnail. As such, the film seems rather limp, when the action arrives it rarely comes to anything and as the film goes on it becomes increasingly dis-appointing.

This is not to say that there is not anything to en-joy in The Rum Diary. Giavanni Ribisi, now fully emerged from the shadow of “Phoebe’s brother from F.R.I.E.N.D.S.” is easily the most enjoyable character in the whole picture, creating tension and unease in every scene he appears in. The terrifying raspy voice of the rum soaked Moberg, is abso-lutely brilliant and deserves recognition. But Aaron Eckhart, Amber Heard and indeed Johnny Depp fail to make any real impression on the film.

Johnny Depp’s relationship with Hunter S Thomp-son is well documented, Depp played Raoul Duke (another pseudonym for Thompson) in Fear and

Loathing in Las Vegas and the two were close. Depp even accompanied Thompson as a road manager on one of Thompson’s last book tours and it is clear that Depp has a great deal of love and respect for the writer. Had the production not been a result of Depp’s own affection for the book and it’s au-thor, The Rum Diary could have been the shocking, confrontational and rum soaked story that it really wants to be. JH

MoneyballAmericans are good at making sports films. A bold statement this may be, but in looking back at what Hollywood has released in the past, there is a plethora to choose from. Whether it be Ameri-can football (The Blind Side), basketball (Coach Carter), boxing (Cinderella Man) and even racing (Cars), sport seems to be an almost omnipotent factor in films. This does not necessarily mean that all sport films should be derided as over famil-iar and therefore not original, with films like The Blind Side winning Sandra Bullock the Best Actress award at The Oscars in 2009 for her role in what was a highly original and touching film.

The importance of avoiding gimmickry in seri-ous films such as Moneyball is crucial, as it is this which separates it from the mediocrity of sport films which sticks to the formula of ‘underdogs beat bad guys with vaguely comical, feel good overtones’. Indeed, a film that recounts the events of a past historical sporting occasion can be mas-terful in the right hands.

To audiences outside of America, or those not familiar with baseball, Moneyball tells the story of Billy Beane (Brad Pitt), the manager of San Fran-cisco lower league team Oakland Athletic. Tired of his team being “organ donors” to higher league teams with matching player budgets, Beane searches for a new way to improve his side with-out a larger budget to spend. Enlisting the help of Peter Brand (Jonah Hill), the pair embarks on a

groundbreaking journey to create the best team using stats, going against all previous techniques and methods.

What stands out in the film is mainly the caliber of the acting. Pitt is superb and moving in his role as the frustrated manager in the struggle against the other team coaches and the owner, fighting their conventional selection methods. The script is also of the highest quality, with Aaron Sorkin (The Social Network) and Steven Zaillian’s (Schindler’s List) writing elevating the story with occasional witty touches and an almost tangible slickness.

But the real surprise in Moneyball is the success of the character played by Hill. In this nerdy, shy role he plays so well, the audience, whose memories of him may only be that of him as the ‘sidekick’ in Judd Apatow comedies, can witness his talents for what they really are.

It is important to approach this film with as lit-tle skepticism as possible. The idea of watching a “baseball film” may not be that appealing to some, but I urge you to look past this. The film is a raw and honest portrayal of a real life story; with talent abound, from the acting, to the scripting, to the cinematography. The pairing of Pitt and Hill is a novel one, but the combination of the two on fine form is an excellent one. With The Oscars fast approaching, bets are on as to who will walk away with the gold. Although it’s too early to predict the winners, Moneyball is not a film you should be betting against. EMM

The ThingHollywood has always had a poor track record of 80s remakes and over the last decade has dipped its fingers into everything from classic Nightmare on Elm Street series to Friday 13th, taking semi-nal classics and producing glossy and ultimately empty cash- ins. The next remake on the list, just in time for Christmas, is John Carpenter’s visceral sci –fi flick The Thing, an account of a parasitic alien infiltrating the crew of an Antarctic research station. Insistently labelling itself a ‘prequel’ rather than a remake, the narrative fills in the elliptic opening of Carpenter’s version by focusing on the discovery and subsequent mayhem of a research station after a Norwegian team excavate a frozen alien from an unidentifiable craft. With fan boys sharpening their pitchforks and huge pressure to match the craftsmanship and tension of the Car-penter classic, the well – executed effort unfortu-nately fails to surpass the original, emerging as a forgettable sub –standard monster movie.

Despite fitting the ‘prequel’ bill by focusing on the events of the Norwegian camp, the film defines itself from its source material, with self referential nods including the opening helicopter shots, a new take on the famous ‘blood test’ scene and the ominous dog escaping from the camp that bridges the gap between remake and original. However significant changes including the cast-ing of a female lead (Mary Elizabeth Winstead) adds a different dynamic that the extremely ultra –masculine original lacked, with female student Kate Lloyd fighting equally against male ego as well as destructive alien forces. However the lack of detailed characterisation of myriad individuals in the densely populated camp makes a lot of the characters forgettable cannon fodder, with only a notable few performances creating any audience empathy along with a plodding pace that not even orchestral hits can resolve.

However as the title fittingly suggests the films centrepiece is the ‘Thing’ itself, with the mixture of computer generated and practical effects creat-ing a truly horrifying creature. From a static form frozen in ice, to its hybridised human manifesta-tions, its various appearances are brilliantly crea-tive with a playful body horror arising from fragile and surrealist contortions of the human body. On many occasions new set pieces have characters literally dropping to pieces and transforming into

a fleshy mass of tentacles at incredibly unpredicta-ble moments, re-producing the cold war paranoia and finger pointing that made the original so dra-matically effective. However the final act, involving an intense game of cat and mouse within the alien space ship is incredibly un –atmospheric with sigh inducing clichéd moments, including slow –motion grenade throwing and a overtly nihilistic subver-sion of the originals ending.

Despite the groundbreaking effects and impres-sive set –pieces The Thing unfortunately remains a shadow of its 1982 source which like the nar-ratives alien , can replicate to a certain extent, before revealing the disgusting horror underneath. Not to say the film is horrifically bad, but as the original has sustained its own reputation for the last thirty years a remake will always be a pale comparison. The Thing could undoubtedly stand alone as a functional, entertaining horror but ap-proaching the film with any affinities to the charm of John Carpenter’s classic will produce nothing but chronic disappointment. CB

Lawrence of BelgraviaThe best kind of music documentaries are the ones that remain entertaining even if you’re not a fan of or familiar with the featured artist. If you sub-scribe to this view, Lawrence of Belgravia which follows cult underground musician Lawrence (Just Lawrence, like Madonna is just Madonna or ‘Madge’… if you’re an idiot) is surely the cream of the crop. If you search ‘Lawrence’ in Google, you’ll be met with a string of other Lawrences. These include the poet D.H Lawrence, the film ‘Lawrence of Arabia’, Lawrence; the sixth larg-est city in the state of Kansas and ‘Lawrence’, a flipping printing company! In fact, there isn’t a sniff of Lawrence Hayward, who has been using his Christian name as a moniker for over thirty years now. Still, maybe he can be thankful that Mr Olivier’s first name has a different spelling.

Not that Lawrence particularly cares about his digital footprint or the web at all for that matter. A hilarious scene in this fly on the wall documentary sees Lawrence interviewed by an amateur French journalist. The Journalist explains to Lawrence that he doesn’t make much money posting articles on the internet, Lawrence concludes in his deadpan Brummie accent, ‘so you just do it for the love of it? I knew the internet was crap, I’m not doing it.’ (Hmmm..actually he may have a point there! Ahem.)

This is a world of inhabiting friend’s lofts and sofas. Of notebooks brimming with lyrics, kipping

in tiny flats and playing gigs in even tinier pubs. Most of the film’s content however is made up of Lawrence’s tragi-comic reflections on fame and ‘what could’ve been.’ It’s a story with an air of failure, the likes of which we’ve previously encoun-tered in 2008’s ‘Anvil: The Story of Anvil.’ The real difference between these films however is a sense of narrative. By the end of ‘Anvil’, the strug-gling heavy metal band play to a well-received crowd in Japan. This tale offers no such resolution.

Instead of over the shoulder views, we have tight, locked off shots, which gives the picture a cin-ematic feel, its low budget however means it keeps the charm and look of a great short film. Ironic really, seeing as it traces 8 years in the life of Lawrence. Director, Paul Kelly cleverly attempts to make these years seem like just one, by organising the footage seasonally rather than chronologically. Lawrence’s tendency to wear the same clothes and grotty trucker hats through-out those eight years shows that Kelly couldn’t have picked a better subject!

And that’s just it, Lawrence is a likeable guy and is the true revelation of this film. He stalks the screen like Pete Doherty and Karl Pilkington. A loyal Felt and Denim fan would no doubt be equally of-fended by any of these comparisons. Maybe a shortcoming of Lawrence of Belgravia is that a hardcore Lawrence fan won’t have the pleasure of seeing their hero’s career justifiably portrayed be-fore them. For newcomers to the man, like myself, this affectionate picture has meant that the next time I hear the name Lawrence. I’ll think of a truly eccentric, naive and underrated genius, instead of Kansas and the ink levels of my printer. KO

Take ShelterTake Shelter tells the story of Curtis, a husband and a father who begins to have terrifying visions of the end of the world. As Curtis begins to prepare for the storm that he believes is coming, he begins to alienate his friends, family and wider society.

Michael Shannon has been slowly making a name for himself in powerful supporting roles in Revolu-tionary Road, Boardwalk Empire and Bad Lieuten-ant. Take Shelter gives him the opportunity to take a lead role and really stretch his acting muscles. Take Shelter is a powerful exploration of mental health issues and the impact on society of a man claiming to have profound premonitions of an apocalyptic storm. Take Shelter is Michael Shannon’s second feature with Jeff Nichols, the two seem to have cre-ated an exceptional working relationship, Shannon has a great ability to properly communicate Nich-ols’ dialogue.

To round off an incredible year, Jessica Chastain plays Curtis’ wife Samantha. Playing a very similar domestic role as Mrs O’Brian in The Tree of Life, Chastain succeeds in conveying Samantha’s per-sonal pain and confusion as her husband appears increasingly irrational. Chastain’s performance is every bit as convincing as Shannon’s and Saman-tha provides a great measured foil to Curtis’ irra-tionality. The relationship between Jessica Chastain and her on-screen daughter Hannah (Tova Stewart) is also realistic. The domestic scenes of Samantha and Hannah communicating using sign language are great to watch.

Writer and Director Jeff Nichols does a credible job of balancing both the heavy FX work involved in the destruction of the world and the serious dra-matic scenes. The tension is palpable throughout the film. Scenes of destruction and chaos are scat-tered in between scenes of the day to day, the au-dience is never quite sure about what is real and what is not, whether the storm has actually come or whether Curtis is hallucinating again.

David Wingo’s soundtrack is also worth noting. The soundtrack is seemingly louder than most con-ventional soundtracks. The distorted noises of bird chatter and high frequency squeals are nauseating and add to the effect of the whole film. This sound-track is not the sort of thing you could listen to on your iPod, it’s a disorientating and almost repulsive

affair.

Take Shelter is a wonderfully low key and independ-ent version of the apocalypse movie. Extremely well crafted by Jeff Nichols, with a superb juxtaposition of horrific images and tense dramatic scenes. Mi-chael Shannon’s portrayal of Curtis is both intrigu-ing and terrifying, and the prospect of his portrayal of Zod in the upcoming Man of Steel is mouth wa-tering. Jeff Nichols is clearly a talent to watch and his upcoming Mud which features Matthew McCo-naughey and Michael Shannon is already one of the most anticipated movies of 2013. JH

Things to see in December

Once again we are going to finish off anoth-er great issue of Picture-Show with a round up of the greatest and most interesting screenings around the UK. With Christmas just around the corner many independent cinemas have taken the opportu-nity to show some Christ-mas classics.

North West

LancasterThe DukesIt’s a Wonderful Life24th December

Almost every cinema in Britain is showing It’s a Wonderful Life in December. How-ever very few cinemas are showing it on Christmas Eve. Venture to The Dukes in Lancaster and huddle against the harsh

realities of outside.

LiverpoolFACT CinemaScrooged18th DecemberElf The Muppets Christmas Carol22nd December

As usual FACT in Liverpool has a splen-mdid selection of fantastic films for you to watch and be amazed by. Elf has become one of the more prominant modern Chirt-mas classics.

ManchesterCornerhouseWhite Christmas18th December

Though you have been able to watch the stage adaptation of White Christmas at various theatres across the country in re-cent years, the stage can never match up to the original cinematic outing.

North East

Berwick-upon-TweedThe Maltings Theatre and CinemaRocky (Fightin’ Friday)16th December

If you can’t make it to the showing of Die Hard at Tyneside you should endeavour to make this showing of Rocky. Many people think they’ve seen Rocky due to the numer-ous pastiches over the years, but they all pale in comparison to the real thing on the real screen. Grey Tracksuits are mandatory.

NewcastleThe Star and ShadowThe General w/ live organ9th December

The Star and Shadow have a VERY special showing of Buster Keaaton’s classic The General with a live accompanying organ. It is rare that silent movies are scored by a live musician and this really is worth making a trip for.

Tyneside CinemaDie Hard17th December

Possibly THE greatest Christmas movie of all time. Bruce Willis’ best performance to date (yes, it’s better than Moonlighting) as John McClane, a regular NYC Cop gets caught up in .... Come on guys, you know the story and it’s awesome.

The Millenium Trilogy2nd January 2012

To coincide with the release of David Fincher’s The Girl With The Dragon Tattoo,

Tyneside Cinema are showing the entire swedish trilogy in one day.

Central

LeicesterPhoenix SquareHome Alone20th December

Now in it’s 21st year (that’s right Macauley Culkin is now 31) Home Alone overcame the incredibly lukewarm reviews to become immensely popular. So popular in fact that after it’s release that it stayed at number 1 at the US Box Office for 12 straight weeks.

StokeStoke Film TheatreScrooge19th December

This 1951 adaptation of A Christmas Carol features a superb performance from Alistair Sim as Ebenezer Scrooge. Though this film did very little business after it was released it is now seen as a classic.

ShrewsburyThe Old Market HallA Christmas Carol (1984)23rd December

Though this 1984 version of A Christmas Carol was originally made-for-TV it has quickly become known as the definitive adaptation of A Christmas Carol.

South

LondonThe Roxy Bar and ScreenAmerican: The Bill Hicks Story17th December

This documentary about Bill Hicks is beauti-fully well made, combining photographs archive footage and modern interviews it paints a real picture of Bill Hicks’ life be-fore his premature death in 1994. There will also be a Q&A with the filmmakers and a Skype Chat with Hicks’ family.

Scotland

DundeeDundee Contemporary ArtsThe Great Dictator11th-12th

The Great Dictator is one of Charlie Chap-lin’s classic films. A vicious attack on the growing power of the Nazi Party in Ger-many in 1939 whilst also being utterly hilarious.

EdinburghFilmhouseAn Edinbugh New Year30th December

The Edinburgh Filmhouse has compiled a series of films set in or around the city for a massive all nighter. Featuring The 39 Steps and Trainspotting. The wildly different films show the historic city in a new light.

GlasgowGlasgow Film TheatreThe Nightmare Before Christmas10th December

The Tim Burton produced, The Nightmare Before Christmas has become known more for the merchandise than the original film. It’s well worth a trip to GFT to reacquaint yourself with the superb animation and incredibly witty writing.

Wales

AberystwythAberystwyth Arts CentreThe Shop Around The Corner21st December

The Shop Around The Corner is one of James Stewart’s earlier films, just as his career was beginning to take off with his collaborations with Frank Capra. The story follows Klara and Alfred, both of whom have pen pals they fall for whilst simultane-ously being horrid to one another. They don’t relaise that they are writing to each other. A pitch perfect romantic comedy.

CardiffChapterTerrence Davies TrilogyThe Deep Blue SeaDistant Voices, Still LivesOf Time and The CityVarious Dates

With the release of Terrence Davies’ The Deep Blue Sea, Chapter Arts Centre has taken the opportunity to show some of his most revered work.

PictureShow Magazine

will return on the 6th of

January