Recurring Film Nostalgia

One of the best things about this blog has been finding many other people who are just like me. It turns out, I'm not the only Kid In The Front Row. There are a lot of us, and we're filling up the isles. So it gives me great pleasure to be able to hand over the writing reigns today to a guest author, someone who truly embodies the spirit of being a Kid In The Front Row. He writes about something close to my heart, nostalgia.

'Recurring Film Nostalgia' - by Jack Wormell

Film sneaks into our lives in different ways. I grow fond of a film not just for what it is, but because of how we met. Associations sit so strongly in my head that a movie becomes entwined with certain occasions or periods of my life, and a select number of films maiden voyage into my heart was through television. Seeing them beamed out to me from the TV screen for the first time has left them intrinsically connected with a certain period of my life, and, for some strange reason, has reinforced my love of them.

When I was younger, before I owned any DVDs, and only a few videos stood on my bedroom shelf, there were certain films that seemed to be broadcast regularly, as if, after looking at the calendar, the broadcasters exclaimed, ‘We haven’t shown Jaws in three months! What can we free up on Friday night’s schedule? Pronto! Pronto!’ My nostalgia, whether correct or not, tells me these films were always on the weekend, no earlier than Ten PM and usually on BBC 2. They were films of varying quality, but always immediately gripping, films where you could jump in halfway through and grasp what was happening with no trouble (although perhaps this was because I’d seen it about 3 months earlier on the same channel).

Catching Goodfellas a quarter of the way through, round about the Copacabana tracking shot, or finding the opening credits of Undersiege reaching an end, and with a thrill settle in for guns, cooking and Gary Busey cross dressing (Busey, by the way, featured heavily in my childhood, as the king of the supporting part in dubious 90’s films: Underseige, Point Break, Predator 2). Yes, Undersiege seemed to be on TV almost every weekend when I was 14.

So anyway I present to you my little list of films, which repeatedly came into my life through the medium of television, now something I hardly watch, plagued as it is by mediocrity. When I was younger TV acted as a trusted friend, one who exhibited exciting, reliable films for me time and again. Films that, when I look back on it now, I just had to see. I think I would have grown up a different person without the knowledge that every Friday night I could sit down in the comfort of my own home to be further educated in the violence that one giant shark can do in a weekend, or why you must never say ‘Candyman’ five times in front of a mirror, or why the future of mankind rests upon a lippy teen with a knack for breaking into ATM machines (in my memory Terminator 2: Judgement Day was actually on every week. I will stand by this).

Everyone has their own selection, with films of varying quality, as well as those films on video bought by your parents, but that’s a whole ‘nother recollection entirely! Anyway these are my childhood TV films, in no particular order:

Jaws
Goodfellas
Undersiege
Candyman
Midnight Run (Bit of a cheat, I think I was a little older when this started recurring on TV, but it was, and is, always on.)
Terminator 2: Judgement Day

I was drawn to these films because of their violence, their dramatic dialogue and their phenomenal music (Terminator 2’s mournful industrial clanging is still one of my favourite movie themes). Since those tender years I may have watched subtler and more intriguing films, films which have become my all time favourites no less, but whenever I find one of the above on TV, I still have to sit down and watch it, hypnotised. I may have it on DVD but I still have to watch it, then and there, because it is being broadcast to the public. And even though there are more obscure films I love which are rarely broadcast, it’s still a special moment when Undersiege or Candyman invade my living room. And I’m pretty sure it has to do with me at the age of 14, sitting in the television’s electric glow.

--Jack Wormell is a filmmaker and writer with a degree in Film & TV. You can also read his poetry at http://hitthegroundweird.blogspot.com/

Care to share?

Tweet

'The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus' Review

When Heath Ledger first appears on screen, he's hanging by a rope on London Bridge, dead. In the minutes that follow, a passing travelling circus act, the main players in the story, try their best to save him. It's powerful viewing, given that you've been watching for thirty minutes waiting for Ledger to arrive on screen. So when he does finally appear, it's uncomfortable but compelling.

I must first begin by saying, I am not the best person to review this film. It's not my type of film. Just like, if you wanted someone to review the new Sex & The City Movie, you wouldn't ask Quentin Tarantino, it's just not his thing. But then, that's not my thing either. 'The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus' is a film that will undoubtedly leave a bigger mark in filmic history than originally anticipated due to the unexpected death of Heath Ledger. The Director/Co-Writer, Terry Gilliam, found himself in what he describes as an 'unprecedented' position of having a leading actor dead with half of his scenes left to shoot. Due to what can only be described as a stroke of good fortune, or fate, the scenes that were left to be shot gave Gilliam a way of finishing the film and putting it together in a way that allows for the same character to be played by different actors. To go into detail about this would perhaps cross over into spoiler territory, so I'll leave it at that for now.

The most remarkable thing about the film is how full of ideas it is. The film is, by and large, about imagination-- and that's exactly what it has an abundance of. My thinking was, "how the hell did he think of this?" whereas my friend put it more interestingly when he asked me, "what do you think he was smoking?"

The problem for me is that a creative mind and ideas only go so far by themselves. When I wrote about Charlie Chaplin's 'Modern Times' recently I spoke of how amazed I was by how full of inspired ideas it was. There were hundreds of ideas that were executed, without doubt, by a genius. The same cannot be said about '..Imaginarium,' as sometimes you can't help but feel it's all a bit colourful and creative just for the sake of being different.

The performances in the film are magnificent from all. Lily Cole stands out in a role that Terry Gilliam freely admits was a risk. Aside from a small role in 'St Trinians,' the acting experience of the professional model was limited, and her taking on such a complex role could have backfired. It didn't.

Without question, the thing that fascinates people about this movie is how they dealt with finishing the film without their lead actor. As most of you will know; Johnny Depp, Jude Law and Colin Farrell stepped up to the plate and finished what Heath Ledger started. Did they do a good job? I'll begin by saying that Law and Farrell did more than adequate jobs. There's no reason to get too excited about it -- they stepped in, and did okay. They didn't reach the level that Ledger had set, but they did the job.

Johnny Depp, on the other hand, is an interesting one. Let me first start by saying, I loved him in 'Donnie Brasco.' Aside from that though, for reasons I have no real excuse for, I don't know that much about his work. For reasons of fluke, coincidence, and other random excuses-- he's just not an actor that's particularly on my radar. Don't get me wrong, I've seen 'Pirates..' and a bunch of other stuff, but I don't have much to say about it or his acting. I've always assumed and ignorantly believed he's a cut above the rest but without ever really being a fan or knowing his work.

All that is a build up for me to say: I thought he was fantastic in this movie. He flew into the role of Tony with such ease and subtlety that it was remarkable to see. Depp was also hilarious in it. His scenes got big laughs from me. Laughs that were missing throughout the rest of the film. It could be coincidence, it could just be that the scenes he were in happened to be the funniest ones, but it seems more likely that Johnny Depp is just that much more brilliant than everyone else on screen. And I'm not knocking Heath Ledger, he puts in a strong performance and is entertaining and a joy to watch throughout, but Depp steals the show for me. As much as I'd have loved for Ledger to have bowed out with a work of definite genius in this film it's safe to say his defining role, quite rightly, is The Joker. That's his.

In summary; for all it's grand ideas and innovation, 'The Imaginarium Of Doctor Parnassus,' is a film that I rate as watchable and fun. It's not the greatest film in the world, but you could do a lot worse. Heath Ledger puts in a fine performance and there are definite hints of his undoubted talents, but he is more likely to be remembered for his masterful turn in 'The Dark Knight.'

The film will fascinate you, because of the context. Terry Gilliam and his team deserve major credit for pulling off the film when they would have been excused for calling the whole thing off. It's definitely worth a watch-- even if come the end, you do feel a little underwhelmed.

Care to share?

Tweet

Actors & Their Egos

The actors I love working with are the ones who turn up, maybe ask a question or two -- and then I don't see them for a while. When we're ready to shoot, there they are. "Action!" is called out and then the actor becomes the character.

That is all an actor is. Just like a man sweeping the streets is someone who sweeps the streets, and just like a Police officer is someone who arrests people and does his best to prevent crime. To put it even more succinctly; an actor is someone who plays a character whilst a camera is rolling. The problem is, some actors are not content with being a character on screen, they also want to be one off of it. They begin to play the role of an actor.

In Hollywood, of course-- actors have privileges. When Tom Hanks or Johnny Depp are on board, their names and their performances guarantee a large chunk of income for the studios, so the actors are treated amazingly. They're driven around, given giant trailers, given anything they want. They want a call girl? They want drugs? They want a monkey that can juggle? You got it. These actors are so important to the productions and to the people financing them, that anything will be done to keep them happy. An extra $5000 for a better hotel room is no problem when the actor is bringing them an extra $50million in box-office revenue.

The problem is that sometimes actors who are starting out are influenced by this, they think that this is how an actor should behave, to expect privilege. I have worked on absolutely zero budget films with first time filmmakers.. and it's 3am, in a freezing cold field. The Director and Producer have not eaten in three days, the camera man's feet are so cold it could well be trench foot, but the actors are wrapped up in warm blankets, drinking hot soup. Meanwhile, little Abdul, the 17 year old runner, hasn't eaten, slept or been allowed a toilet break in four days.

Sometimes, you see it the minute an actor walks on set. They'll turn to the nearest person and say "You think I could get a coffee? Two sugars." And sure enough, they'll get what they want. No-one is quite strong enough to say, "Sure, the kitchen is upstairs."

Don't get me wrong, there is a hierarchy on film sets, and it's there for a reason. When you're in the middle of a scene, it would be inappropriate and time-consuming for an actor to make their own coffee. But when the entire cast and crew are on a break and the actor is standing right next to the coffee they have no right to expect anyone but them to be making the coffee. Someone needs to tell them, "make your own coffee, it doesn't interfere with you saying words in front of a camera one hour from now."

The industry is flooded with young, upcoming actors. If you put an advert out for actors, you are bound to have thousands of messages flooding your inbox. The majority of the time, they all sound the same. It's not their fault, it's just that they're all in the same boat. They're young, talented, eager for roles, and look very attractive. Finding someone who truly loves films and the acting process is tough, they don't always jump off the page. But then, neither do the actors you want to avoid. Sometimes you can see their ego just from their emails, but sometimes, you won't see it until they audition. An actor with a large ego will ask a lot of questions, and some of these questions will be an attempt to catch you out, to make you look like you don't know what you're doing. Ego-driven actors can be very insecure deep underneath everything, and if they make you feel belittled; they feel better about themselves.

I should add the point that we're all insecure. Actors, Directors, Road Sweepers. We all have our issues. The problem is, the ego-driven "I deserve special treatment" actors use their insecurity to make everyone else feel bad.

One of the biggest problems is that a well-trained and clever egotistical actor will be able to hide this trait throughout the audition process. They'll be happy to take the role, even on a zero-budget short where nobody is getting paid. Here, they are able to feel vastly superior to everyone, because they feel like they've done you a favour. This is especially true if back in 1997 they did a Colgate commercial and got $5000 and a big-trailer. You are below me and I am doing you a favor, thinks the actor.

Can someone get me a tea?
I need an hour to make some calls.
I'm coming in late tomorrow.
How about shooting it from another angle?
Back on the set of some obscure film from 1998 they always made sure we had.....

The thing to realize, and I am talking mainly here about the low-budget-we-are-all-in-it-together-arena is; WE ARE ALL IN IT TOGETHER. None of us are getting paid much, none of us are sleeping, none of us want to be carrying equipment through the mud on a rainy night at 4am, but we are doing it, together. As a group. The actor is part of that group.

Even if the actor is Tom Hanks himself. Tom would have known, upon signing up, that this is a film being made for $500. Therefore, Tom isn't going to get his trailer. Tom isn't going to get to go and make calls for three hours as there is such a tight schedule.

The egoic actors are one of the sad parts of the industry. It's not always just actors; you can have any role on a set and you can be angry that you're not getting paid more, bitter that the food isn't as amazing as that big-budget shoot you did last year, disappointed with how your career is turning out. But it gives you no right to think you're better than anyone else on the set.

If you are in a big-budget film, by all means, enjoy your privileges. You'll be surprised to find that many of the actors are very modest and humble about the wonderful things they are given, which is exactly how all actors should be right the way down to a first-time student film. Actors, like everyone else on the set, are normal human beings. The whole team are on set for the same reason, the common goal of making a great film. Remember that's why you're there, and think about you wanted to be treated and treat others.

Acting is not about privilege. It's about doing things in front of a camera. That's all.

Care to share?

Tweet

'How I Got Lost' Trailer.

I really, really, really, really like the look of this film.



Seems to be doing a few film festivals at the moment, not sure when I'll actually be able to see it, hopefully sometime soon!

Care to share?

Tweet

Should they really be making all these Holocaust films?

When 'Schindler's List' came out it touched everyone in a way that I don't think any film ever had before. It proved that a film can have a lasting effect on its audiences. It proved that a film can make a difference in the world. The one thing we know for sure about the Holocaust is that it must never be forgotten, and what better way to do that than have the world's most successful film director Steven Spielberg making it.

I do a lot of work with Holocaust survivors, and I have been involved in some film projects about it too, but I often find myself asking; should all these films be getting made? There was a time when I would always have said a definite yes. I've done work in schools where I've seen children having absolutely no knowledge of the attempted extermination of the European Jews and it brings me to the conclusion that we should keep on making these films, keep on getting them out there.

I didn't like "The Boy In The Striped Pyjamas," it seemed distastefully Hollywoodified to me. But then, I was doing a workshop with Holocaust survivors in a school last year and the students were really passionate about it. These children were beginning to have interesting ideas and lots of compassion towards Germans, whereas I remember when I was in school we were all "I hate Germans!" which was based mainly on ignorance and stereotyping.

Let's cut to the chase though. The Holocaust films coming out of Hollywood today aren't being made to honour the memory of the millions who were tragically lost. They're being made to line the pockets of the producers with lots of money. Far from being like Steven Spielberg, crying during scenes whilst filming in Krakow, Poland-- they're sitting in their warm Hollywood studios raking in the cash.

From a storytelling perspective, the Holocaust is gold. There are so many millions of untold, complex stories-- and they all revolve around the power, relationships, good versus evil, alienation, confusion, heartbreak, death, etc. Everything you could want from a story you can get, easily, every single time - whenever you venture into the events of Hitler's Final Solution. But this doesn't make it okay.

I find myself asking that a lot now whenever I see a World War two film. Is it okay when a stupid, pathetic horror film like "The Unborn," takes the Holocaust and uses it as a device to illicit more emotion from its audience? Is it okay when Quentin Tarantino has revengeful Jews running around scalping people's heads for fun in 'Inglorious Basterds'? Is it okay when Tom Cruise and his co-stars are playing Nazi's but have perfect American accents, in 'Valkyrie'? You see, the Americanisation of the Germans in 'Valkyrie' wasn't so that people could understand the events better, it was so that the film would be more marketable.

The Holocaust survivors are still here, with us. They are still coming to terms with what happened and they are still sharing their stories. When they share them, there is nothing more heartbreaking or profound. When you hear a Holocaust survivor tell you how their family got shot in front of them, how their kids were taken away-- the importance of it hits you. It impacts your life in ways you couldn't imagine. I don't feel it is fair to these people to turn the death of six million Jews into big screen fodder that lines the pockets of filmmakers with millions and millions of Dollars. The subject is too important for that.

Do I think films should be made on the subject? Yes. Films like 'The Counterfeiters,' help us understand, they help us learn and they help us grow. In the film, Salomon Sorowitsch and Adolf Burger are two Jews who are counterfeiting bank notes for the Nazi's. They do it to survive, it's their only choice. But the two characters are caught in their belief systems. Salomon does what the Nazi's want, because he feels it's the only way he is able to survive. Whereas Adolf has major problems with it because he feels it is unethical and helping the German war-effort. The palpable conflict between the two characters is mesmerizing and you can't help but put yourself in their place and question what you would do. That is powerful filmmaking -- and it's important filmmaking. Perhaps the difference is that this film, like the incredible 'Downfall,' was made in Germany by German filmmakers. The German attempts to understand their history through these films in recent years is remarkable, gut-wrenching and moving. The films are important. The same, I feel, cannot be said for the constant Holocaust themed movies rolling off of the Hollywood production line.

It's time to stop and think. The Holocaust MUST be remembered and we MUST find ways to make sure future generations learn about and feel about the Holocaust. But we must do it right.

Care to share?

Tweet