A Brief Guide To Early Cinema

On A Tuesday morning in 1867, William Lincoln patented the zoopraxiscope. Whilst many people thought it was a form of anti-depressant, it was actually a device which enabled people to watch moving images. Despite Lincoln being the first person to invent a movie camera, Louis Lumiere went on to be yet another first person to invent one. People decided to credit him as the first, on account of his being French.



Lumiere soon realised the true power of his invention, and immediately ordered a medium bucket of popcorn. It's interesting to note that up until the invention of the movie camera, people had been sitting in empty halls eating popcorn for no particular reason. What's even weirder, is how they were constantly moaning about the prices. Lumiere had wonderful theories about developing a style of filmmaking called 'The French Old Wave,' which went on to influence a creative period in the 1950's when a bunch of French directors who'd grown tired of the Old Wave struggled to find a name for their latest style.


Within a few years Lumiere and Edison (another person who was definitely the first person to invent the movie camera) were both screening silent moving images to the general public. Early films were very simple. Some of the classics include "Man Standing Still Looking At Camera," "Small Dog Sleeping," and "Two Middle Class Men Talking To Each Other Whilst Smoking Cigars." These were all big hits. Sadly, Edison soon began to struggle after audiences claimed that "Small Dog Sleeping 2" lacked originality, and at the very least - could have involved some movement.


Lumiere was once quoted as saying, "The cinema is an invention without a future." It's fascinating to know that he came to this conclusion before seeing Eddie Murphy's latest releases. It's important to remember that all of the early films were silent. As technology changed in the 1920's, 'talkies' were introduced. This was generally perceived to be a good thing, but recently there has been a surge in producers clambering for a return to silent cinema again after witnessing a Miley Cyrus monologue in 'The Last Song.'


By 1902, venues were being built specifically for showing films. People would fight for a seat in the packed movie houses to see films like "Fat Lady Walking Along The Platform" and "Jolly Fellow Swinging A Golf Club." These two films, shown together; would only amount to seven minutes of screen time. This would have been a concern for customers, but luckily, just like these days, they had to sit through thirty minutes of trailers.

Care to share?

Tweet

Sequels, Remakes, Reboots & Reshoots - The Day The Film Blogosphere Came Together

Wow, that was fun. The finest film bloggers in all the land (no offence to film bloggers who live on sea) came together to write on the topic of 'Sequels, Remakes and Reboots.' It was a pretty open ended assignment, just a chance for everyone to express their feelings on the topic. Much fun was had, some of the articles were detailed and informative, others were light and hilarious.

It all began yesterday morning when The Kid In The Front Row got into a confused mess as he struggled to get a grip of his feelings on the topic, "Will a new 'Texas Chain Saw Massacre' stop people re-watching the original? Does anyone lose sleep over the fact Gus Van Sant did a shot for shot remake of 'Psycho'? No, everyone just watches the original."

Luckily, that wasn't the only post of the day, and the sequels provided a lot more insight. Over at Memoirs Of A Word Nerd, Manda Diaz delivered possibly the funniest moment of the blogathon with the worryingly spot on analysis of 'Oceans 12,' "It still makes me angry that the general public paid money just to watch a bunch of celebrities on holiday in Europe."

The Sugary Cynic makes her point bluntly and honestly, "In practice, these usually suck because they are slapdash, shitty, with no respect paid to the source material and done for the money."

A Nerd Like Me makes a simple point which, to be honest, sums everything up pretty well; "Good sequels, remakes and reboots are good. And bad ones? Well, at least they’re fun to argue about!""

"History is destined to repeat itself. Hollywood just gets around to it faster than most," mused Mike Lippert, from You Talking To Me?; who was probably the most pro-remakes blogger in the blogathon.

Patrick O'Riley and Sofluid both took the time to break down each section seperately and share their opinions on Sequels, Remakes, and Reboots. Patrick stands up for the point of view you'd hear from a studio head, with "Sequels have an undeserved negative stigma. From a producorial standpoint, the reason a sequel is even considered for production is because an original film proves successful." Similarly, upcoming screenwriter Sofluid brings awareness to the dreaded word that anti-remake/reboot people hate to hear, 'franchise.' Solfluid explains, "Shrek in particular is an impressive franchise. It's got a loveable set of characters (perfect for merchandise!) and the writers manage to keep it fresh and exciting."

The Intermittent Sprocket gets straight down to business and makes a list of films that he thinks should be remade, and one point in particular I couldn't agree more with, "ANYTHING WRITTEN BY SHANE BLACK DESERVES A SEQUEL WRITTEN BY SHANE BLACK." Four Of Them wrote a simple yet heartfelt article which many people will relate to, "You see, they're all too glad to attach the original's good name in press releases, but when it comes time for execution, well, what they do can land anywhere between ineptness, scorn, and all-out hatred."

We end on two distinctly different takes on the topic. Wellywood Woman, from New Zealand, took the conversation away from bantering back and forth about 'Shrek' and 'Toy Story 3' and focused on something more fascinating and important; "I've chosen to focus on gender and audience, and on the reboot-and-remake of the New Zealand Film Commission, following its review by Sir Peter Jackson and David Court," which makes for a fascinating read. 

I hope I've mentioned everybody. If I've missed any blogs out, please get in touch, and I'll add them in. Feel free to copy and paste this round-up onto your own blogs-- it'd be really great if we can spread awareness of each others work. as much fun as it is to mount up your own reader base and shield them from everyone else; I think community is far more important. I can supply the HTML code of this blog if it helps you enter it into your own blogs.

Thanks for joining in, and thanks for reading. Until next time.

Care to share?

Tweet

Sequels, Remakes and Reboots - A Kid In The Front Row Blogathon

Sequels, remakes and reboots completely polarize opinion in a variety of ways. There are those who are vehemently opposed and think they are ruining the industry, and then there are people who think the retelling of stories has always been an important part of culture, or, perhaps-- they think the advancements in technology mean that there is even more scope for greater movies, and believe the tales of Batman and Spiderman can finally be done justice.

These polarizations exist, and nobody seems to occupy the middle ground. Of course, there is the apathetic middle ground. The "Just take my $12 and show me a movie" crowd. But aside from that, there's little agreement.

And then they made 'Toy Story 3,' which everyone loved. What does this mean? Unfortunately, this didn't bring the two camps together. Whilst the latest 'Shrek' was proof that Hollywood is creatively bankrupt and in need of original characters, 'Toy Story 3' was a lucky fluke. Or "It's Toy Story. That's different."

For everyone to suddenly celebrate sequels just because 'Toy Story 3' was near genius would, of course, be completely stupid. But it suggests this is not a black and white issue.

I am generally against sequels, remakes and all of that stuff. That they're 're-booting' Spiderman like two weeks after they last did it seems ludicrous to me. My instincts are that it's purely based on business. Indeed, why wouldn't it be? This is one of the biggest franchises going, an undeniable pot of gold for the film studios. But then, maybe there's something I'm missing.

I like the new 'The Karate Kid.' It's a lot of fun. I felt bad feeling this, like I had gone against my own belief system. How dare I like it? Why does it bother me? Why should I not like it? It's things like "they shouldn't mess with the original," "it shouldn't be about Kung Fu," etc. But does it matter? Will a new 'Texas Chain Saw Massacre' stop people re-watching the original? Does anyone lose sleep over the fact Gus Van Sant did a shot for shot remake of 'Psycho'? No, everyone just watches the original.

If My friend Pete sees the new 'Karate Kid' and thinks it's the greatest movie ever, and refuses to watch the original.. Why does it matter? I have a feeling it does, but why? Does it matter for me, or for him?

When Spielberg announced he would remake the Jimmy Stewart classic 'Harvey' I was genuinely heartbroken for days. When he dropped the project, I rejoiced, and gave up my hunger strike (I may be slightly exaggerating). But here's the thing:- the majority of people in my life, especially around my age and younger, have no intention of watching old black and white Jimmy Stewart films.. So if they're not going to watch 'Harvey' anyway, what difference does it make if they watch a new version?

I hope you realize my questions are literally that, questions. I'm not saying it isn't important, or isn't different. But I feel that when we get angry about the remakes, we're not entirely conscious of why. Or maybe I'm just talking about me.

So why does it bother me so much when they remake stuff? And why does it bother me when I enjoy the remakes? Maybe it's just part of my personality. I like things to feel fresh and original. I place value on who came first. As for why does it bother me when I like them? That's a more complex question. Or maybe it's very simple--- I've been proven wrong. I enjoyed the the Karate Kid film and I LOVED 'Toy Story 3'-- and in fact, it felt great to be revisiting Woody, Buzz, and co-- and that familiarity is a good thing.

It's easy to take some supposed moral high-ground about how they should only re-make films for reasons of heart and story, instead of money. But, newsflash: 'Toy Story 3' was about money too.

To summarise, in case you haven't realised: I haven't got a clue what I'm talking about. I don't know where I stand on this issue. I identify with the outraged side, and I identify with the part of me that enjoys remakes when they're done well. In fact, maybe I just am the apathetic middle ground after all. (but if anyone in Hollywood ever remakes 'The Apartment,' I will actually kill them.)
This is the first of a Kid In The Front Row blogathon where many wonderful bloggers will be writing about 'Sequels, Remakes and Reboots' throughout the day. At the end of it all, I will be posting links to all of the bloggers who are involved.

Care to share?

Tweet

The One Where Tom Hanks Was Like "What The Fuck???"

I bring you an exclusive behind the scenes look at what happened on the set of the Robert Zemeckis film 'CAST AWAY' when the sanity of two-time Academy Award winner Tom Hanks was seriously put to the test. After half of the shoot, Hanks was convinced this was going to be his best film to date. And then the director started making some strange requests.

DIRECTOR
Great work today, Tom.

TOM
Thanks.

DIRECTOR
I have some new dialogue for you.

TOM
Great.

DIRECTOR
I think you need someone with you on the island.

TOM
I'd like that.

DIRECTOR
I need you to say, "You wouldn't have a match by any chance, would ya?"

TOM
Who am I saying it to, Helen Hunt?

DIRECTOR
Um. No. To Wilson.

TOM
Who?

DIRECTOR
A volleyball. Say the line to a volleyball.
A few days later.

DIRECTOR

Tom. I just watched 'APOLLO 13.'

TOM

I love that movie.

DIRECTOR

Me too. I love when Ed Harris is arguing with everyone about trajectories and re-entry.

TOM

Yeah, very powerful stuff.

DIRECTOR

Don't you wish you'd been in those scenes?

TOM

I guess. But I was in the spaceship.

DIRECTOR

Well, we've come up with a similar scene for you. You map out the plane crash and detail the land that surrounds you. You can write it all on the cave.

TOM

That could be cool.

DIRECTOR

So you'll do it?

TOM

Sure, Rob.

DIRECTOR

Great. I'll get the volleyball.

TOM

Not the volleyball thing again?

DIRECTOR

It'll be great.

TOM

I thought that scene went well.

DIRECTOR

Me too.

TOM

I'm going for a nap.

DIRECTOR

Hold on, we need you for Wilson's close up.

TOM

Are you sure it was you who Directed 'Forrest Gump'?

DIRECTOR

I get a better performance when both actors are there for each other.

TOM

It's a volleyball!!

DIRECTOR

And it's his first role in a movie, you should be more supportive.

TOM

It's a Vol-ley-ball. This is crazy.

A day later, Tom was back on set for another night shoot.

DIRECTOR

Okay Tom. I need you to say, "I can't take much more of those coconuts. Coconut milk's a natural laxative," whilst you're eating crab.

TOM

Great line. This should be good.

DIRECTOR

Just bare with us - we're waiting for Wilson to arrive on set.

TOM

The fucking volleyball again?

DIRECTOR

Is there a problem?

TOM

I've done three films with Meg Ryan.

DIRECTOR

What's wrong, Tom?

TOM

What's with the volleyball? I signed on to act with Helen Hunt.

DIRECTOR

She's not in this scene.

TOM

Can't we get Tim Allen?

DIRECTOR

The ball is more natural.

TOM

I have two academy awards. I've worked with Denzel Washington.

Coming soon. More completely true untold stories from Hollywood movies.

Care to share?

Tweet

UK Film Council To Close

It was announced today that the UK Film Council is to be abolished. However, it may take twenty years for them to clear out the masses of failed funding application paperwork sent in over the years from talented film director's across the British Isles.

I loved the idea of the UKFC. A Government led organization that funds and encourages homegrown talent. In reality, for many legitimate filmmakers with great projects and screenplays; it was just endless rejection, after giant heaps of paperwork, only to find that the Council had, yet again, funded another film about people living on dodgy council estates with their alcoholic parents.

I have no personal experience with the UK Film Council. I always opted to stay away. The love for bureaucracy and form-filling, script input, etc, is enough to make me vomit. Not only that but, they were always producing BULLSHIT like 'Enduring Love' and 'Doogal'. And if not, they were funding the big guys like Mike Leigh and Danny Boyle.

So, I have mixed views. On the one hand, it's disastrous. Even though State-funded art rarely produces a masterpiece, and they generally seemed insecure about taking risks with unique projects - I like that it existed, that the idea of being funded by them was real to people. But the reality for most was that it was less than helpful.

It's strange that this news has come only a week after it was announced that the British Film Industry is doing rather well. It seems to be that the Government sees the arts as a low priority. But to me, the opposite is true, especially during times of recessions, job losses, and having to put up with David Cameron for five years. People need somewhere to escape to. They need the piece of film that can make them dream. Look at the effect 'Toy Story 3' has been having on people. Admittedly, TS3 wasn't made on Government money, it was of course made in America, with American film studio money-- but my point is that the true power of film is how it can give people hope, belief and happiness; which is needed in society. And that gets completely marginalized when the main body of a nation for funding such things is instantly scrapped. It's not a good sign.

But then again, as I was saying previously, the Film Council generally funds complete bullshit. So who's losing out, I don't know.

I'm sure there are many pluses and many, many minuses to this happening-- I have very limited knowledge about the workings of the UK Film Council. I'm sure many of you thought 'Severance' was a good movie, and worth producing.

What are your thoughts on the abolition of the UK Film Council? What does it mean for the future of British filmmaking?

"There is a connection between progress of a society and progress in the Arts. The age of Pericles was also the age of Phidias. The age of Lorenzo de Medici was also the age of Leonardo Da Vinci. The age of Elizabeth was the age of Shakespeare."

-Toby Ziegler, in 'THE WEST WING'

Care to share?

Tweet