Castle Keep’s Ghosts - short documentary June 7, 2008
Posted by Daniel Stephens in : Horror, Artfully Deranged, Short Film , add a commentI’ve been locked in the editing room with some raw footage of a paranormal investigation at Castle Keep in Newcastle, making a Most Haunted-style film about possible ghostly activities. I watched The Exorcist to get in me in the right frame of mind which, essentially, made me me simply terrified and constantly looking over my shoulder.
Anyway, my first cut is complete and ready to view HERE.
Short Film In The UK: Future Shorts November 12, 2007
Posted by Daniel Stephens in : Short Film , add a commentI remember Dawn Simpson telling me today’s audience were into ‘snacking’ when I interviewed her about the Propeller short film channel. It’s very true as there’d be no audience for You Tube if it wasn’t. We want our media delivered to us at any time, during any situation, and on whatever medium suits the moment. Short film has prospered over the past few years because it’s finally found a commercial audience who can invest five minutes of free time, not in the morning Metro while on the bus, but on film, television clips, and podcasts. They can do it because the technology makes it easier than reading a paper. Just as You Tube couldn’t work without snacking, the IPhone and Ipod wouldn’t without this new phenomenon either.
For me, short film is a fabulous form of cinema because it allows new filmmakers to hone their craft, and an audience to see film with all the frailties and raw beauty that cinema used to possess. Recently, I’ve been very impressed with the output of British-based Future Shorts (www.futureshorts.com). Unlike Propeller or Ronke, you don’t need Sky to see their films as they’re available via My Space (http://www.myspace.com/futureshorts) and their You Tube channel (www.youtube.com/futureshorts).
My favourite at the moment is Oedipus (Click Here) by self-acclaimed makers of ‘stupid comedy’ Rong, a UK-based group of cinema fanatics who won the BBC new filmmakers award in 2005. The warped but genuinely amusing tale begins with the title-card ‘The following featurette should not be viewed by anyone who has, or has had, a mother and/or father’. It proceeds to fit a left-of-centre modern day tale of masturbation into the ageless, but equally warped, psychology of Freud’s Oedipus complex. The film, made in 2004, features an rhyming narration that works particularly well, but it’s the perfect pace of the film that really sets it apart. It may be raw but Oedipus examples the virtues of short film with enthusiasm and obvious skill.
Certainly, for a more accomplished and less risqué piece of cinema look no further than Japanese film Right Place (Click Here). This comedy-drama looks at a Tokyo worker’s obsession with neatness and perfection. It features some stunning cinematography that perfectly encapsulates what the film tries to portray. The rigid, static camera shots and balanced frame set the film’s tone, a correctness that has to be maintained. Indeed, Right Place is cinematic art at its most inspiring, with superb use of sound and lighting, and a rhythmic flow to the editing.
Other very worthy films to look for are the brilliant animations from Yev Yilmaz (check out Procrastination: Click Here), Gokhan Okur’s Last Train Ride (Click Here), and the multi award-winning Heap Of Trouble (Click Here). Also, check out Pierre Olivier’s beautiful Can We Kiss (Click Here), a film set in a French café about a girl who wants to practice her audition lines with a complete stranger.
Links to my short films:
Sundown (2005) - Part 1 - Part 2 - Part 3 - Part 4
Trouble With Mr. Goldman (2006)
Further Reading:
1. Short Film: A brief critical history
2. Short Film In The UK: Screen Yorkshire and the Independents
3. Short Film In The UK: Film Festivals and Competitions
4. Short Film In The UK: Technology and the Tiny Screen
5. Short Film In The UK: Availability, Audience, and the Future
6. ‘Okay, we’re done’: The story of my first short film
7. Short Film Take II: The Trouble With Mr. Goldman
8. Short Film In The UK: Recommended Links
Who directed Poltergeist? October 9, 2007
Posted by Daniel Stephens in : Artfully Deranged, The Film Industry , 7 comments
The issue of who actually made the 1982 classic horror film Poltergeist has raged ever since an article appeared in the L.A. Times questioning who was directing the movie. On the day of the newspaper’s on-set visit Steven Spielberg was directing some on-location shots with Hooper no where to be seen.
It’s no secret the film came from a Spielberg idea – in fact, the genesis for Poltergeist came from the Oscar-winning director’s Night Skies project about a family terrorised in their home by an evil alien. This eventually became a story about a decent and loving creature from outer space - E.T: The Extraterrestrial - with Spielberg adapting the idea around a troublesome evil spirit instead, creating Poltergeist.
The problem that has always troubled me is how Poltergeist feels like a Spielberg movie – a Spielberg script, directed with a Spielberg mentality. It follows the same themes the director has probed his entire career – childhood, family, loss, the supernatural. The film is a far cry from Hooper’s low-budget shocker The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, it isn’t as implicitly violent, it features far more special-effects (albeit, the film had a much bigger budget), and it has a much more mainstream, less documentary-inspired feel about it. It’s also, when you look at Tobe Hooper’s career post-The Texas Chainsaw Massacre, the likes of such rubbish Invaders From Mars and The Mangler dominating his C.V., far too good to be Hooper film.
Aside from aesthetic evidence there has always been some ambiguity from people who worked on the set – the actors and the production staff – about who was running the show. Indeed, Spielberg produced so many films he didn’t direct yet Poltergeist is the only one where his role is unclear.
Of course, filmmaking is a collaborative effort, you only have to look at the eight minute end of movie credit sequences to know that. Yet, the imaginative and creative force behind a film has to come from the person directing it, and the ambiguity surrounding Poltergeist arises because Hooper’s creative force was either seriously diminished under Spielberg or rendered practically null and void.
Hooper and Spielberg had creative differences right off the bat and rarely did Hooper get his way. Dominque Dunne who played Anna Freeling in the movie said that she was directed by Spielberg and that in one scene he asked her to have a hickey on her neck. She argued against it but Spielberg got what he wanted. Dunne has also mentioned how it was Spielberg who comforted little Heather O’Rourke when she became frightened during scenes.
There is another story from the set that concerns Oliver Robins who, during the scene where the clown attacks him, it was Spielberg who told him to ‘keep going’ as he was so authentically acting. When Spielberg realised the actor was actually being strangulated by the puppet, he ran to Robins, saving his life.
But perhaps this only suggests Spielberg helped out with the young actors and added a few creative touches here and there, however, it only adds to the speculation. Why, for example, does the Turner Classic Movies documentary feature both Spielberg and Hooper on set yet no shots of Hooper actually doing any direction.
But most illuminating and perhaps the most definitive idea of who directed Poltergeist comes from Zelda Rubinstein who played Tangina in the movie. Rubinstein told Ain’t It Cool news: ‘I can tell you that Steven directed all six days I was there. I only worked six days on the film and Steven was there. Tobe set up the shots and Steven made the adjustments.’
Consider the fact that due to a contractual agreement with Universal Studios, Spielberg could not ‘direct’ another movie while preparing E.T: The Extraterrestrial. Spielberg’s vague but interesting comments point to the idea that Hooper wasn’t a force on the movie, as he says, ‘Tobe isn’t… a take-charge sort of guy. If a question was asked and an answer wasn’t immediately forthcoming, I’d jump in and say what we could do. Tobe would nod agreement, and that become the process of collaboration.’
The Director’s Guild of America even opened an investigation into whether the ‘directed by’ credit was valid, and the film’s co-producer Frank Marshall said, ‘the creative force of the movie was Steven. Tobe was the director and was on the set every day. But Steven did the design for every storyboard and he was on the set every day except for three days when he was in Hawaii with Lucas.’
Perhaps it doesn’t matter that because Spielberg couldn’t contractually direct another movie while E.T. was being prepped, he simply hired another director to stand in for the credit, and directed it anyway. Poltergeist is an excellent supernatural-horror film, so why all the fuss? Well, it’s one of those Hollywood controversies, the sort of story that gives the industry a mystique it loves to manipulate. After all, the Poltergeist set was haunted, and the actors were cursed…but that’s a whole other story.
Poltergeist 25th Anniversary Edition DVD is released on the 15th Oct.
Don’t use Love Film for your online DVD rentals October 2, 2007
Posted by Daniel Stephens in : Artfully Deranged, The Film Industry , 33 commentsThe first month was great – too good, in fact – and there I was parading the virtues of online DVD rental and how perfect my supplier Love Film was. Oh dear, how wrong was I. Don’t let the ‘2 weeks free trial’ con you into thinking you’re getting a good deal!
I was with them for four months (actually five, but more on that later!) - using their £12.99 a month package which allows you to receive an unlimited amount of DVDs with two at home at any given time. For the final three months, I never once received a film I actually wanted.
At one point I received DVDs in the post, checked to see what they were, and sent them back immediately because I simply didn’t care to watch them. Part of the problem with renting films is that you have to watch them within a given time frame. Sometimes this can work out for the better, but the way online rental works - with your next DVDs sent out once you’ve returned your last ones - you only get your moneys worth if you power through around 4 films a week. Two things: 1) It’s hard to get through four films in a week when they aren’t ones you actually want; and 2) you are relying on Love Film to post out your DVDs promptly to beat Sunday’s lack of post.
Love Film pander to the needs of new customers leaving monthly subscribers out in the cold. For the first few weeks I received all the DVDs I wanted, promptly and in good condition. After my first month’s payment had been taken, I stopped receiving the films I wanted and only got films they force you to add to a wish list. Basically, if you don’t have twenty films on a list, they won’t send you a single film – or at least, I didn’t receive one when I struggled to list twenty. My problem with the list is that I only wanted brand new releases, perhaps two per week. I have a huge collection of DVDs at home, I wasn’t interested in catalogue titles. After a month, I’d run out of catalogue titles I wanted. When my list dwindled to less than the ‘recommended’ (actually read: necessary) twenty titles, nothing was sent out until I replenished the list, essentially, with films I didn’t want. I was left paying for a service I wasn’t getting.
Essentially, Love Film wants to be bigger than it can manage, at least at the present time, and I wouldn’t recommend using them as your online rental company. Their customer service is very poor, their inability to deliver on the customer’s need is even more damning, and they have a poor policy if you want to leave. I had to pay for another month of zero service because after ringing their customer service team (you have to phone them to cancel membership, you cannot do it online) I was told (a complete lie) that near the time of my next payment I could officially cancel my membership online. This was not the case. I called up on the day of my payment for the following month and because I had DVDs at home (they’d sent more out even though I’d notified them that I wanted to cancel my membership), I had to pay for another month. Terrible.
Rant Summary
Oh, the sacrifices we make for poor consumer services. Love Film’s enticing free trial is a waste of your time, your energy, and your money – don’t do it!
You won’t always get the DVDs you want, and their online system for telling you which titles may not be in stock/or there might be a long wait for, is flawed and most of time not working.
Their customer service is awful – don’t expect prompt email replies (or replies at all), don’t expect to receive the DVDs you think you should be getting (because they’ll send anything out after you’ve paid for your first month), and don’t expect it to be easy to cancel membership.
Top 10 Horror Films of the 1980s May 7, 2007
Posted by Daniel Stephens in : Horror, Top 10s, Artfully Deranged, Genre, The Film Industry, Audience , 52 commentsWhere there is no imagination there is no horror.
Sir Arthur Conan Doyle
I vaguely remember my introduction to the horror film. My cousin was visiting, the curtains had been drawn on a sunny afternoon, and John Landis’ An American Werewolf In London had been placed in the VCR. I was seven years old. I recollect that evening, and for many nights consequently, I hardly slept. There was something under my bed, and there was even something in the closet, I knew it too well. Of course, it was easy to see since I’d cry bloody Mary if anyone tried to turn my light off. Could I keep my eyes open? It was becoming more difficult, all I could see were those green hills shrouded in the black cloak of night, and the warning: ‘Stay on the road. Keep clear of the moors,’ delivered in that Yorkshire twang. Bryan Glover’s short, controlled outburst – probably his unusual form of goodbye – ‘Beware the moon, lads.’ Then our hero David and best friend Jack are stranded. They’ve wandered off the path, there are no lights around, no one to help. They hear a sound, distant at first but growing louder. Could it be a dog, no, it sounds much bigger. Then the screams, the tearing of flesh, the quick cuts and extreme close-ups; we see a gun fire, all goes silent, and the darkness pervades.
I grew up as part of the video generation. Cinema was changing again – attendances were down and people were far happier watching videos or catching re-runs on television than they were venturing from the comfort of their own home. By the early 1990s, eighties babies were beginning to enjoy cinema beyond family movies, cartoons and the Wizard of Oz. In Britain, this audience - post-1984 Video Recordings Act - wanted to find their niche and what better place to start than the forsaken shelves of the video nasty. Bootleg, grainy copies of The Exorcist and The Texas Chainsaw Massacre tormented young minds, while the horror film cemented its place firmly in cult circles. This fervent popularity from both adults and teenagers for the horror film encouraged the industry (especially Hollywood) to produce some wonderfully surreal, engaging and stylish pieces of cinema. We saw the rampant emergence of the ‘Slasher’ movie from Wes Craven and Sean S. Cunningham, gore and special-effects from Tom Savini, the body horror of David Cronenberg, the dreams and nightmares of Clive Barker, the cross genre comedy-horror from John Landis, Tom Holland, and Dan O’Bannon. There was franchised sequels, villains-as-heroes, gothic homage, iconic theme music, lunch boxes, action figures and other cross-promotion. Indeed, the horror film was as much derided as it was loved. But the eighties produced some of the greatest examples of the genre following, and certainly inspired by, the fears and trend-setting new traditions of the new-age horror from the seventies.
The genre has failed for years to get recognition from a critical standpoint. Much of the recognition it did receive was negative – throughout the 1930s and 1940s, horror movies were thought to be harmful to society and many local authorities banned films they deemed unsuitable. During the 1950s, Hammer Studios used negative press and liberal scare tactics to promote their films, and it was as much the backlash from politicians and critics that helped cultivate underground following for the genre. However, by the late 1960s, there was a trend beginning in France that saw critics warming to the genre, and by the time Carlos Clarens and Ivan Butler’s books were released, there was a new feeling that looked at the films as serious art forms. Instead of lambasting horror movies as detrimental, even dangerous, to society, writers were beginning to look at the long literary traditions that had first inspired these films. And they also investigated the history and transformation of the genre since the first examples were seen in such German expressionism as Nosferatu and The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari. By the 1970s every critic who wanted a name for themselves had written about the horror movie, whether their point of view was positive, negative, or indifferent. Most importantly, horror had become a mainstream commodity with the obvious example being Steven Spielberg’s Jaws. It isn’t surprising that the seventies produced the best and most influential films of the genre (The Exorcist, Halloween, The Wicker Man, Dawn Of The Dead), with audiences, the art form, and the industry all benefiting from this budding type of film.
Yet, the eighties was a period not far behind the previous decade in terms of quality output. Certainly, the genre was much more diverse with self-reference, parody, and hybrids such as Kathryn Bigelow’s brilliant Near Dark, showing what could be done. On top of that you had some lovely original pieces of cinema with such films as Dan O’Bannon’s special-effects homage to Romero The Return of the Living Dead, Joel Schumacher’s coming-of-age vampire flick The Lost Boys, and beyond Hollywood with the Dutch/French production The Vanishing, and stylistic Italian director Dario Argento’s Tenebre and Inferno. Indeed, the vibrancy for the genre in the 1980s came from films which embraced and celebrated horror. Prime examples would be the self-referential Fright Night, gore-fest The Evil Dead, Peter Jackson’s Bad Taste, John Carpenter’s remake of The Thing, and Brian De Palma’s Hitchcock-inspired Dressed To Kill. It has been said the eighties was, much like very early film, the cinema of attractions. It pushed the boundaries of the medium to new frontiers, backed by Reagan’s forward-thinking plans. Director’s thought visually, and nothing held their creative minds back. It was the period where dreams and nightmares were displayed on screen more realistically than had ever been seen. In effect, there appeared no better time for horror (much like science-fiction during the same period) – with its otherworldly themes – to prosper on a grand scale. In a sense you’ve got to thank George Lucas because with Star Wars he reintroduced audiences to escapism, which had somewhat been lost during the dominance of social-issue and character studies of the seventies.
The genre, which would continue to diversify into the nineties (postmodernism in A New Nightmare in 1994, which led to Scream and the revitalisation of the Slasher film; and the digital video revolution and use of new media with Daniel Myrick and Eduardo Sanchez’s masterful manipulation of the audience with The Blair Witch Project), still retained a very distinct set of conventions that primarily challenged normality and distanced the real from the unreal. Reading many different theorists views about how the horror film works makes for wide reaching, and often, very politically motivated ideologies, but it’s interesting nonetheless. There’s a school that believes American horror is dominated by the struggles created by consumerism, patriarchal social relations, and family struggle, and that the location of the horror is in the home and our way of life. Others believe the monsters prevalent in horror films represent institutional fears, like the affect the church, government, or the police can have on breaking or changing familial tradition, while some writers look at the way the audience is manipulated through the aesthetics of the films by the way they play on the insecurities that defy rational explanation. There are also people such as Stephen Neale who believe the genre satisfies a fetish for violence and terror that is inherited by the society and cultural structure we live in, while feminist theorists argue the genre is dominated by misogyny and the ‘female’ as victim.
Whether you find yourself agreeing or disagreeing, the fact remains that the horror film is, and has been, a very popular genre for audiences. Despite its early critical backlash, the genre has been important as far back as the 1930s when Universal produced Dracula and Frankenstein amongst others, which were so well received by audiences, it enabled the company to become a major Hollywood studio. In the 1940s RKO created many films including Cat People, which pioneered a style which would be imitated by filmmakers for years to come. Instead of showing the monster, filmmakers used off-screen space, sound, lighting and deep shadows, character reaction, and the ambiguity of the audience’s imagination to produce stylish and emotionally impacting movies. Independent production prospered in the 1960s with the most influential film being George A. Romero’s Night Of The Living Dead, which led to a new respectability with Roman Polanski’s mesmerising Rosemary’s Baby, and the best film the genre ever created, William Friedkin’s terrifying The Exorcist.
For me, the best decade for horror was the 1980s and that’s why I present my top 10. Below, you’ll also find my Top five favourite moments:
10. Fright Night (Tom Holland, 1985, USA)
‘’Apparently your generation doesn’t want to see vampire killers anymore, nor vampires either. All they want to see slashers running around in ski masks, hacking up young virgins.'’
Top 10, why?: Tom Holland’s superb self-referential horror-comedy is both delightfully funny and darkly sadistic, wryly telling the story of a teenager who knows a Vampire has moved in next door but no one believes him. A standout performance from Roddy McDowell is the centre point of a film that simultaneously celebrates and parodies the genre. This unique film inspired a lot of the post-modern sentiment later seen in the 1990s.
Critic quote: ‘…it’s hard to get into this movie and not have a little fun…’ (Nadd Yapp)
External review: Absolute Horror
9. Hellraiser (Clive Barker, 1987, UK)
‘’We will tear your soul apart'’
Top 10, why?: The film embodies the idea of nightmares displayed on screen as Clive Barker creates a terrifying vision of hell on earth.
Critic Quote: ‘I have seen the future of the horror genre, and his name is Clive Barker.’ (Stephen King)
External Reviews: British Horror Films, Blog of the Rotting Dead
8. The Vanishing (George Sluizer, 1988, Holland)
‘’The only way to tell you, is to make you share the exact same experience'’
Top 10, why?: Sluizer’s film is about pacing and atmosphere. He plays with audience expectation (even telling us who the killer is half way through) and concludes the film with one of the best and most devastating conclusions to any horror film ever made.
Critic Quote: Sounds like an overworked premise for Alfred Hitchcock (The Lady Vanishes), Roman Polanski (Frantic), or Jonathan Mostow (Breakdown), but The Vanishing quickly veers into new and intriguing territories. (Matthew Kennedy)
External reviews: Bright Lights Film Journal, Combustible Celluloid
7. The Return Of The Living Dead (Dan O’Bannon, 1985, USA)
‘’Did you see that movie, “Night of the Living Dead”?'’
Top 10, why?: Dan O’Bannon’s homage to Romero is fun, pacy and full of great production design and prosthetic effects. The film was essentially fighting against Sam Raimi’s excellent sequel to The Evil Dead, but I decided to go with O’Bannon’s effort because it’s a more polished affair with several good performances.
Critic Quote: ‘It’s kind of a sensation-machine, made out of the usual ingredients, and the real question is whether it’s done with style. It is.’ (Roger Ebert)
External Reviews: Dr. Gore, Apollo Movie Guide, Club IGN
6. The Fly (David Cronenberg, 1986, USA)
‘’What am I working on? Uhh… I’m working on something that will change the world, and human life as we know it.'’
Top 10, why?: Anchored by a brilliant performance from Jeff Goldblum, director David Cronenberg continues his investigation into the renowned body-horror, as Goldbum’s Seth Brundle attempts metamorphosis but it all goes wrong when a house fly gets caught up in the machine. As Brundle struggles to find a cure to his problem, he falls deeper in love with Geena Davis’ concerned Veronica. When he learns that his body structure is becoming that of a fly, the fruits of his new powers soon challenge his own sanity, and his own survival. The Fly is one of several great horror films made in the eighties by Cronenberg but it stands out because it his most accessible, and probably most accomplished piece of work.
Critic Quote: ‘It’s hard to watch; not only because it takes a strong stomach to cope with the necessarily gruesome special effects but because the emotions depicted are so honest and direct that they eventually becomes overwhelming.’ (Mike Sutton)
External Reviews: Reel.com
5. Near Dark (Kathryn Bigelow, 1987, USA)
‘’We keep odd hours…'’
Top 10, why?: Near Dark has always fascinated me because it’s a horror film that only really works within the constraints of the genre based on the audiences expectation and understanding of the gothic, and of past vampire films. It’s almost a western love story, with the premise setting the scene for two star-crossed lovers from distinct families that cannot mix. It’s the Romeo and Juliet of the vampire world. The film features half the main cast from James Cameron’s Aliens, with Lance Henrikson, Bill Paxton, and Jenette Goldstein all working together again, and Paxton and Henrikson are superb in their roles as rogue bloodsuckers. This small-budget film was a given an awful marketing campaign that saw it fail at the box office, and also saw Joel Schumacher’s The Lost Boys become the remembered vampire film of 1987. However, Bigelow’s beautifully paced tale is a fantastic film because it was the most unique horror movie of the 1980s, and looked at the gothic story from a completely different point of view than had been seen before.
Critic Quote: ‘Near Dark is the best vampire movie you’ve never heard of…’ (Rod Armstrong)
External Reviews: My full review, Horror Movies.com, Alex Jackson, My New Plaid Pants (for an interesting take on the film), Grave Robber
4. A Nightmare On Elm Street (Wes Craven, 1984, USA)
‘’Whatever you do, don’t fall asleep.'’
Top 10, why?: It says a lot that this is the only teen slasher film to make the top ten. Wes Craven’s excellent film, much like Clive Barker’s Hellraiser, embodies the idea of a nightmare on screen. It’s also backed by a brilliant premise that has a killer who can only hurt you while you sleep. Fantastic!
Critic Quote: ‘A Nightmare on Elm Street is tailor made for those who like their gore leavened with thought-provoking ideas - something that is a rarity in this genre.’ (James Berardinelli)
External Reviews: Alex Jackson
3. An American Werewolf In London (John Landis, 1981, USA)
‘’A naked American man stole my balloons'’
Top 10, why?: John Landis’ 1981 classic was an easy choice for a top ten spot because it’s one of my all time favourite films. It’s also a horror film that Roger Ebert absolutely hates, which means it has to be one of the best films ever made. Not that I’m trying to have a dig at the renowned critic (I’ve used one of his quotes for Return Of The Living Dead), but I do believe he simply doesn’t get Landis’ film. He seems to believe horror and comedy have lived seamlessly for years, but not like this they haven’t. An American Werewolf In London is equally funny and frightening, and Landis is one of only a few directors to actually make it work. Ebert, while celebrating special-effects maestro Rick Baker’s work on the film, merely disassociates that quality for his overall appreciation of the film. Baker’s werewolf transformation was not only one of the most realistic special-effects ever to be put to celluloid at the time, but it was underpinned by Landis’ superb use of music (the brilliant irony of classic Blue Moon). It works so perfectly because it flirts between a line that doesn’t tell the audience to laugh or cry, and by breaking convention, the audience is left not knowing what might happen next. The sequence makes for the best werewolf transformation ever put on screen, and is one of the primary reasons the film has such a cult following and is regarded by horror fans as one of the best examples of the genre ever made.
Critic Quote: ‘…in the summer of 1981 came John Landis’ An American Werewolf in London, which has, in many ways, set the standard for the modern werewolf movie.’ (James Birardinelli)
External Reviews: DVD Times, Jeffrey Wachs, Chrissy Deberyshire, Darth Jamyz
2. The Thing (John Carpenter, 1982, USA)
‘’I dunno what the hell’s in there, but it’s weird and pissed off, whatever it is.'’
Top 10, why?: Much like The Fly, I’d have to question whether to put this in the horror or science-fiction category but essentially they are both horror movies at the most primitive level. The Thing was John Carpenter’s sixth major feature production, and for me, it’s a work that he has never surpassed before or since. He made many excellent movies within the genre through the eighties, but the sense of paranoia amongst his ensemble cast in The Thing makes for wonderful, suspenseful viewing. The blood test sequence in the middle of the film is one of the best scene’s in horror cinema ever put to celluloid.
Critic Quote: ‘John Carpenter may be better known for Halloween or Escape from New York, but The Thing is easily the famed horror director’s best film.’ (Evan Pulgino)
External Reviews: James Berardinelli
1. The Shining (Stanley Kubrick, 1980, USA)
‘’Here’s Johnny…!'’
Top 10, why?: This was an easy choice for number one. It’s Kubrick’s best film and one of the greatest films ever made, no matter what genre. What I love about the movie is that it gets better with every viewing, and I know the next time I watch it I’ll enjoy it more than the last.
Critic quote: ‘Stanley Kubrick doesn’t anything by halves. What this die-hard perfectionist has created, during the years of post-production work that went on while tucked away in a British film studio, are exemplary pieces of artistic refinement: 2001, A Space Odyssey was a masterpiece in science-fiction, Barry Lyndon set a new standard for historical epics and The Shining redefined the meaning of horror altogether.’ (Der Spiegel)
External Reviews: Alex Jackson, Chris Justice, Robert Castle
Round up
There’s obviously many great films that didn’t make my top ten, notably the Evil Dead’s, Dressed To Kill, The Lost Boys, Innocent Blood, The Howling, The Fog, Christine, Prince Of Darkness, a whole heap of teen slasher movies, Dead and Buried, Manhunter, Tenebre and other European independent films, Bad Taste, Cannibal Holocaust and a lot of exploitative filth, Critters, Gremlins (but I always enjoyed the sequel more), The Hitcher, Scanners, Re-animator, The Serpent and the Rainbow, Silver Bullet, Child’s Play, the list goes on.
I probably realised this before making my top ten, but it confirms that I don’t like sadistic horror films that set out to repulse the audience. You may notice that I’ve chosen mainly mainstream horror films. It’s all well and good making social comments like Wes Craven’s The Last House On The Left, but when a film becomes the director’s perverted wet dream, it isn’t fun anymore. For all that the horror genre does to its audience it should always be fun and entertaining, leaving the viewer with a feeling of adrenaline, not sickness. For that reason, I think the eighties produced some of the best films from the genre (and don’t get me wrong, it also produced some of the worst). They were and still are entertaining movies. The improvement of special-effects may date the films now but the nostalgic feeling of watching them again makes up for that.
Top Five Moments from 1980s Horror
1. An American Werewolf In London – The Transformation
David Kessler tries to keep himself occupied in Nurse Alex’s house when she leaves him to go to work. As night falls, and the full moon comes out, he feels a terrible pain in his chest. His skin begins to burn, and his bones begin to crack, as his body changes into that of a werewolf. The great thing director John Landis does here is to make the whole scene painful to watch and clearly painful for David. This isn’t the easy transformation that had been seen in cinema before. This was bones, and flesh, moulding and changing; it hurt. The scene is very realistic, and the prosthetic make-up effects look better than any CGI would today. Landis beautifully underpins the scene with the blues classic Blue Moon which is sadistically ironic.
2. The Thing – Blood Test
Working out that alien and human blood react to each other, the surviving group conduct a blood test to work out which, if any of them, are alien. Carpenter infuses the scene with paranoia, creating a level of suspense he hangs on to for several minutes as the scene plays out.
3. Evil Dead II – Ash battles his own hand
When Ash’s hand gets possessed, he’s forced to cut it off. However, after the gruelling dismemberment, the severed hand (clearly pissed off at such an action), comes after him in one of the great comedic horror moments.
4. The Vanishing – The final twist and devastating conclusion
The film leaves both the viewer and main character Rex in completely darkness over the fate of his girlfriend. Although, we meet the man who abducted her, we are still unsure whether she is dead or alive. When Rex agrees to take a sleeping pill in order to find out what really happened, he awakens to have all his questions answered. This is one of the best endings to any horror film from the eighties. It’s both devastatingly affecting and cruelly ironic.
5. The Hitcher – They thought it was all over…it wasn’t.
The audience, and the characters, are left thinking the terror might be all over…but it isn’t. Jim leaves his hotel room to find Nash (the girl he had fallen for over the course of the film) tied between a truck and its trailer. If the police shoot the driver, his foot will leave the clutch and the truck will roll forward, ripping Nash in half. In order to save her, Jim gets into the truck with the driver to talk him out of it. He doesn’t succeed.
FURTHER READING:
Inside Out: Body Horror, Films of the 1980s
Final Girls and Terrible Youth: Transgression in 1980s Slasher Horror
Everything I need to know, I learned from 1980s Horror Films
Hammer Horror and British Cinema (1930s to 1970) May 4, 2007
Posted by Daniel Stephens in : Artfully Deranged, Genre, The Film Industry, Audience , add a commentBelow is an essay I wrote at university attempting to answer the question: What contribution did Hammer make to the development of the British cinema from its beginnings to c1970?. I present it here for anyone wanting some background on the subject. I believe it is historically accurate and the facts are definitely sourced, but the quality of argument and the style of my writing leaves at lot to be desired. My only defense is that it was written many years ago in my first year at University. I do hope I’ve improved since.
The son of James Carreras – Enrique, formed a distribution company in partnership with Will Hinds in 1935. The company was called Exclusive Films and during the 1940’s it produced the occasional few films based on radio characters such as Dick Barton. The company was very much a family run affair, and in 1947 its production activities were rationalised and a new company, Hammer films, was set up. The name came from the stage name of Exclusive’s co-owner Will Hinds, who was known as Will Hammer in the theatre. James Carreras became the managing director; Anthony Hinds (Will Hinds son) became a producer and Michael, son of James Carreras became his assistant. The production company came about at a bad time for the film industry in Britain, with the industry falling into recession as films were not making profit. Hammer though, survived, thanks largely to James Carreras’ ideas for film production taking the stance that if a film would not make profit, then it should not be made at all. With ruthless cost-cutting and a determination to treat films as commercial products rather than simply expressionist art, Hammer was able to maintain itself. In examining how and what ‘Hammer’ films did to the development of British cinema I intend to look at several key areas which are: How Hammer started to make commercial products to make profit over critical praise or artistic merit; how Hammer managed to keep production costs low, something that meant many other production companies couldn’t make profit because the cost of making their films was so high; how Hammer was able to introduce a new genre into British film industry as well as British culture – a genre that had already become very popular in the USA; and finally, how Hammer was able to make films for the international market, branching out British cinema to new countries especially the USA.
Hammer is remembered today for its ‘horror’ films, which is a little unfair because it produced many other genres, starting out with dramas and comedies, and also period-action films. Horror movies didn’t even register as half their output. As a matter of fact, only 1/8th of Hammer films were horror, and one of their most famous and appreciated films was the comedy ‘On The Buses’. So why is Hammer so synonymous with the ‘Horror’ film, and more importantly, such Gothic horror characters like Frankenstein, Dracula and Dr. Jekyll and Mr Hyde? It links back to James Carreras’ idea that a film should only go into production if it is sure to make money. In the 1930’s, the horror genre started to crop up in the USA, and soon became a very marketable and profitable commodity. The horror genre at this time hadn’t appeared in Britain, and there was no indication that anyone was too bothered about it. Twenty years later, in 1954, Hammer Films was struggling and times were bad with the company’s future depending heavily on the box-office of their 1954 output. One of the films produced during this time, was the ‘The Quatermass Xperiment (1954) and it did surprisingly very well. The film was a mix of science fiction and horror, and was produced largely due to the success of the television show it was based on – Nigel Kneale’s The Quatermass Experiment. Additionally, ‘horror’ was beginning to be a more marketable genre in Britain with the rise of horror comics. Many of these comics were subsequently banned, after they were deemed unsuitable for any audience, and this created a ‘stir’ with attention drawn to this new type of entertainment. The idea was simply: try to scare an audience for pleasure. With the political intervention barring people from horror products, demand grew. However, not only did Hammer’s The Quatermass Xperiment offer an outlet for this growing demand, it also utilized the new rating of ‘X’ in its title. This new certificate was for films aimed only at an adult audience.
James Carreras then did his own market research to find out why the film was such a success, asking cinema managers whether it was the sci-fi elements, or the horror elements that were getting people into the cinema. The response was totally in the court of the ‘horror’ aspect, which sent Carreras off to quickly create more ideas, and films in the horror genre. What followed was a ‘spin off’ ‘X – The Unknown (Leslie Norman, 1956) and a sequel ‘Quatermass 2 (V. Guest, 1957). While Hammer didn’t totally discard other genres to produce ‘horror’ films only, their horror output was their most marketable and profitable genre. Such was the money acquired from these films, Hammer stopped producing comedies soon after The Quatermass Xperiment’s success. It should also be noted that during this time television was growing more popular so using a notable television show theme was an iconic reminder that brought people back into cinemas.
It is also worth noting that Hammer Films thrived on the bad publicity it got from certain sectors claiming their horror films were not suitable to be seen, citing the horror and violence as inappropriate. ‘It doesn’t really concern us at all. We’re purely a commercial company, we turn out films we think are fairy tales in a way and we don’t think they offend anybody. We’ve never known anyone rush out after seeing a Dracula and help himself to a pint of blood, or rush off to do a transplant because they’ve seen Professor Frankenstein doing one.’[1] This links with the idea that there is no such thing as bad publicity. Also, the idea of life imitating art is raised which has become a prominent media angle in the 1990’s. Films such as Natural Born Killers (Oliver Stone) and Scream (Wes Craven 1997) have been targeted as causes of high school shootings (eg. Columbine High School) and rape (a woman was raped by a man wearing a mask featured in ‘Scream’). Like these films in the nineties, Hammer Horror were able to gain a cult following because of the media distaste, with people wanting more, not less. In many respects cinemagoers were trying to revolt against the higher powers. In the 1950’s it was likely the revolt was based on class status. Therefore, it could be seen that Hammer horror was a precursor, at least as far as cinema’s involvement, to the decline of a class system in Britain.
We have to look back at Hammer Films history to see how they could make so many films, in small stretches of time and with so little money. After all, it wasn’t over-night that The Quatermass Xperiment’s success transformed Hammer into a production company churning out box-office successes month after month. What did happen however was more interest came from the USA and while Hammer continued to produce various genre films, it was their ‘horror’ films that were the most successful both in Britain, and what would soon become a success in the USA. This is one of the major reasons why Hammer are remembered for ‘horror’ rather than anything else. While their ‘horror’ films were attractive to audiences, they weren’t always of a very high quality in terms of the way in which they were acted, scripted and directed. Additionally, the critics hardly ever praised Hammer horror films – partly due to their exploitive violence, but mainly due to them lacking artistic merit. Therefore, other Hammer films, produced under different genres also fell pray to low quality and poor critical appraisal.
One of the major costs of film production was rental studio space, but Hammer came to the solution of buying a large country house, converting it into a studio and creating scripts to work around the décor and location of the house so that it could be re-used, and wouldn’t require constant changes in production design or locale. ‘The actual cost of buying such a house compared favourably with the studio rentals asked, and with the right story material, the décor of the house could actually provide the sets for the film…’[2] There were of course limitations with using a ‘real’ country house to make films, like for instance, it encouraged the use of 35mm wide angle lenses and the avoidance of panning and tracking shots. Such were these limitations that ‘long takes’, with very little camera movement, became prominent parts of Hammer Films’ mise-en-scene. But as other production companies used mobile sets, moving from location to location, the ‘country house’ idea proved cost effective. For example, Outlook Films using mobile sets made ‘Blue Scar’ (Jill Craigie 1950) for 75, 000 pounds, while Hammer made a couple of movies at the same time for considerably less. ‘Their first, Dr. Morelle (Anthony Hinds 1948) cost 15, 000 pounds, and their second (PC 49) was budgeted at 12, 000 pounds…’[3] With the money they were saving they were able to maintain a stronger foot hole in British cinema by being able to make more films more quickly than their competitors. In making the films on a smaller budget they didn’t have to rely on every one being a success as 1 or 2 profitable moviess was enough to recuperate expenses, and enough to make further films. It should also be noted that Hammer utilised the services of the same actors playing either the same or very similar roles. This allowed them to keep costs down by buying actors for a set amount of movies, and it also created audience anticipation and a cult following of the actors involved. Christopher Lee as Count Dracula regularly appeared and this not only gave Hammer an angle to promote the film (star status), it also gave their output a solid foot hole in British cinema because people started going to see the films because an actor they were familiar with was involved. This did not just work in Britain but internationally as well, and it could be argued that Hammer played a key role in the emergence of ‘star persona’.
However, Carreras was not content to pander to just the needs of Britain, he wanted to expand and get his product seen all around the world. ‘If you’re going to spend x amount on film and your only market is your own and perhaps Australia and South Africa, we think it’s better to make subjects that every country will buy.’[4] The Quatermass Xperiment, did surprisingly well in the USA, which put Hammer into the international limelight. From this, movie deals quickly became available with Carreras signing contracts with Universal, Columbia and United Artists. While Hammer continued to make varied genre films, they ceased making comedies as they were very difficult to sell abroad. Carreras’ method of selling films for the American market was to present an impression of what was needed to get audiences into cinema’s around the world. ‘Before we make a picture we say to ourselves “What will it look like outside of the cinema” and “Is it international”’. One of the main reasons why Hammer comedies did not work was because British humour was very different to American humour, which is reflected in the films produced then, and even now.
Hammer horror films maintained a British ‘feel’ and generic features that separated them from the American competition. Such things as the exploitation of technicolour via the lavishly coloured ‘country house’ sets; the abrupt endings, very simple narratives; no flashbacks or dream sequences; attention to detail through the use of lingering shots of certain aspects of the mise-en-scene in order to emphasise; and all the films were there to exploit – exploitation of blood, death and the macabre (things people hadn’t seen before), all clearly delineated in trailers, posters and of course in the films themselves. The films ‘in cultural terms were “British” in a very specific way. By and large they were set in a fantasy world of the past or of the future, but only rarely did they deal with the “real” Britain of the day.’ While they didn’t show a realist representation of Britain, the films did analogise ‘the time of uncertainty’. They showed a changing Britain (the critical backlash, the change in rating with the introduction of the ‘X’ rating), and also the depiction of good and evil, which had become a major part in British society with the uncertainty after the second world war, and the threat of nuclear weapons. Also, the changing of Britain’s youth as teens rebelled against authority, (the ‘Horror is bad’ message in the media only fueled a hunger for more).
In conclusion, looking at Hammer Films we see that Carreras and his team not only introduced a new genre to British film culture; and not only made that genre popular and profitable, but they also tapped into the American market with their fantasy tales. Not only this, Carreras’ shrewd selling tactics enabled Hammer to sell more films in America than anyone else, expanding British cinema abroad. To say Hammer revolutionised the British film industry is debatable, but what it did do is produce films that not only stand the test of time today, but also leave a legacy and footprint in the history of British film. British Film today utilises low budget (Trainspotting); ‘star persona’(The Parole Officer – star: Steve Coogan); making generic horror films (Dog Soldiers); breaking norms to create interest (24 Hour Party People – shot digitally; documentary style); using real locations to save money (The Full Monty); shrewd business (Working Title films deal with American studio to produce a number of films: Four Weddings and A Funeral, Notting Hill etc.), all things that can be directly related to Hammer fifty years ago.
Bibliography
The Oxford History Of World Cinema – Antonia Lant – Oxford University Press © 1996
British Cinema History – Creativity at Ealing and Hammer Studios pg. 193 – 207
Authorship and British Cinema – Peter Hutchings – Chapter 12
[1] Creativity at Ealing Studios and Hammer Films – British Cinema History (Curran and Porter) pg. 197
[2] Creativity at Ealing Studios and Hammer Films – British Cinema History (Curran and Porter) pg. 194
[3] Creativity at Ealing Studios and Hammer Films – British Cinema History (Curran and Porter) pg. 194
[4] [According to Carreras] Creativity at Ealing Studios and Hammer Films – British Cinema History (Curran and Porter) pg. 197
Short Film in the UK: Links May 2, 2007
Posted by Daniel Stephens in : Artfully Deranged, Short Film , 2 commentsThis article is written in conjunction with several others and is best read in conjunction with them. Click the below titles to read/navigate between each individual article:
1. Short Film: A brief critical history
2. Short Film In The UK: Screen Yorkshire and the Independents
3. Short Film In The UK: Film Festivals and Competitions
4. Short Film In The UK: Technology and the Tiny Screen
5. Short Film In The UK: Availability, Audience, and the Future
6. ‘Okay, we’re done’: The story of my first short film
7. Short Film Take II: The Trouble With Mr. Goldman
8. Short Film In The UK: Recommended Links
For new filmmakers trying to produce their own short films, there probably hasn’t been a better time to do it. Two reasons: 1) that digital technology has made it easy and accessible for most people to film and edit their own films (whether that be with a mobile phone camera and an Apple computer, a DV Camcorder and any number of free/low-cost edit software suites, or rented higher-level equipment); and 2) internet distribution - with My Space, You Tube, Trigger Street, Atom Films, and many other distributors, there’s a massive audience waiting to be had.
Recommended websites:
UK Film Council - general information about filmmaking in the U.K.
UK Film Schemes - find out what funding is available.
Regional funding - contact details for funding agencies in your area.
The BBC’s Film Network - an internet distribution site for the best short films made in the U.K. over the last few years.
Screenonline’s How to… - This informative piece provides the basics about creating a quality short film script.
Channel 4’s Making Movies - this excellent section of C4’s website is a great place to find out about film - past and present, as well as being a good place to find inspiration.
Other distribution:
All Day Breakfast - ‘Our shorts are all original and small enough to watch in one sitting. Yum. New bits are posted regularly, so check back often. Enjoy!’
ifilm.com - One of the most popular and user-friendly film sites, ifilm.com lets the audience decide what it likes and posts reviews and ratings.
Inetfilm - ‘Our website is built to showcase the artistry of independent filmmakers. Whether you’re a film buff, net surfer, or someone in the film industry we hope you enjoy the site.’
The New Venue - A curated exhibition space for films made specifically for the internet.
Reelmind - REELMIND is a FREE Internet community offering filmmakers, animators, writers and composers global promotion through streaming media and personal websites.
Short TV - The internet arm of ShortTV, the world’s first network devoted entirely to screening short films.
Production Assistance:
British Film Institute - gateway to lots of information and links to helpful websites.
Film Festivals.com - Distribution gateway
Keep Writing.com - help with script writing and tutorial
UK Screen - find actors and extras
Recommended Blogs:
Tree - an excellent blog about the making of British short film <i>Tree</i>. This is a good source for new filmmakers to see how the production process works, and the time and effort put into such a production.
Fund My Short - an interesting initiative.
Phil Dale - see what an independent filmmaker has done to promote their work.
Short Film Center - compilation of quality short films
Short Film in the UK: Availability, Audience, and the Future May 1, 2007
Posted by Daniel Stephens in : Artfully Deranged, Short Film , add a commentThis article is written in conjunction with several others and is best read in conjunction with them. Click the below titles to read/navigate between each individual article:
1. Short Film: A brief critical history
2. Short Film In The UK: Screen Yorkshire and the Independents
3. Short Film In The UK: Film Festivals and Competitions
4. Short Film In The UK: Technology and the Tiny Screen
5. Short Film In The UK: Availability, Audience, and the Future
6. ‘Okay, we’re done’: The story of my first short film
7. Short Film Take II: The Trouble With Mr. Goldman
8. Short Film In The UK: Recommended Links
This article is written in conjunction with my essay - Screen Yorkshire and the Independents, accessible HERE
Availability
Exhibition is all-important if short film is ever to succeed on a mainstream level. With the creation of Propeller TV and the widespread use of the internet, short film has found a basis to prosper.
The internet has been vital for young and new filmmakers to get their work showcased beyond just family and friends. Chris Patmore says ‘one of the easiest ways to get your film seen is to put it on the internet.’ He continues, ‘well-established sites, such as triggerstreet.com, have a huge audience, mostly of other filmmakers, improving the chances of your movie being seen by the right people.’
Triggerstreet.com aims to discover and showcase ‘new and unique talent.’ ‘Based on the principles of creative excellence, it provides industry access and exposure to help build the careers of notable new filmmakers’ Yet, triggerstreet.com is not just a website designed to exhibit short films. It aims to assist new filmmakers learn their craft by allowing users to comment on and review each others work. This idea of reviewing other people’s films seems to have been inspired by the work of Francis Ford Coppola. He created a writers workshop for his short story magazine Zoetrope: All Story, which quickly grew to become the Virtual Studio, and is a web-based application allowing writers and filmmakers to showcase and critique each other’s creative endevours. Patmore believes this sort of ‘workshop’ is a vital tool to improve the work of a new filmmaker. ‘This is especially true of triggerstreet, as all newly posted films get a chance to be reviewed by other filmmakers as part of the conditions of posting on the site. Getting feedback from your peers is always a useful way to find out if what you have is any good.’
Triggerstreet.com was formed from Kevin Spacey’s production company. The site’s purpose is based on Spacey’s belief that the ‘path to his own success would have been much rockier without the support and encouragement of many outstanding mentors.’ He now believes it is his ‘earnest duty’ to ‘sought out a way to inspire, nurture, and help bring exposure to new and undiscovered talent.’ Such sites as this, as well as Kevin Smith’s moviesaskew.com and atomfilms.com go someway of alleviating one of Andrew Quinn’s criticisms about Screen Yorkshire’s assistance in filmmaking – the non-existence of an easily attainable help network. Quinn states, ‘I think some sort of easily accessible advice or support network would help a lot more people. Just someone to ask where to look or to answer questions when you really don’t know the answers.’
Now, with the creation of Sky television channel Propeller TV, Ronke, Future Shorts, MySpace networking, and Youtube.com, short film has never had a better chance to attract a wide, mainstream audience. Propeller TV’s Dawn Simpson said, ‘the idea is that it’s a showcase – a platform for young filmmakers. What happens most of the time is that short films end up gathering dust on a shelf somewhere, and apart from the film festival circuits, there’s no life to it. What we’re trying to do is bring some life back to it.’
The channel broadcast not just in Britain, so it opens up the audience for new filmmakers:
‘We actually transmit across Europe so the opportunities are there and you never know who is watching. What we are trying to say is that there is a lot of new hidden talent there. We want to give it some life and hopefully by the end of our three year funded period we’ll have a lot of films where someone has said – that’s a great piece of filmmaking, or that’s a great idea – that’s what we really want to do, to help filmmakers.’
Audience
As Patmore says, ‘The whole point of making a movie is for it to be seen, and anyone who tells you otherwise is either trying to fool you or is fooling himself.’ Therefore, there has to be an audience for short film, and with the potential of both Propeller and the internet, that audience may now be being found.
Simpson believes this will cause a knock-on effect to entice the government to put more money into the industry. ‘Filmmakers who do the festival circuits don’t get the opportunity to show their films to a wide audience. We are saying to the government - this is now public viewing. Everyone has seen this, it’s got a wider audience. Therefore, more money should be injected into the film industry.’
Simpson clarifies just how important Propeller has the potential to be:
‘When you go for funding, they say to you, ‘well, who is going to see this?’ and the answer is ‘well maybe 30 at the screening, or if it gets to a festival 50 max!’ If I’m the U.K film Council and I’m giving you £10,000 to make a film and only 50 people are going to see it, how do you justify money coming from tax payer’s pockets? Now, you can say it has potential to attract 16 million viewers across Europe and suddenly you equate that £10,000 and its minimal expenditure. It could have a big effect on the type of funding, and the amount of funding that is available.’
Simpson tells me that the BBC want to have access to the best short films screened on Propeller, which examples the type of industry professionals who are interested in this new channel.
Theoretically, if more people had access to short films, then popularity would grow. With new mobile technology and the likes of Lisa Roberts’ ‘Pocket Shorts’ scheme, the mainstream arena is available for short film to utilise. Now, despite big cinema chains not exhibiting short films and smaller independent exhibitors struggling to find a large audience, the basis for both exhibition (television and the internet) and distribution (mobile phones, new technology) are in place.
Simpson believes people are into ‘snacking’ – ‘if it’s on a mobile telephone, for 5 or 6 minutes while you’re on the bus, or you’re just waiting for your friend to turn up, people, because of their lifestyles are more into ‘snacking’, which is your 5/6 minute short.’
She also adamantly believes that the measures that are being put in place will push short film into the mainstream. ‘I think it’s because people haven’t had the opportunity to see them and I think what we’ll do is introduce the whole short world on a national basis, and yeah I think they will come into the mainstream.’
Chasing Rainbows or Rain Clouds
Propeller TV is funded by the same agencies as Screen Yorkshire and therefore the same criticisms could be levelled again. Propeller claim to want to showcase new talent and provide short film with a platform, but their major funds come from ‘Yorkshire Forward’, an agency whose chief goal is the economy of the Yorkshire region. Again, if short film is merely a treasure trove of talent, ready to be moved elsewhere in the industry to maintain jobs, increase skilled workers and fuel the economy, then short film will forever remain a niche cinema market. Largely because the skilled filmmakers are constantly being pushed into other areas of the industry, namely television and commercial cinema, leaving short film a testing ground, flooded with amateurs.
However, it would be unfair to criticise Propeller because they are still in their infancy and one such idea does set them apart from the rest. As they are not for profit, all money they do make will be filtered back to the filmmakers to go towards new projects. This can only help short film, because it increases the amount of funds available for new filmmakers. Through Propeller’s ‘Gold’ scheme, where people will vote for their favourite films shown on the channel and each film will gain points on the basis of votes, they plan to sell an end-of-year DVD. This will include their best shorts, and this money will be given to the top filmmakers to help them with their subsequent projects.
Citation:
Patmore, C (2005) Get Started In Short Filmmaking London: Quarto
Quinn, A (2006) Interview conducted by Daniel Stephens with Andrew Quinn at Slack Video Hull
Roberts, Lisa (2006) Interview conducted by Daniel Stephens Huddersfield
Simpson, D (2006) Interview conducted by Daniel Stephens with Dawn Simpson of Propeller TV Huddersfield
Triggerstreet.com (2006) About Us [online] available from http://www.triggerstreet.com/gbase/Trigger/HomeMain (accessed 10 March 2006)
Short Film Take 2: The Trouble With Mr. Goldman April 29, 2007
Posted by Daniel Stephens in : Artfully Deranged, Short Film , add a commentThis article is written in conjunction with several others and is best read in conjunction with them. Click the below titles to read/navigate between each individual article:
1. Short Film: A brief critical history
2. Short Film In The UK: Screen Yorkshire and the Independents
3. Short Film In The UK: Film Festivals and Competitions
4. Short Film In The UK: Technology and the Tiny Screen
5. Short Film In The UK: Availability, Audience, and the Future
6. ‘Okay, we’re done’: The story of my first short film
7. Short Film Take II: The Trouble With Mr. Goldman
8. Short Film In The UK: Recommended Links
You learn from your mistakes. Last year I learnt the art of bad sound recording. This year I learnt several of the things I should have learnt in 2005, namely, rehearsals, script editing, production design, and preparation. On my second narrative-based short film, Trouble With Mr. Goldman, we were basically rushing from start to finish, and it unfortunately shows.
Yet, I can’t fault my actors (who themselves would quickly admit their best skills lay in other film and television production departments). They gave it their best shot, learning their lines minutes before each take, producing some idiosyncratic and against-type performances. But the problems of essentially filming a three day shoot over two half days really hits hard when you simply didn’t prepare enough. And that was my fault. The script needed editing and cutting down (we changed a major plot point during a take on the second day) and more needed to be done to make the two main characters more interesting. I attempted to rectify one problem by cutting down the film in editing (the original cut came in at just over 12 minutes; this new version is just over 10) but that’s when I realised I needed a couple of re-shoots (best example - during a scene when Mr. Goldman first arrives, I should have filmed this entirely from one character’s perspective, but I never got the shot).
There were two things I prepared for that worked to some degree. Firstly, the scene where Mr. Goldman tells the two character’s separately, what he has to offer. I wanted to cut the two scenes together so that the conversation would only take place once, but identically to both characters. This way the audience would know they are both being offered the very same thing, whilst keeping the pace of the film moving quickly. The other thing I prepared for was to shoot in widescreen. I wanted to give the film a more cinematic look even if the production values were very low. This involved working with a 1.85:1 blanked out view finder/monitor, and adding a 16:9 mask in post-production. I also added a contrast effect to give the film a more expensive look, and to add to the dreamy sense of the story.
Talking of the story, Mr. Goldman is supposed to be a comedy (I let other people be the judge of that). It concerns this crazy idea that laziness is punished in some way - in this case, by a mad man who thinks he’s Alex from A Clockwork Orange, and calls himself Mr. Goldman. When two slackers get a visit from him one day, they believe they are in the money when he offers them riches beyond their imagination. Yet, secretly he plays them off against each other, evidentally trying to prove or disprove whether they deserve to be punished for their sins.
You Tube channel featuring some of my short film work
Short Film in the UK: Technology and the Tiny Screen April 27, 2007
Posted by Daniel Stephens in : Artfully Deranged, Short Film , 7 commentsThis article is written in conjunction with several others and is best read in conjunction with them. Click the below titles to read/navigate between each individual article:
1. Short Film: A brief critical history
2. Short Film In The UK: Screen Yorkshire and the Independents
3. Short Film In The UK: Film Festivals and Competitions
4. Short Film In The UK: Technology and the Tiny Screen
5. Short Film In The UK: Availability, Audience, and the Future
6. ‘Okay, we’re done’: The story of my first short film
7. Short Film Take II: The Trouble With Mr. Goldman
8. Short Film In The UK: Recommended Links
The Technology
Light Blue Optics Ltd. is currently developing a mini projector that would be capable of transferring images from devices such as Ipod’s and mobile phones, and projecting them on to screens in much the same way a theatre projector works. According to Clint Deboer, what is known as PVPro technology ‘overcomes the size limitation of conventional projection techniques, allowing projectors to be smaller than ever before.’ This certainly intrigues Lisa Roberts of Blink Media in Huddersfield who is watching such technological advancements with enthusiasm. Roberts, who pioneered Pocket Shorts’ initiative to create a vending machine for downloading short films to mobile phones, says ‘I am following the developments in miniaturization of projection technologies closely. There is a projector by Light Blue Optics that is the size of a matchbox that they hope to shrink further to be another mobile phone feature within a few years.’
Roberts, along with Andrew Wilson, created the Blue Tooth Vendor. This acts like a conventional vending machine. As Wilson says, it’s a ‘wall-mounted unit which allows people to download films to their mobile phones.’ Through their Pocket Shorts scheme, they hope to attract filmmakers to this new way of viewing films, and they believe the short film is the way forward. ‘A lot of people download short films to their mobile phones now but these come from large commercial media companies.’ Wilson continues, ‘Pocket Shorts is about getting new filmmakers to create independent mobile phone films [that are a] bit more innovative than you would get from downloading clips from Big Brother.’
Andrew Quinn of Slack Video was one of the first to receive a commission for a Pocket Short film. ‘I found it really interesting to work with, personally. The whole idea of being short, sharp and straight to the point was really emphasised with these 4 x 15 second long films, or 1 x 1 minute films. I think as a whole it worked very well, it was certainly a challenge.’ Quinn believes you only have to consider the number of mobile phones that are being sold to see the concept has great potential. ‘If you look at the popularity for ring tones and video ring tones, you can see there’s probably going to be a demand for small media works on these kinds of portable devices.’
They’re certainly not alone in their belief that mobile phone technology is the way forward for short filmmaking. Rupert Murdoch’s News Corporation has already created a mobile phone entertainment store. Named Mobizzo, it’s ‘a production studio to focus exclusively on developing cell phone entertainment in much the same way that 20th Century Fox creates movies and television.’ According to Holson, the reasons companies are rushing to support such media on mobile phones is because ‘analysts predict that the number of global mobile phone customers will double to four billion in five years.’
Through its global possibilities, Olga Kharif believes it can break down the barriers of national cinema such as Hollywood in America and Bollywood in India, to produce a worldwide cinema that has more cultural influences than ever before. ‘That virtual land is full of possibilities. With 2 billion subscribers worldwide, mobile phones represent a much greater market for film than movie theaters or PCs. No wonder studios, distributors, and independent animators and filmmakers are streaming into this virtual film genre.’ Quinn concurs, ‘by using this new technology there’s definitely an opportunity to get these kinds of works seen by a mass audience who would otherwise never experience them.’
Mobile People with Mobile Phones
However, if indeed mobile phone films become mainstream commodities, will this belittle the medium with its easy access production tools being used by amateurs? Roberts is adamant this will not happen: ‘I’ve heard a lot of this - how can having more creative product around be a bad thing? Yes, it might take more time to sift through but so what?’ Kharif sees the low-cost nature of mobile phone filmmaking as a risk worth taking. ‘These aren’t big-budget productions. Where a Hollywood production can cost millions, a cell-phone movie can be created for a few hundred dollars and with an investment of, perhaps, only 40 hours of time.
Yet others are not so sure, as Neil Hunt says: ‘To me, it seems that if you’re going to invest your time into enjoying a movie, you might as well watch it on a large screen.’ Even Andrew Quinn who produced a short mobile phone film says, ‘I still think short films look better on television or projection than compressed into a 1″ screen.’ Kharif is cautious, ‘Cell-phones are obviously nowhere near their big-screen cousins in sophistication and popularity. It’s not even clear that wireless subscribers will pay for flicks.’
In a sense there’s a contradiction. In bringing short films into the mainstream, the filmmaker has to take liberties if producing primarily for mobile phone exhibition, such as Pocket Shorts maximum run-time for films of one minute. As Kharif says, ‘Granted, today’s cell-phone flicks are no Casablanca. Take The Life Of A Ringtone, an entry from Louiza Vick, who took first place among student works [at the Zoie Cellular Film Festival]. The movie’s artfully arranged photos and video clips take viewers through a ring tone’s creation. But the flick is more akin to a slide show.’ Is it true then that mobile phone films should not be judged by their lack of quality, but just taken as they are, in the sense that they will never be as good as Casablanca? Zoie Cellular Festival creator Victoria Weston says that mobile films are ‘fast entertainment. You’re not going to be dealing with heavy plot lines.’
So effectively they differ from ‘normal’ short filmmaking. However, Andrew Quinn believes ‘people are very likely to show videos they like to their friends, which again can only be beneficial in terms of ‘getting things seen’, and therefore generating interest in short film as a whole’. Yet he stands by large screen projected exhibitions when he says ‘short film works still obviously need to be shown in festivals and screenings’ Therefore, he implies that short film as whole could be damaged by mobile films having an adverse effect on traditional filmmaking methods. For example, if mobile phone films are primarily between fifteen seconds and one minute, will this mean the end for the ten and twenty minute short? Additionally, if mobile phone films disregard heavy plot lines, will this mean an end for traditional narrative forms?
It is interesting to note that the commercial short film of the 1910s helped form the bigger and longer feature film which ultimately forced it into non-existence. Now a new possibility for commercial short film is getting smaller in size and shorter in length, breaking down the barriers of the non-mainstream modern short film. Fundamentally, it shows how important commercial value is to an art form.
However, with mobile phone-only short film competitions such as Nokia Shorts 2005 and the Pocket Film Festival beginning to come into action, the bad can be seen being filtered from the good. Additionally, with award-winning British film director Shane Meadows becoming the first filmmaker to create a short mobile phone film using a phone’s video capabilities, it would seem the format has the support of the established talent. As well as opening up more possibilities for short films to be made. ‘Meadows praised the technology and raved about the potentials of filming with mobile phones, in particular that ‘they let you get shots which might not be possible using larger camera equipment’’. ‘There’s already great creativity in mobile phone film-making’ says Pocket Film director Laurence Herzberg. As Rory Mulholland says, the Pocket Film festival came about ‘as mobile network operators in many countries are thrusting third-generation (3G) phones equipped with video cameras and internet capability on their customers in the hope of recouping some of the huge investments they made in the sector.’
Therefore, this suggests that the short film has become a marketable, commercial product once again, through this new media form. Given its commercial importance in early cinema, it’s only logical to think this could have far reaching effects on the film industry as a whole. Roberts says, ‘until recently I would say short film was viewed only as a calling card for filmmakers wanting to move onto features. However, thanks to technology and TV programming/commissioning trends over the last 5 years there has been a revolution in all things small and short.’
Theoretically, given the mobility of mobile phones and the fact they can be used and accessed wherever and whenever, the implications on the films themselves could be of vital importance.
This is important since the short film offers one fundamental advantage over the feature film – its length. If short films became mainstream phone accessories, and as Wilson claims, they are used whenever and in whatever circumstances occur, then their shortened length would appear more appealing to mobile people with mobile phones.
Citation:
Deboer, C (2006)Laser Projectors Coming to Cell Phones and PDAs [online] available from http://www.audioholics.com/news/editorials/laserprojectorscellphones.php (accesed 7 March 2006)
Herzberg, L (2005) Festival celebrates mobile phone movies [online] available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4314894.stm (accessed 8 March 2006)
Holson, L (2006) News Corporation to Tap Not Just Its Film Vaults, but Art From the Street [online] available from http://www.nytimes.com/2006/02/27/technology/27mobile.html?ex=1142053200&en=bbc788cdada4e5e2&ei=5070 (accessed 8 March 2006)
Hunt, N (2005) The Movie Theatre In Your Pocket [online] available from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050622_9670_tc_212.htm (accessed 8 March 2006)
Kharif, O (2005) The Movie Theatre In Your Pocket [online] available from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050622_9670_tc_212.htm (accessed 8 March 2006)
Mobile Films.net (2005) Mobile Filmmaking – A Birth of a new genre [online] available from http://www.mobifilms.net/scene_heard.html (accessed 8 March 2006)
Mulholland, R (2006) Festival celebrates mobile phone movies [online] available from http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/entertainment/film/4314894.stm (accessed 8 March 2006)
Quinn, A (2006) Interview conducted by Daniel Stephens with Andrew Quinn at Slack Video Hull
Roberts, Lisa (2006) Interview conducted by Daniel Stephens Huddersfield
Weston, V (2005) The Movie Theatre In Your Pocket [online] available from http://www.businessweek.com/technology/content/jun2005/tc20050622_9670_tc_212.htm (accessed 8 March 2006)
Wilson, A (2005) A Film In Your Pocket [online] available from http://www.bbc.co.uk/bradford/content/articles/2005/11/24/pocket_shorts_huddersfield_feature.shtml (accessed 8 March 2006)