June is now in full swing and the sun is shining with all its might (well some of the time anyway) so summer is definitely here and the list of up-coming cinema releases proves that it is indeed that time of year again as the blockbusters get ready to battle it out on the big screen.
Last summer we saw titans such as Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen, Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs, Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince and Inglorious Basterds take to our cinema screens in a bid to rake in the biggest takings. This year, however, things are looking a bit on the quiet side with very few highly anticipated releases but, it’s bound to be a summer of film fun none-the-less. Let’s take a look.
May was a fairly quiet movie month with the highlights being Prince of Persia: The Sands of Time, Robin Hood and Tooth Fairy but, at the end of last month Sex and the City 2 was released which set ladies all over the country in a frantic frenzy to get to the cinema and catch up with the girls in this sequel. This blew all the other May releases out of the water (for the women at least).
Now, mid-way through June, we’ve seen the American remake of the British hit Death at a Funeral enter our cinemas along with the chick flick Letters to Juliet and we can look forward to comedies Get Him to the Greek and Wild Target later this month.
July is when we really see it kick off and get a glimpse of the blockbuster battle with the release of Shrek Forever After 3D on 2nd July, The Twilight Saga: Eclipse on 9th July and Toy Story 3 in 3D on 19th July. As usual the summer holidays are packed with movies to tempt the kids but, isn’t that why we love July because we all get to join in on the fun too? Apart from these, we can also look forward to quiet contenders The A-Team and The Karate Kid which will both be popular watches.
By August, we see things calm down once again with fewer anticipated releases; we can expect to be entertained by Cats and Dogs: Revenge of Kitty Galore 3D released on 4th August, Knight and Day and Step up 3D, both out on 6th August but, there’s little else to get excited over this month.
So, all in all we have a summer of good movies ahead of us (with 3D glasses galore) but, the murmur of excitement revolves around a very small minority of the films this year and there will likely be less people rushing to the cinema to see the latest release. My pick of the favourites this year is Toy Story 3 – it’s been such a long time coming so it’ll be really interesting to see where they go with this one and whether it can stand as a strong sequel.
Happy summer viewing.
Showing posts with label Feature. Show all posts
Showing posts with label Feature. Show all posts
Sunday, 20 June 2010
Tuesday, 21 April 2009
History in films: Fact or fiction?
By Chris Evans and Lianne Jones
History is a favourite genre for many people as it evokes reflection and encourages an audience to think about a significant event from yester year that they wouldn’t necessarily think about otherwise. It comes as a complete package with a ready made plot and ready made characters set for a filmmaker to use as they wish.
However, basing a film on historical content is not always problem free and there are many issues that need to be considered.
The issue of historical accuracy in films is one that can cause much debate as historical events are interpreted in different ways by different people, in turn when they are made into films it becomes an issue of how the historical event should be presented. Portraying the event from a certain view point over another can cause problems as the bias of the filmmaker can be questioned, inevitably causing much controversy.
In addition, a film ultimately has to engage its audience and in order to create an enjoyable cinematic experience it is often necessary to create an adaptation which differs or excludes things that actually happened. For example, the director of Valkyrie, Bryan Singer, revealed in Australian newspaper the Herald Sun that they left out an event where von Stauffenberg (portrayed by Tom Cruise) refused morphine when recovering from his wounds. Singer decided not to put this in as he felt there would be a negative reaction to portraying Cruise like this. This shows how filmmakers have to make concessions to help present the story in a manner which the audience will react positively to.
Another problem with using history in films is the complexity of the real-life characters involved in the original events. Again, this is something that affected Valkyrie as there was a lack of ambiguity about the motives of Stauffenberg et al, the film very much showed the plotters as fighting against the evil of Hitler’s regime, it made no mention of what kind of Germany they wanted to create if the plot was a success. While it can be argued that the film was made in this way in order to make people aware of the heroic efforts of the plotters, it fails to dig deeper into the original characters, as many films do.
There is often a tendency to use films based on historical events as an educational tool, and while this is beneficial as it gives some visual relief and insight to something that may be difficult to understand from a textbook alone, it also poses some problems. Due to the nature of films and the limited length of the end product, it is difficult to present a historical event from every angle that would need to be shown in order for the film to be completely objective. Filmmakers therefore often have to compensate and present just one side of the argument, this then limits the film as an educational piece.
Films such as Schindler’s List and The Boy in Striped Pyjamas are often referred to for educational purposes but, they only highlight a small aspect of the holocaust, and in both cases, the films were based on a novel (although Schindler’s List is also biographical) and consequently they are not entirely factual.
Looking at more modern events we can see that there have been films made about the events of September 11th, these have often been based on survivors testimonies. However the question is raised over whether these films are politically biased as to recount such an important event in American history without an inherent bias would be an extremely difficult task. Basing such films on testimony is also problematic as survivors of such a horrific event will naturally be biased against the perpetrators and the film may then fail to consider an event such as September 11th on a wider scale.
Finally, we are all familiar with historical films carrying the phrase ‘ based on a true event’, and this can also be restrictive to a filmmaker as it ties them more to the facts of the original story and offers little room for leeway. Without this phrase however, they are free to roam a little bit further and to explore a more creative approach regarding the historical event. Whether this phrase is used or not also has quite a dramatic impact on how audiences react to the film and how they choose to interpret it. Perhaps the content and messages would be far more hard hitting if the film is ‘based on a true event’.
Historical films are definitely an essential genre of film but, as we can see, they can be extremely difficult to produce as there are many issues that can cause interference. They are a challenge for filmmakers as they try to get the balance right between historical content and entertainment, all the while remembering that ultimately they have to sell their product and appeal to as wide an audience as possible. This means history is no easy subject.
History is a favourite genre for many people as it evokes reflection and encourages an audience to think about a significant event from yester year that they wouldn’t necessarily think about otherwise. It comes as a complete package with a ready made plot and ready made characters set for a filmmaker to use as they wish.
However, basing a film on historical content is not always problem free and there are many issues that need to be considered.
The issue of historical accuracy in films is one that can cause much debate as historical events are interpreted in different ways by different people, in turn when they are made into films it becomes an issue of how the historical event should be presented. Portraying the event from a certain view point over another can cause problems as the bias of the filmmaker can be questioned, inevitably causing much controversy.
In addition, a film ultimately has to engage its audience and in order to create an enjoyable cinematic experience it is often necessary to create an adaptation which differs or excludes things that actually happened. For example, the director of Valkyrie, Bryan Singer, revealed in Australian newspaper the Herald Sun that they left out an event where von Stauffenberg (portrayed by Tom Cruise) refused morphine when recovering from his wounds. Singer decided not to put this in as he felt there would be a negative reaction to portraying Cruise like this. This shows how filmmakers have to make concessions to help present the story in a manner which the audience will react positively to.
Another problem with using history in films is the complexity of the real-life characters involved in the original events. Again, this is something that affected Valkyrie as there was a lack of ambiguity about the motives of Stauffenberg et al, the film very much showed the plotters as fighting against the evil of Hitler’s regime, it made no mention of what kind of Germany they wanted to create if the plot was a success. While it can be argued that the film was made in this way in order to make people aware of the heroic efforts of the plotters, it fails to dig deeper into the original characters, as many films do.
There is often a tendency to use films based on historical events as an educational tool, and while this is beneficial as it gives some visual relief and insight to something that may be difficult to understand from a textbook alone, it also poses some problems. Due to the nature of films and the limited length of the end product, it is difficult to present a historical event from every angle that would need to be shown in order for the film to be completely objective. Filmmakers therefore often have to compensate and present just one side of the argument, this then limits the film as an educational piece.
Films such as Schindler’s List and The Boy in Striped Pyjamas are often referred to for educational purposes but, they only highlight a small aspect of the holocaust, and in both cases, the films were based on a novel (although Schindler’s List is also biographical) and consequently they are not entirely factual.
Looking at more modern events we can see that there have been films made about the events of September 11th, these have often been based on survivors testimonies. However the question is raised over whether these films are politically biased as to recount such an important event in American history without an inherent bias would be an extremely difficult task. Basing such films on testimony is also problematic as survivors of such a horrific event will naturally be biased against the perpetrators and the film may then fail to consider an event such as September 11th on a wider scale.
Finally, we are all familiar with historical films carrying the phrase ‘ based on a true event’, and this can also be restrictive to a filmmaker as it ties them more to the facts of the original story and offers little room for leeway. Without this phrase however, they are free to roam a little bit further and to explore a more creative approach regarding the historical event. Whether this phrase is used or not also has quite a dramatic impact on how audiences react to the film and how they choose to interpret it. Perhaps the content and messages would be far more hard hitting if the film is ‘based on a true event’.
Historical films are definitely an essential genre of film but, as we can see, they can be extremely difficult to produce as there are many issues that can cause interference. They are a challenge for filmmakers as they try to get the balance right between historical content and entertainment, all the while remembering that ultimately they have to sell their product and appeal to as wide an audience as possible. This means history is no easy subject.
Monday, 20 April 2009
Britain's attack on film piracy crime
We are all familiar with the dodgy DVDs sold down the local pub by those Knock-off Nigel’s and the illegal downloads on the Internet but, few of us stop to contemplate the effect of film piracy and the impact it can have upon the industry we love and the professionals who work within it.
According to FACT (the Federation Against Copyright Theft) film piracy generates approximately £200 million a year at street prices for criminals and the total loss to the whole audio visual industry through copyright theft is as much as £486 million. These figures are immense and can deliver some devastating blows to the film industry.
So why do people opt for film piracy? Well, aside from the fact that many people don’t fully comprehend the consequences, the main reasons are that it offers a cheap way for people to enjoy films, meaning they don’t have to break the bank or sacrifice their want for entertainment, many people also partake in film piracy as a means of income and others do it to put themselves ahead, so they can consume new films before they’re even widely released.
Whilst it is understandable that people buy pirated DVDs because they can’t afford to buy official DVDs or see the film in the cinema, the issue needs to be considered on a wider scale. It may be the case that we have the public benefiting from cheap entertainment but, this has a negative impact on the film industry and affects the revenue it generates. If we consider that the entertainment industry is one of the fastest growing, even in a time of recession, then having its revenue affected by piracy can be damaging to the economy as a whole. This will eventually come full circle and have a further negative impact on consumers.
With this in mind, it is important to put a stop to film piracy and to protect the revenue the film industry generates.
In December 2008, film and television industry professionals took a stand against piracy as they called to the government for action against illegal online file-sharing. The UK producers, directors and writers involved in the action included Sir Alan Parker, Kenneth Branagh, Ken Loach, Lynda La Plante, David Heyman, Richard Curtis, Jim Sheridan and John Madden amongst many others. In their letter, available to view at Timesonline, they revealed that: “In 2007, an estimated 98 million illegal downloads and streams of films took place in the UK, while it is believed that more than six million people illegally file-share regularly,” and requested that the government take the issue seriously and show their support “by ensuring that internet service providers play their part in tackling this huge problem.”
Recently, further attempts have been made to tackle film piracy and these have reaped positive results. In March, the UK’s largest illegal DVD factory was closed down following a major investigation and raid on a commercial printing operation in Wembley, London. During the raid, a significant number of printing plates used to produce DVD covers were seized and four people were arrested in connection with the operation. This action is among many others that have taken place all over the UK since January, including: 5,000 counterfeit DVDs being seized from a garden shed in Surrey, a Londonderry shopkeeper being fined £200 for selling counterfeit DVDs, seven men and two women being arrested in a Glasgow counterfeit DVD factory raid where police recovered an estimated £350,000 worth of DVDs and over 100 DVD burners and then 30,000 counterfeit DVDs with a street value of over £90,000 and 150 DVD burners were seized in two separate raids in Lewisham, London.
This month we have seen the fight against piracy hit a wider scale as four people in Stockholm have been convicted, ordered to pay £3million in damages and sentenced to one year imprisonment each for breaking copyright law during their involvement with The Pirate Bay, the world’s most high-profile file-sharing website.
Also in this month’s news, we have seen the uproar caused by the leaked film download of X-Men Origins: Wolverine being reviewed before its cinema release. Fox News columnist, Roger Friedman, parted ways with Fox after posting his own review of the downloaded film and according to BBC News online, Wolverine actor Hugh Jackman is ‘heartbroken’ because of the pirated leak.
To draw on another example, we can see the potential affects piracy can have on retail if we consider Woolworths and Zavvi and how they have fallen victim to the recession, perhaps if piracy weren’t so rife, companies such as these would stand more chance of survival.
These examples emphasise the extent to which film piracy is at large and, in the case of Hugh Jackman, Zavvi and Woolworths, it shows how professionals and even retailers are affected.
The authorities are of course constantly on the lookout for piracy but, attempts are also made to reach out and discourage people before they become too involved.
For a long time, the film industry have targeted consumers with harsh advertisements telling them that piracy is a crime and comparing it to stealing a car and such like. Now, they have changed tactics and are adopting a softer and more appreciative approach to film fans. The new adverts hold a positive message and thank the cinema goers for supporting film and television in the UK. This is a very interesting technique and time will tell if it is any more effective than previous advertising messages.
All things considered, I feel piracy is still a huge issue and the potential it has to damage the economy is immense. More needs to be done to make people aware of the effects of film piracy and perhaps consumers need to be educated about it from a younger age to discourage them from becoming involved. The strong stand against film piracy must continue to grow if the UK film industry is to prosper.
According to FACT (the Federation Against Copyright Theft) film piracy generates approximately £200 million a year at street prices for criminals and the total loss to the whole audio visual industry through copyright theft is as much as £486 million. These figures are immense and can deliver some devastating blows to the film industry.
So why do people opt for film piracy? Well, aside from the fact that many people don’t fully comprehend the consequences, the main reasons are that it offers a cheap way for people to enjoy films, meaning they don’t have to break the bank or sacrifice their want for entertainment, many people also partake in film piracy as a means of income and others do it to put themselves ahead, so they can consume new films before they’re even widely released.
Whilst it is understandable that people buy pirated DVDs because they can’t afford to buy official DVDs or see the film in the cinema, the issue needs to be considered on a wider scale. It may be the case that we have the public benefiting from cheap entertainment but, this has a negative impact on the film industry and affects the revenue it generates. If we consider that the entertainment industry is one of the fastest growing, even in a time of recession, then having its revenue affected by piracy can be damaging to the economy as a whole. This will eventually come full circle and have a further negative impact on consumers.
With this in mind, it is important to put a stop to film piracy and to protect the revenue the film industry generates.
In December 2008, film and television industry professionals took a stand against piracy as they called to the government for action against illegal online file-sharing. The UK producers, directors and writers involved in the action included Sir Alan Parker, Kenneth Branagh, Ken Loach, Lynda La Plante, David Heyman, Richard Curtis, Jim Sheridan and John Madden amongst many others. In their letter, available to view at Timesonline, they revealed that: “In 2007, an estimated 98 million illegal downloads and streams of films took place in the UK, while it is believed that more than six million people illegally file-share regularly,” and requested that the government take the issue seriously and show their support “by ensuring that internet service providers play their part in tackling this huge problem.”
Recently, further attempts have been made to tackle film piracy and these have reaped positive results. In March, the UK’s largest illegal DVD factory was closed down following a major investigation and raid on a commercial printing operation in Wembley, London. During the raid, a significant number of printing plates used to produce DVD covers were seized and four people were arrested in connection with the operation. This action is among many others that have taken place all over the UK since January, including: 5,000 counterfeit DVDs being seized from a garden shed in Surrey, a Londonderry shopkeeper being fined £200 for selling counterfeit DVDs, seven men and two women being arrested in a Glasgow counterfeit DVD factory raid where police recovered an estimated £350,000 worth of DVDs and over 100 DVD burners and then 30,000 counterfeit DVDs with a street value of over £90,000 and 150 DVD burners were seized in two separate raids in Lewisham, London.
This month we have seen the fight against piracy hit a wider scale as four people in Stockholm have been convicted, ordered to pay £3million in damages and sentenced to one year imprisonment each for breaking copyright law during their involvement with The Pirate Bay, the world’s most high-profile file-sharing website.
Also in this month’s news, we have seen the uproar caused by the leaked film download of X-Men Origins: Wolverine being reviewed before its cinema release. Fox News columnist, Roger Friedman, parted ways with Fox after posting his own review of the downloaded film and according to BBC News online, Wolverine actor Hugh Jackman is ‘heartbroken’ because of the pirated leak.
To draw on another example, we can see the potential affects piracy can have on retail if we consider Woolworths and Zavvi and how they have fallen victim to the recession, perhaps if piracy weren’t so rife, companies such as these would stand more chance of survival.
These examples emphasise the extent to which film piracy is at large and, in the case of Hugh Jackman, Zavvi and Woolworths, it shows how professionals and even retailers are affected.
The authorities are of course constantly on the lookout for piracy but, attempts are also made to reach out and discourage people before they become too involved.
For a long time, the film industry have targeted consumers with harsh advertisements telling them that piracy is a crime and comparing it to stealing a car and such like. Now, they have changed tactics and are adopting a softer and more appreciative approach to film fans. The new adverts hold a positive message and thank the cinema goers for supporting film and television in the UK. This is a very interesting technique and time will tell if it is any more effective than previous advertising messages.
All things considered, I feel piracy is still a huge issue and the potential it has to damage the economy is immense. More needs to be done to make people aware of the effects of film piracy and perhaps consumers need to be educated about it from a younger age to discourage them from becoming involved. The strong stand against film piracy must continue to grow if the UK film industry is to prosper.
Friday, 17 April 2009
Summertime: It's all about the blockbusters
Summer is fast approaching and that means we are soon to be faced with the lovely summer rays (we hope), fun days out at the beach and a whole host of box office hits.
Yes, summer is the time of year when the film companies battle it out to see who can achieve the biggest blockbuster and this summer is no different as we have some solid contenders emerging onto the big screen.
From next month, we will see the madness begin as Disney launch the first challenger, Hannah Montana (released 1st May), a film adapted from the small screen about a girl leading a secret double life as a pop star that will be a huge hit with teenage girls everywhere. With it appealing to a limited audience it is unlikely to blow us all away but, the kids will love it. Next we have Angels and Demons (released 14th May) the sequel to The Da Vinci Code starring Tom Hanks; there hasn’t been much hype about this one yet but, it might be a dark horse. May also sees the release of Night at the Museum 2 (released 22nd May), and this one’s probably going to be a bit of a stab in the dark. Yes, the first movie was entertaining enough but, do we want to see another one? Not really. Definitely not a contender for the summer 2009 blockbuster title although, again it will be a hit with the kids.
June sees the film industry up their game as Terminator: Salvation is released on 3rd June and Transformers: Revenge of the Fallen is released on 24th June. It’s lucky these two are spaced apart as the battle between them is going to be fierce. These will be a huge hit with the blokes and even the ladies might like to get in on the action. I have my doubts about Terminator though, it just won’t be the same for most people without Arnie on screen.
July brings yet more kid’s films just in time for their school holidays. Ice Age: Dawn of the Dinosaurs is released on 1ST July and is guaranteed to be one of the favourites this summer as it follows the misfit group of friends through another historical era.
Johnny Depp will be back on our screens from 3rd July as he stars with Christian Bale in crime film Public Enemies; this one won’t steal the limelight but, will undoubtedly be a great film.
Next we have Bruno (released 10th July)which will take us on another of Sacha Baron Cohen’s bizarre adventures, this time as camp Austrian TV presenter; it’s unlikely this one will rake in the biggest ratings either but, it will definitely be worth a look.
Now for the big one … drum roll please ... July 17th sees the release of one of the year’s most anticipated films as Harry Potter and the Half-Blood Prince is out after an agonising 8 month delay. My prediction is that this film will sweep the board with everything else and will be this summer’s biggest blockbuster; I personally can’t wait to see it. With so much hype though and with it being based on such an important book, there is the possibility that many fans of the Harry Potter novels will be disappointed with the film adaptation. Nevertheless, it is guaranteed to be a brilliant watch.
Things start to quieten down a bit in August though with G. I. Joe: The Rise of Cobra (7th August) being released at the beginning of the month and Tarantino’s new film Inglorious Basterds (21ST August), about a group of Jewish-American soldiers known as ‘The Basterds’ who set out to scalp and kill the Nazi’s, being released at the end of the month.
So, there you have it. That’s the summer hits in a nutshell. Perhaps, there aren’t as many sure fire successes for this season as we have seen in previous years but, it still looks set to be a pretty good summer film-wise and at least if the weather does let us down (when doesn’t it?) there will be plenty to keep us entertained indoors.
Tuesday, 10 March 2009
Revelation play
Here is something else I wrote for Buzz.
It's about a play called Revelation which tackles domestic abuse towards men.
The article can be found at Buzzmagazine.
It's about a play called Revelation which tackles domestic abuse towards men.
The article can be found at Buzzmagazine.
Coffins, Cats and Fair Trade Sex Toys
I am currently on work experience with Buzz , a Cardiff based magazine, and today I wrote an article for them about a newly released book called Coffins, Cats and Fair Trade Sex Toys by Jeremy Piercy who is the brains behind fair trade shop Shared Earth.
Take a look at my article at http://buzzmagazine.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/coffins-cats-fair-trade-sex-toys/
Take a look at my article at http://buzzmagazine.wordpress.com/2009/03/10/coffins-cats-fair-trade-sex-toys/
Monday, 23 February 2009
How blind people experience movies
Angela Neads, 44, has been registered blind for 10 years and has been gradually loosing her sight for the past 21 years. Angela always enjoyed watching films before she started losing her sight and misses the experience. She now has to rely on the audio aspects if she is to enjoy a film, which is not always easy.
She said: "It’s very difficult, I have to have a sighted person to tell me what’s going on. Some films I can’t follow at all."
Angela explains what a film needs to be like if she is to follow it successfully: "They have to have an easy story line with very few characters."
"The narrative side is very important as long as it’s nice and clear but, sometimes you can’t always hear what they’re saying if the background music is a bit overpowering."
She also has to focus on differentiating one character from another: "If their voices are very clearly different it’s easy to follow but, obviously at the beginning of the film, somebody has to explain to me who is who. Names help as well if they are used a lot in films."
Not all films get the balance right though and blind people can often be put off trying to watch the film. Angela said: "You start to watch it and lose the story when too many characters appear or when I have to ask somebody what’s going on, you just can’t enjoy it."
"When scenes are rushed and it jumps from one scene to another," she added, "that’s when I lose everything. Or when they switch from one place and can be in a completely different place next."
Angela does have a few favourite films though, which she is able to enjoy and follow with more ease, including: "The Rocky series - the story is simple and not complicated. The character’s voices are clear and easy to follow."
"See No Evil, Hear No Evil - there are very few characters, a simple story and it makes me laugh."
"Ben-Hur - I already know the story line and I think it’s entertaining to listen to."
"Grease - Again, it’s entertaining. I know who the characters are and from memory, I know exactly what’s on the screen."
There is some aid available for blind people to experience films more easily as Angela explains: "Audio Visual is available for blind people or you can have films on cassette tape (Or CD now). With Audio Visual, as the film is playing, you have a person talking and explaining who is on the screen, what the background is, what the people are wearing, a full description of them. Colours are explained to you, movements for example ‘ man now going to sit in the chair.’ You can now get Audio Visual television as well."
"Personally, I just can’t get on with it. I tried watching a film but, it just didn’t appeal to me. As you’re trying to follow the story, you’ve got somebody describing everything and it put me off."
Angela says that she would find a brief synopsis at the start of the film a helpful tool: "Before a film for a blind person, if they gave a reading of a rough story line so at least when you go into the film you know who the main characters are, what the film is you’re following in case you lose the story line, at least your memory has had a rough guide of what’s going on."
She says she would also like a voice over after the film has finished to relay certain information: "Some information about the film at the end, like when the film was made, what year, where the film was made, just a bit of general knowledge about it, how old the actors are e.t.c, that would be helpful."
It is impossible to comprehend how blind people have to experience films without being in the same situation as them. We forget how vital it is to be able to see what is happening on screen and take for granted how easily sighted people are able to follow a film. If certain techniques, such as Audio Visual and the ones suggested by Angela, can enhance the film experience for blind people and help them to feel more included in the plot then they should be greatly encouraged.
She said: "It’s very difficult, I have to have a sighted person to tell me what’s going on. Some films I can’t follow at all."
Angela explains what a film needs to be like if she is to follow it successfully: "They have to have an easy story line with very few characters."
"The narrative side is very important as long as it’s nice and clear but, sometimes you can’t always hear what they’re saying if the background music is a bit overpowering."
She also has to focus on differentiating one character from another: "If their voices are very clearly different it’s easy to follow but, obviously at the beginning of the film, somebody has to explain to me who is who. Names help as well if they are used a lot in films."
Not all films get the balance right though and blind people can often be put off trying to watch the film. Angela said: "You start to watch it and lose the story when too many characters appear or when I have to ask somebody what’s going on, you just can’t enjoy it."
"When scenes are rushed and it jumps from one scene to another," she added, "that’s when I lose everything. Or when they switch from one place and can be in a completely different place next."
Angela does have a few favourite films though, which she is able to enjoy and follow with more ease, including: "The Rocky series - the story is simple and not complicated. The character’s voices are clear and easy to follow."
"See No Evil, Hear No Evil - there are very few characters, a simple story and it makes me laugh."
"Ben-Hur - I already know the story line and I think it’s entertaining to listen to."
"Grease - Again, it’s entertaining. I know who the characters are and from memory, I know exactly what’s on the screen."
There is some aid available for blind people to experience films more easily as Angela explains: "Audio Visual is available for blind people or you can have films on cassette tape (Or CD now). With Audio Visual, as the film is playing, you have a person talking and explaining who is on the screen, what the background is, what the people are wearing, a full description of them. Colours are explained to you, movements for example ‘ man now going to sit in the chair.’ You can now get Audio Visual television as well."
"Personally, I just can’t get on with it. I tried watching a film but, it just didn’t appeal to me. As you’re trying to follow the story, you’ve got somebody describing everything and it put me off."
Angela says that she would find a brief synopsis at the start of the film a helpful tool: "Before a film for a blind person, if they gave a reading of a rough story line so at least when you go into the film you know who the main characters are, what the film is you’re following in case you lose the story line, at least your memory has had a rough guide of what’s going on."
She says she would also like a voice over after the film has finished to relay certain information: "Some information about the film at the end, like when the film was made, what year, where the film was made, just a bit of general knowledge about it, how old the actors are e.t.c, that would be helpful."
It is impossible to comprehend how blind people have to experience films without being in the same situation as them. We forget how vital it is to be able to see what is happening on screen and take for granted how easily sighted people are able to follow a film. If certain techniques, such as Audio Visual and the ones suggested by Angela, can enhance the film experience for blind people and help them to feel more included in the plot then they should be greatly encouraged.
Wednesday, 18 February 2009
CGI vs. stop motion but, which is better?
Stop motion vs. CGI... the debate continues... ok well, maybe I’m exaggerating (there's probably nobody else debating this apart from me)and maybe your everyday cinema goer doesn’t give a damn about stop motion (or even CGI for that matter) but, they should! It seems that stop motion is a dying form and it’s such a terrible shame.Ok, so let’s settle the differences: stop motion involves physically moving an object a small amount between frames to give it the illusion of movement when the individually photographed frames are played in sequence and CGI or Computer Generated Imagery, involves using 3D computer graphics to create the special effects that cause all the ‘ooh’s’ and ‘aaah’s’ in the cinema. It is also used for characters and objects in film.
CGI is something we are faced with a lot of the time when we go to the cinema, it a form that allows things to be achieved on the big screen that could never have been achieved before. It is an excellent tool in film making and yes, I am a fan but, I don’t think it has the ability to create the image that a stop motion animation can.
Stop motion may be a long and pain-staking process but, the end product is definitely worth it. Let’s take a look at Tim Burton’s Nightmare Before Christmas, this was filmed using stop motion alone and has such a unique and beautiful look about it that sets it apart from other films.
Tim Burton is of course a die-hard fan of the art form, saying: "There is an energy with stop-motion that you can’t even describe. It’s got to do with giving things life, and I guess that’s why I wanted to get into animation originally." (see http://minadream.com/timburton/Animation.htm)
I can really see where Burton is coming from, The Nightmare Before Christmas and The Corpse Bride (his two big stop motion successes) do have an energy and feel about them that is somehow different to CGI but, sadly most movie makers will opt for CGI over stop motion every time.
My argument is that we just don’t see enough stop motion in the cinema (seemingly apart from that brought to us by Burton) and we need to see more of it. Yes CGI is easier and quicker but, it would be such a shame to see stop motion die out completely. It’s a wonderful art form and creates a great image on-screen so, it would be nice to see the studios embracing it a bit more in future.
Thursday, 29 January 2009
Are video game to film adaptations really a good idea?
By Chris Evans [edited by Lianne Jones]Video games have a torrid history of being made into movies, there have been very few successful adaptations; commercially or critically. This is a problem that has been apparent since one of the first game to film conversions appeared with Mortal Kombat and such like. However, we have seen more success recently with the Resident Evil and Silent Hill films.
One of the key problems with turning a video game into a film is dealing with the fans of the game. Gamers are similar to many other die-hard fans of other entertainment types. You will see fans of a specific film up in arms when a remake is announced; this applies in a similar way with gamers. A large proportion of games which are made into movies have this die hard group of fans, and for them, if anything is slightly different in the film version of their game, well then they will be in uproar.
This was seen with Doom. The games in the series focus on a demonic invasion of Mars by legions from Hell but, the film took a different perspective on the story by introducing human biological engineering and doing away with the darker more evil aspects of the story.
The decision by the film makers to ignore the story and setting of the games meant that their target audience was turned away from the film. It must also be noted that the film wasn’t very good; the inclusion of a first-person sequence where the audience was treated to a view solely of The Rock’s gun barrel was not a good cinematic decision. While it was an attempt to garner the support of the gaming audience, it turned them away as the sequence felt artificial. Likewise for the every day moviegoer, it was something too artificial that altered how the audience interacted with the film.
The issue of interactivity between the audience and the film has long since been a problem when it comes to making a film based on a game. The trouble is that games are all about the interaction between the gamer and what they are playing. Creating this sense of interaction in a film is near impossible, and for this reason many gamers are dismissive of a cinematic interpretation of a game.
Non-gamers can also be dismissive of a film that has been based on a game and they can feel isolated when watching it. Games often come with a story and sense of place that can only be understood when someone is actually playing.
Games which have been transformed into films, such as Silent Hill and Resident Evil, have created a long standing narrative over the series of the games. Looking at the film conversions of these games is interesting; the Resident Evil movies have moved away from the settings of the games with a key sequence in the latest movie taking place in Las Vegas.
This change of setting means that people who are not interested in the games are more likely to pay attention to the movie. In this way the Resident Evil movies have made a conscious effort not to isolate a wider audience.
We have seen through films such as Hitman that not all game to film adaptations are able to avoid isolating their audience. The problem with the Hitman movie was that it failed to deviate away from the games to gain a new audience, and also failed to stay true enough to the franchise to maintain the support of the fans.
Transferring a game into a film is a much more challenging task then creating a movie based on a book. Attempting to create an enjoyable and critically successful film that is based on a game requires great skill from the makers. The different aspects present in a game, be it the story or the interaction with the player, cannot be readily transferred onto the big screen but, despite the difficulties, the number of poorly received game to film adaptations and the heavy criticisms of pretty much every adaption made, the studios continue to churn them out and ready them for the crossfire of comments from both film and game fans alike. There have been a few successes amongst the rubble of bad adaptations so, there is some hope for this type of film and as both industries evolve and develop their relationship, we are more likely to see improvements and more successful ones beginning to appear.
One of the key problems with turning a video game into a film is dealing with the fans of the game. Gamers are similar to many other die-hard fans of other entertainment types. You will see fans of a specific film up in arms when a remake is announced; this applies in a similar way with gamers. A large proportion of games which are made into movies have this die hard group of fans, and for them, if anything is slightly different in the film version of their game, well then they will be in uproar.
This was seen with Doom. The games in the series focus on a demonic invasion of Mars by legions from Hell but, the film took a different perspective on the story by introducing human biological engineering and doing away with the darker more evil aspects of the story.
The decision by the film makers to ignore the story and setting of the games meant that their target audience was turned away from the film. It must also be noted that the film wasn’t very good; the inclusion of a first-person sequence where the audience was treated to a view solely of The Rock’s gun barrel was not a good cinematic decision. While it was an attempt to garner the support of the gaming audience, it turned them away as the sequence felt artificial. Likewise for the every day moviegoer, it was something too artificial that altered how the audience interacted with the film.
The issue of interactivity between the audience and the film has long since been a problem when it comes to making a film based on a game. The trouble is that games are all about the interaction between the gamer and what they are playing. Creating this sense of interaction in a film is near impossible, and for this reason many gamers are dismissive of a cinematic interpretation of a game.
Non-gamers can also be dismissive of a film that has been based on a game and they can feel isolated when watching it. Games often come with a story and sense of place that can only be understood when someone is actually playing.
Games which have been transformed into films, such as Silent Hill and Resident Evil, have created a long standing narrative over the series of the games. Looking at the film conversions of these games is interesting; the Resident Evil movies have moved away from the settings of the games with a key sequence in the latest movie taking place in Las Vegas.
This change of setting means that people who are not interested in the games are more likely to pay attention to the movie. In this way the Resident Evil movies have made a conscious effort not to isolate a wider audience.
We have seen through films such as Hitman that not all game to film adaptations are able to avoid isolating their audience. The problem with the Hitman movie was that it failed to deviate away from the games to gain a new audience, and also failed to stay true enough to the franchise to maintain the support of the fans.
Transferring a game into a film is a much more challenging task then creating a movie based on a book. Attempting to create an enjoyable and critically successful film that is based on a game requires great skill from the makers. The different aspects present in a game, be it the story or the interaction with the player, cannot be readily transferred onto the big screen but, despite the difficulties, the number of poorly received game to film adaptations and the heavy criticisms of pretty much every adaption made, the studios continue to churn them out and ready them for the crossfire of comments from both film and game fans alike. There have been a few successes amongst the rubble of bad adaptations so, there is some hope for this type of film and as both industries evolve and develop their relationship, we are more likely to see improvements and more successful ones beginning to appear.
Monday, 26 January 2009
The female stereotype
Stereotypes are an integral part of films and this can often be seen to have a negative effect due to their misrepresentations of groups or individuals.
Women are frequently stereotyped on the big screen and we can all identify what these stereotypes are; we have the house wife, the super mum, the femme fatale, the sex kitten, the career-driven business woman, the dumb blonde and the girl next door – on the surface such stereotypes may not seem damaging but, when you consider that we are bombarded with such images in our film consumption on a regular basis, certain problems can arise. These stereotypes put women into very simplistic categories which can in turn perpetuate inequality and even cause the representations to be taken on by some as a reality.
Such stereotypes are accentuated in films such as Legally Blonde where Reese Witherspoon’s character is the typical dumb blonde, in Pulp Fiction and Double Indemnity where Uma Thurman and Barbara Stanwyck both play the roles of stereotypical femme fatales and in The Devil Wears Prada where Meryl Streep falls into the category of the tough career-driven business woman.
We are also all too familiar with the weak and unintelligent female roles presented to us in the horror genre in particular. Women often play the helpless victim, screaming and trying to run away from the killer before falling over or running somewhere where they are obviously going to find themselves trapped and defenseless. It is hardly an inspiring stereotype to be presented with.
Body Image.
Women are also often stereotyped in films as being perfect, thin and beautiful, which can create a huge array of problems as society can accept this image of women as the ‘norm.’ Women will then often want to conform to such an image to feel attractive and if they can’t achieve their goals, their self-esteem and confidence can be damaged by it.
Maria Hooper, a journalism student writing a body image dissertation, said: “women aspire to look like what they see in films but, they don’t realise that it’s a distortion which can be damaging to their self-perception. From my own personal view, men are not always attracted to the image of being thin but, women feel obliged to look sexy for their man and then self-reflect on their own image and may take drastic action.”
The ‘Male gaze.’
This stereotype of perfect, thin and beautiful women on the big screen leads on to the notion of the ‘male gaze’ whereby female protagonists are the object of desire and are on screen just to be looked at by men.
Laura Mulvey is heavily associated with the ‘male gaze’ theory in film. She comments that there are two distinct modes of the ‘male gaze’ (particularly in 1950’s and 60’s cinema); ‘voyeuristic’ and ‘fetishistic’, again reinforcing that female protagonists are on screen purely for the pleasure of male eyes.
This is evident in many of the early Bond films; the female characters are all helpless and need to be protected by Bond (another common female stereotype), their purpose is merely as an object of desire for Bond and also for male audience members.
The camera angles used on women in films is also an indicator of the ‘male gaze.’ The camera shots often show segments of a woman’s body, this will sometimes start at the shoes and legs before trailing up the rest of the body and the camera will often linger on a female protagonist, encouraging a voyeuristic gaze. These techniques objectify women in films and reinforce them as a stereotypical image of desire.
Challenging the stereotype.
In recent years, however, we have seen attempts to challenge these stereotypes and to create a more positive image of women. The concept of women as strong, confident and independent protagonists has begun to emerge in many films. We can look at Uma Thurman’s character of The Bride in the Kill Bill series, Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu as Natalie Cook, Dylan Saunders and Alex Munday in Charlie’s Angels and Angelina Jolie as both Lara Croft and Jane Smith in Mr and Mrs Smith, to see prime examples of strong women in films.
All of these characters wield weapons and behave more akin to a male protagonist than a female. They are independent and set out to fend for themselves without the help of a man to protect them.
Despite the fact that the characters mentioned above are moving away from the stereotypical roles of female protagonists, they still retain some stereotypical aspects. All of the characters still simulate the ideal of perfect, thin and beautiful objects of desire and despite them acting out a more male role, they still wear sexy attire and are therefore satisfying the ‘male gaze.’
The objectifying and lingering camera shots are also still frequently found in films, meaning that women are still in their roles to be looked at by male protagonists and audience members.
The future of stereotypes?
So where are stereotypes going to end up? Well women’s roles in films have changed a lot over the decades and attempts have been made to reform female characters, as I have acknowledged but, is there any room for further change?
I think we need to see more strong women in films so it’s not so much of a random occurrence and we need to have less objectifying camera angles, though that is something that is not likely to change unless we get more of a ‘female gaze’ appearing in films.
There needs to be much less emphasis on thin and beautiful women but, that is a stereotype that cannot just be blamed on the film industry and must be tackled on a much wider scale.
Perhaps the ultimate answer is to have more female director’s in the industry as there is an obvious lack of them at the moment. This would likely readdress the balance of male vs. female, not only on-screen but, off-screen as well and would give women an opportunity to defy the stereotypes we have grown so used to seeing.
Women are frequently stereotyped on the big screen and we can all identify what these stereotypes are; we have the house wife, the super mum, the femme fatale, the sex kitten, the career-driven business woman, the dumb blonde and the girl next door – on the surface such stereotypes may not seem damaging but, when you consider that we are bombarded with such images in our film consumption on a regular basis, certain problems can arise. These stereotypes put women into very simplistic categories which can in turn perpetuate inequality and even cause the representations to be taken on by some as a reality.
Such stereotypes are accentuated in films such as Legally Blonde where Reese Witherspoon’s character is the typical dumb blonde, in Pulp Fiction and Double Indemnity where Uma Thurman and Barbara Stanwyck both play the roles of stereotypical femme fatales and in The Devil Wears Prada where Meryl Streep falls into the category of the tough career-driven business woman.
We are also all too familiar with the weak and unintelligent female roles presented to us in the horror genre in particular. Women often play the helpless victim, screaming and trying to run away from the killer before falling over or running somewhere where they are obviously going to find themselves trapped and defenseless. It is hardly an inspiring stereotype to be presented with.
Body Image.
Women are also often stereotyped in films as being perfect, thin and beautiful, which can create a huge array of problems as society can accept this image of women as the ‘norm.’ Women will then often want to conform to such an image to feel attractive and if they can’t achieve their goals, their self-esteem and confidence can be damaged by it.
Maria Hooper, a journalism student writing a body image dissertation, said: “women aspire to look like what they see in films but, they don’t realise that it’s a distortion which can be damaging to their self-perception. From my own personal view, men are not always attracted to the image of being thin but, women feel obliged to look sexy for their man and then self-reflect on their own image and may take drastic action.”
The ‘Male gaze.’
This stereotype of perfect, thin and beautiful women on the big screen leads on to the notion of the ‘male gaze’ whereby female protagonists are the object of desire and are on screen just to be looked at by men.
Laura Mulvey is heavily associated with the ‘male gaze’ theory in film. She comments that there are two distinct modes of the ‘male gaze’ (particularly in 1950’s and 60’s cinema); ‘voyeuristic’ and ‘fetishistic’, again reinforcing that female protagonists are on screen purely for the pleasure of male eyes.
This is evident in many of the early Bond films; the female characters are all helpless and need to be protected by Bond (another common female stereotype), their purpose is merely as an object of desire for Bond and also for male audience members.
The camera angles used on women in films is also an indicator of the ‘male gaze.’ The camera shots often show segments of a woman’s body, this will sometimes start at the shoes and legs before trailing up the rest of the body and the camera will often linger on a female protagonist, encouraging a voyeuristic gaze. These techniques objectify women in films and reinforce them as a stereotypical image of desire.
Challenging the stereotype.
In recent years, however, we have seen attempts to challenge these stereotypes and to create a more positive image of women. The concept of women as strong, confident and independent protagonists has begun to emerge in many films. We can look at Uma Thurman’s character of The Bride in the Kill Bill series, Cameron Diaz, Drew Barrymore and Lucy Liu as Natalie Cook, Dylan Saunders and Alex Munday in Charlie’s Angels and Angelina Jolie as both Lara Croft and Jane Smith in Mr and Mrs Smith, to see prime examples of strong women in films.
All of these characters wield weapons and behave more akin to a male protagonist than a female. They are independent and set out to fend for themselves without the help of a man to protect them.
Despite the fact that the characters mentioned above are moving away from the stereotypical roles of female protagonists, they still retain some stereotypical aspects. All of the characters still simulate the ideal of perfect, thin and beautiful objects of desire and despite them acting out a more male role, they still wear sexy attire and are therefore satisfying the ‘male gaze.’
The objectifying and lingering camera shots are also still frequently found in films, meaning that women are still in their roles to be looked at by male protagonists and audience members.
The future of stereotypes?
So where are stereotypes going to end up? Well women’s roles in films have changed a lot over the decades and attempts have been made to reform female characters, as I have acknowledged but, is there any room for further change?
I think we need to see more strong women in films so it’s not so much of a random occurrence and we need to have less objectifying camera angles, though that is something that is not likely to change unless we get more of a ‘female gaze’ appearing in films.
There needs to be much less emphasis on thin and beautiful women but, that is a stereotype that cannot just be blamed on the film industry and must be tackled on a much wider scale.
Perhaps the ultimate answer is to have more female director’s in the industry as there is an obvious lack of them at the moment. This would likely readdress the balance of male vs. female, not only on-screen but, off-screen as well and would give women an opportunity to defy the stereotypes we have grown so used to seeing.
Monday, 8 December 2008
The Violent Screen
Critics say that violence in films is a bad influence, it teaches people that it is ok to use violence, it desensitises people to real life violence, it glamorises violence and encourages copy cat crimes. Arguments say that children are particularly influenced by what they watch in films and it affects their attitudes and behaviour.
Perhaps this is all just speculation because scientific studies have provided little concrete evidence to back up the hypothesis that violent films have negative effects.
It is worth us pausing for a moment to take a look at the kind of films that are categorised as violent. Website, Film School Rejects, provide us with the top ten violent movies of all time and the top ten ultra-violent movies of all time. The website comments about both categories as follows: Violence – “Just as a keg of beer needs a bung hole to relieve pressure, we need violent movies to relieve the pressures of everyday life.” And Ultra-Violence – “this list is all about the most shocking, bloody and unbelievable gut-wrenching cinematic adventures in the history of film. It’s not just about slashing up unsuspecting victims; it is about leaving a lasting imprint of terror in the minds of audiences…”
Their definition of ultra-violence does little to quash fears that violence in films is a negative experience and the films that appear in both lists probably don’t help either.
At number ten in the list of top violent films we have ‘The Godfather’ which tells the story of the head of an organised crime dynasty (the Italian Mafia) and provides the audience with violence a plenty. FSR writes: “If guns and garrotting aren’t enough to convince you ‘The Godfather’ belongs on this list, how about punch-outs of Sonny’s pregnant sister or mass killings simultaneously shot with the latest Corleone baptism.” And that film is the supposed mildest of the bunch as we work up to the likes of ‘Silence of the Lambs’ (1991), ‘Natural Born Killers’ (1994),’Reservoir Dogs’ (1992) and coming in at number one ‘Scarface’ (1983) which chronicles the life of a fictional Cuban refugee who arrives in Florida and becomes a gangster who finds himself rising and falling in the criminal underworld. FSR writes: “Bloody killings with a chainsaw, mass slaughter of authorities, other gangsters and just about anyone close at hand; weapons galore and Pacino’s immortal “Meet my li’l fren,” this 1982 Brian de Palma film with story by Oliver Stone, has enough violence to insure its place in cinema history.”
As if that wasn’t enough, wait until you see what turns up in our ultra-violent list. Number ten is given to ‘The Hills Have Eyes’(2006) which pushed the violence and gore even further than the 1977 Wes Craven original, with a family being stalked by a psychotic group of desert-dwellers. The list goes on to give us the likes of ‘Saw’ (2004), ‘A Clockwork Orange’ (1971) – interestingly this appears midway in both the violent and the ultra-violent list, ‘Hostel’ (2005) and coming in at number one ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ (1974). FSR writes: “After more than 30 years, very few films can stand up against Tobe Hooper’s terrifying trip into the Texas countryside. Inspired by the killings of Ed Gein, this film was actually shot with the hopes of a PG rating. By avoiding on-screen blood and graphic horror, ‘Chainsaw’ became one of the most disturbing films to watch because your imagination did all the work.”
All the above mentioned are enough to make anyone cringe but, perhaps critics of such films are looking too much into things. These are, after all, just films, made with the intent to entertain the audience and to bring in the money. The makers of such films don’t set out with the objective to corrupt the minds of the viewers with the hope that they will be influenced enough to carry out their own mad murders, they just want to produce a good piece of film that will be remembered as a gripping cinematic experience.
Theories such as ‘the hypodermic needle model’, the ‘social-learning theory’ (Bandura 1973) and Berkowitz’s ‘priming aggression’ theory from the 1960’s, all suggest that audiences are influenced by violent cinema. Bandura’s theory goes as far to suggest that people watching their role models carrying out violent behaviour on screen can teach them to do the same. All such theories assume a great degree of passivity on the audience’s part. They fail to assess the ability of film fans to interpret the meanings behind the violence and to be able to comprehend that what they are seeing is not intended to make them think it is ok to go out and have a go themselves. These theorists would have us believe that we view films in a vegetative state, passively absorbing everything we see without processing or thinking about it whatsoever but, we know that’s not true. I would argue that few people leave the cinema without thinking about what they have just seen and perhaps questioning aspects of the film. As a modern audience, we also have a good understanding of the film-making process which makes it virtually impossible to take on board everything we see in a film. We understand, to some extent, what goes on behind the scenes and so levitate ourselves from the passive position we have been branded as having.
Professionals who work with children are often also quick to criticise the influence of violence on screen. Play development Officer Joanne feels that a combination of violent media exposure definitely has a negative effect on children and agrees with Bandura’s theory, to a certain extent, that watching heroes act out violence will influence children: “you know, children, they want to be like their heroes so they will copy the behaviour that they see their heroes doing... you hear of some of these crimes with samurai swords and things and that is definitely down to, sort of, scenes they’re watching on the telly so, yeah I think it is down to heroes and media and TV.”
Critics argue that viewing too much violence can cause people to be de-sensitised to real-life crimes but, Joanne raises a valid point about the theory: “I think a lot of streets in Britain today do have violence and kids are hanging around in gangs, so I do think those children are de-sensitised but, then other children, who may watch perhaps a violent movie, because of their family values and where they’re being brought up, I don’t think they are de-sensitised, so I really do think it is about a number of factors.”
Violent films are often blamed for supposed ‘copy-cat’ crimes. The murder of James Bulger in 1993 caused a stir as the film, ‘Child’s Play 3’ about Chucky the evil, possessed doll was blamed for the behaviour of the two boys that kidnapped James. Allegations were made that the murder resembled a scene from the film and it was assumed that because one of the boy’s fathers had recently rented the film, the boys must have watched it. However, it was later revealed that the boys hadn’t seen it and they didn’t even like horror films. So, ‘Child’s Play 3’ was off the hook despite tabloid newspaper, The Sun, launching a campaign to burn the ‘video nasties’.
As someone who works with children, Joanne doesn’t necessarily think that film violence causes copy-cat crimes: “I think children need to know the difference between right and wrong and, you know, I just think it’s just an excuse for their behaviour.”
A major issue with children viewing film violence is perhaps not the content of the film, which is obviously intended for an older audience but, the fact that these children are unsupervised and are gaining access to the aggressive content. When conducting my own research on the matter, I surveyed children on the types of films they are watching and was shocked to find that at ages 8-16, they had seen films like ‘The Exorcist’, ‘Saw’ and ‘The Boogeyman’, which are all intended for an older demographic.
Joanne has had first hand experience with this kind of situation: “I’ve also found that in the play centres I’ve worked with children aged 5 to 14 years but, if we had a film night, I can say that I’ve never seen an under 18 film come onto the play centre, they all just wanted the over 18s, particularly violence, which of course we could never play and yet these are children aged 5 to 14.”
A lot of the time, children are left unsupervised to view such content, meaning that they have no one to explain it to them and that for me is the real problem. We shouldn’t be blaming the films; certificates are there for a reason and it is a parent’s job to enforce them.
Moving back to violent films in general, we need to consider the creative aspects of them before we accuse film-makers of bombarding us with barbaric images. Let’s take Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction for example, which is packed with violence and gore pretty much from start to finish. To a critic, this would be damaging and would encourage aggression but, to anyone with a bit of film knowledge or an open mind, it is an innovative and gripping example of post-modern cinema. Pulp Fiction has an unconventional non-linear narrative and presents an ironic mix of violence and humour. It is a perfect example of how violent films shouldn’t be taken at face value. We must remember that violence in films is there to help tell the story and not as a piece of propaganda, it is part of everyday life and so should be able to be translated to the big screen.
Finally, why is film violence suddenly such an issue anyway when violence has been part of our story-telling culture for as far back as we can go? It can be traced right throughout history - from paintings, penny novels and theatre to the Bible and other such religious readings – and so is definitely no new occurrence or phenomenon.
Perhaps this is all just speculation because scientific studies have provided little concrete evidence to back up the hypothesis that violent films have negative effects.
It is worth us pausing for a moment to take a look at the kind of films that are categorised as violent. Website, Film School Rejects, provide us with the top ten violent movies of all time and the top ten ultra-violent movies of all time. The website comments about both categories as follows: Violence – “Just as a keg of beer needs a bung hole to relieve pressure, we need violent movies to relieve the pressures of everyday life.” And Ultra-Violence – “this list is all about the most shocking, bloody and unbelievable gut-wrenching cinematic adventures in the history of film. It’s not just about slashing up unsuspecting victims; it is about leaving a lasting imprint of terror in the minds of audiences…”
Their definition of ultra-violence does little to quash fears that violence in films is a negative experience and the films that appear in both lists probably don’t help either.
At number ten in the list of top violent films we have ‘The Godfather’ which tells the story of the head of an organised crime dynasty (the Italian Mafia) and provides the audience with violence a plenty. FSR writes: “If guns and garrotting aren’t enough to convince you ‘The Godfather’ belongs on this list, how about punch-outs of Sonny’s pregnant sister or mass killings simultaneously shot with the latest Corleone baptism.” And that film is the supposed mildest of the bunch as we work up to the likes of ‘Silence of the Lambs’ (1991), ‘Natural Born Killers’ (1994),’Reservoir Dogs’ (1992) and coming in at number one ‘Scarface’ (1983) which chronicles the life of a fictional Cuban refugee who arrives in Florida and becomes a gangster who finds himself rising and falling in the criminal underworld. FSR writes: “Bloody killings with a chainsaw, mass slaughter of authorities, other gangsters and just about anyone close at hand; weapons galore and Pacino’s immortal “Meet my li’l fren,” this 1982 Brian de Palma film with story by Oliver Stone, has enough violence to insure its place in cinema history.”
As if that wasn’t enough, wait until you see what turns up in our ultra-violent list. Number ten is given to ‘The Hills Have Eyes’(2006) which pushed the violence and gore even further than the 1977 Wes Craven original, with a family being stalked by a psychotic group of desert-dwellers. The list goes on to give us the likes of ‘Saw’ (2004), ‘A Clockwork Orange’ (1971) – interestingly this appears midway in both the violent and the ultra-violent list, ‘Hostel’ (2005) and coming in at number one ‘The Texas Chainsaw Massacre’ (1974). FSR writes: “After more than 30 years, very few films can stand up against Tobe Hooper’s terrifying trip into the Texas countryside. Inspired by the killings of Ed Gein, this film was actually shot with the hopes of a PG rating. By avoiding on-screen blood and graphic horror, ‘Chainsaw’ became one of the most disturbing films to watch because your imagination did all the work.”
All the above mentioned are enough to make anyone cringe but, perhaps critics of such films are looking too much into things. These are, after all, just films, made with the intent to entertain the audience and to bring in the money. The makers of such films don’t set out with the objective to corrupt the minds of the viewers with the hope that they will be influenced enough to carry out their own mad murders, they just want to produce a good piece of film that will be remembered as a gripping cinematic experience.
Theories such as ‘the hypodermic needle model’, the ‘social-learning theory’ (Bandura 1973) and Berkowitz’s ‘priming aggression’ theory from the 1960’s, all suggest that audiences are influenced by violent cinema. Bandura’s theory goes as far to suggest that people watching their role models carrying out violent behaviour on screen can teach them to do the same. All such theories assume a great degree of passivity on the audience’s part. They fail to assess the ability of film fans to interpret the meanings behind the violence and to be able to comprehend that what they are seeing is not intended to make them think it is ok to go out and have a go themselves. These theorists would have us believe that we view films in a vegetative state, passively absorbing everything we see without processing or thinking about it whatsoever but, we know that’s not true. I would argue that few people leave the cinema without thinking about what they have just seen and perhaps questioning aspects of the film. As a modern audience, we also have a good understanding of the film-making process which makes it virtually impossible to take on board everything we see in a film. We understand, to some extent, what goes on behind the scenes and so levitate ourselves from the passive position we have been branded as having.
Professionals who work with children are often also quick to criticise the influence of violence on screen. Play development Officer Joanne feels that a combination of violent media exposure definitely has a negative effect on children and agrees with Bandura’s theory, to a certain extent, that watching heroes act out violence will influence children: “you know, children, they want to be like their heroes so they will copy the behaviour that they see their heroes doing... you hear of some of these crimes with samurai swords and things and that is definitely down to, sort of, scenes they’re watching on the telly so, yeah I think it is down to heroes and media and TV.”
Critics argue that viewing too much violence can cause people to be de-sensitised to real-life crimes but, Joanne raises a valid point about the theory: “I think a lot of streets in Britain today do have violence and kids are hanging around in gangs, so I do think those children are de-sensitised but, then other children, who may watch perhaps a violent movie, because of their family values and where they’re being brought up, I don’t think they are de-sensitised, so I really do think it is about a number of factors.”
Violent films are often blamed for supposed ‘copy-cat’ crimes. The murder of James Bulger in 1993 caused a stir as the film, ‘Child’s Play 3’ about Chucky the evil, possessed doll was blamed for the behaviour of the two boys that kidnapped James. Allegations were made that the murder resembled a scene from the film and it was assumed that because one of the boy’s fathers had recently rented the film, the boys must have watched it. However, it was later revealed that the boys hadn’t seen it and they didn’t even like horror films. So, ‘Child’s Play 3’ was off the hook despite tabloid newspaper, The Sun, launching a campaign to burn the ‘video nasties’.
As someone who works with children, Joanne doesn’t necessarily think that film violence causes copy-cat crimes: “I think children need to know the difference between right and wrong and, you know, I just think it’s just an excuse for their behaviour.”
A major issue with children viewing film violence is perhaps not the content of the film, which is obviously intended for an older audience but, the fact that these children are unsupervised and are gaining access to the aggressive content. When conducting my own research on the matter, I surveyed children on the types of films they are watching and was shocked to find that at ages 8-16, they had seen films like ‘The Exorcist’, ‘Saw’ and ‘The Boogeyman’, which are all intended for an older demographic.
Joanne has had first hand experience with this kind of situation: “I’ve also found that in the play centres I’ve worked with children aged 5 to 14 years but, if we had a film night, I can say that I’ve never seen an under 18 film come onto the play centre, they all just wanted the over 18s, particularly violence, which of course we could never play and yet these are children aged 5 to 14.”
A lot of the time, children are left unsupervised to view such content, meaning that they have no one to explain it to them and that for me is the real problem. We shouldn’t be blaming the films; certificates are there for a reason and it is a parent’s job to enforce them.
Moving back to violent films in general, we need to consider the creative aspects of them before we accuse film-makers of bombarding us with barbaric images. Let’s take Tarantino’s Pulp Fiction for example, which is packed with violence and gore pretty much from start to finish. To a critic, this would be damaging and would encourage aggression but, to anyone with a bit of film knowledge or an open mind, it is an innovative and gripping example of post-modern cinema. Pulp Fiction has an unconventional non-linear narrative and presents an ironic mix of violence and humour. It is a perfect example of how violent films shouldn’t be taken at face value. We must remember that violence in films is there to help tell the story and not as a piece of propaganda, it is part of everyday life and so should be able to be translated to the big screen.
Finally, why is film violence suddenly such an issue anyway when violence has been part of our story-telling culture for as far back as we can go? It can be traced right throughout history - from paintings, penny novels and theatre to the Bible and other such religious readings – and so is definitely no new occurrence or phenomenon.
Friday, 14 November 2008
Holiday feature
I was just browsing the net for local news sites when I stumbled upon this piece of writing I did for the South Wales Echo back in March.
It's a short feature about holiday preferences.
Take a look at WalesOnline.
It's a short feature about holiday preferences.
Take a look at WalesOnline.
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)