In this article, we will look at recent film industry developments across various parts of Africa. As well as how the UK has responded to this rise, and how it impacts both audiences and filmmakers.

Africa’s Film Boom

Over the past few decades, the film industries of various African countries have become more prominent. Both locally and on the world stage. Nigeria is recognised as being one of the world’s biggest film industries. With reports saying production numbers are around 2500 films a year. Senegal has seen a revival in international cinematic attention thanks to the work of filmmakers like Mati Diop. Ghana is seeing around 600 films completed each year. Other countries, like South Africa, have thriving film production sectors, while Kenya, Tanzania, Uganda and more have their own unique cinematic footprint. Producing hundreds of local films a year. UNESCO said in 2022 that filmmaking accounts for around $5 billion of GDP across the continent.

The cinema of various African countries has also been prominently spotlighted to English-speaking audiences, thanks to things like Netflix’s investment in and distribution of films from across the continent, high-profile companies like A24 providing distribution deals for certain releases and big film festivals giving space for the work of African filmmakers from various countries. So with so many films being made and so much attention being paid to the continent’s films, why is it still hard for UK audiences to see them?

The UK & African Film

Around 2.9% of the UK population identifies as African in some way. International cinema has also continued to prove itself at the UK box office in recent years. It therefore seems odd that more stories made by various African countries are not widely screened across the country. Additionally, although films made across Africa have a presence on UK streaming sites, the selection is often limited. Popular services like BBC iPlayer, All4 and ITVX either make titles hard to find or have little to no titles at all. 

Critics have noted that the reason for this is the entrenched racism of Western film industries. As seen in the UK, this can manifest in many ways. Some distributors won’t show films produced in Africa at all, whether conscious or not, the result is the same. Exhibitors can also limit screenings of African films to only a few titles. Contributing to a flattened image of Africa rather than showcasing the continent’s diversity. Additionally, many distributors often select films that play well to a global audience to maximise profit. Meaning cultural specificity is lost. This can also result in filmmakers reducing a film’s cultural identity to appeal to distributors.

All this results in a limited number of films made throughout Africa reaching potential audiences in the UK. This leads to African filmmakers and diaspora audiences being isolated from the industry, with filmmakers not allowed to assert their identity as part of the global community, and diaspora audiences are unable to connect with stories related to their culture and history. To say nothing of the harm that can arise when cultures are misunderstood and misrepresented.

More Must Be Done 

Considering that, according to people like Carmen Thompson of Aya Films, “the demand is definitely there and the content is being made,” more needs to be done to pressure distributors and exhibitors to show films made in Africa to diaspora audiences in the UK.

However, if this era of rising awareness has taught us anything, it’s that media corporations and UK exhibition structures can’t be trusted to make this change on their own. To ensure fairer showcasing of films made in Africa, cooperation rather than profit needs to be the central motivating factor. Many community-led initiatives have been bringing films from Africa to the diaspora and beyond for years. Support for these initiatives and new ones that prioritise the development and distribution of African films must be intensified to showcase the reach these films have. At the same time, power must be kept with the filmmakers to allow their stories to be told how they want.

The post Africa on Screen, Britain in the Audience: Is the UK Still Missing the Pan-African Wave? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Shrinking & Growing

The streaming market is huge. According to Uswitch, over two-thirds of UK households have access to an SVoD service. On average, according to Barclays, customers spend £175 a year on film and TV subscriptions. Netflix is the most popular streaming service. Prime Video, Disney+, Apple TV+, Now TV and BBC iPlayer also have a big reach, with many smaller services also available. Many of these services have access to a sizable library of content. However, this era of streaming has its problems.

Customers now have to pay more for ad-free viewing, which used to be the standard streaming experience. To watch Netflix without ads now costs £12.99 a month, up from £9.99 in 2021. Studios have also increasingly gated off content for their own streaming services, requiring audiences to pay for multiple subscriptions to access all the content they want. The increasing prioritisation of exclusive content owned by streaming companies (e.g. What’s On Netflix says around 54% of Netflix’s UK content is Netflix Originals) means a less diverse selection for viewers. The crackdown on things like password sharing has also restricted access for customers. Plus, considering the average time spent watching an SVoD service (as of 2023) was 38 minutes a day, with live TV watchtime being almost triple that and social media competing for young people’s attention, streaming is looking less worthwhile for many.

Not Just Numbers

Of course, streaming still offers good things for subscribers. It allows you to watch films from the comfort of your home with accessible features (subtitles and audio description) available on many titles. But watching films at home is a fundamentally different experience from the cinema. For one, it is a much more relaxed affair. This means many viewers will be more willing to do other things while watching a film, e.g. phone browsing. This can take away from narrative immersion. Also, an internet connection is not always guaranteed when watching at home. Meaning a film can change quality, buffer or stop, taking viewers out of the experience. 

Additionally, home cinemas still can’t fully replicate the image and sound quality available in theatres. Informal cinema etiquette also encourages viewers to turn off their communication with the outside world to become fully absorbed in a film with others. Communal joys come with watching films at the cinema too. You can experience a film not only with your friends but also with strangers, and have the satisfaction of sharing an experience that brings you close to others.

Streaming or Screening

So, what should you bear in mind when it comes to saving money on watching films? Firstly, stick with a streaming service you are likely to use most. Streaming services are becoming quite expensive, and it’s easy to rack up a huge bill without using all a subscription has to offer. If you need access to another service, consider moving or using a free trial period rather than having multiple ongoing subscriptions.

When it comes to deciding whether to watch a film in the cinema or at home, research what the film is about. If the film is an emotional drama, it is likely to play just as well in a home setting as it would on the big screen. Meanwhile, horror films benefit from the lack of distraction and higher-quality sound provided by cinemas. Furthermore, sci-fi, fantasy, costume and epic dramas benefit from cinema’s better quality image. Cinema trips are also good for spending time with friends or like-minded people and enhancing the art you are already familiar with.

Film is an art form that can be just as powerful on the small and big screens, but with the associated costs, it’s always worth thinking about what way is best for you to experience it. So make sure to look at the cost value: can you afford it/will you get a good amount of use from it? But also remember to factor in the importance of experience and community to your calculations.

The post Is Streaming Still Worth It? UK Subscription Costs, Attention Spans and the Case for the Big Screen appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

At Home or On The Town?

According to the UK Cinema Association in 2024 (the latest year for which they have data), the average cost of a cinema ticket was around £7.73. The Film Distributors Association also found a comparable average of £7.71 per ticket.

However, while the price may seem affordable when averaged out, the reality of cinema prices is more complicated. For example, ticket prices can fluctuate based on things like the types of seating and the time of your screening. Certain times and dates are more likely to be popular with working audiences, such as weekends. Meaning pricing across cinemas is not necessarily consistent. There are also hidden costs that can come with cinema visits. Including things like food and drink, and transport (private or public). When added onto tickets that can cost anywhere up to nearly £20, depending on region, seating and the type of screening (e.g. 3D), it’s understandable why average audiences may view the cinema as a comparatively expensive activity, especially if they are going by themselves.

Along with that, the UK cost of living increased by 3.8-4.5% (depending on income bracket) in the third quarter of 2025. When we consider the fact that the average house already has broadband (listed by Uswitch as around £26 a month as of January 2025) and streaming (£4.99-£18.99 a month) allows access to a broad range of films at home, cutting out added hidden expenses, it’s easy to see why some audiences might choose to view films from home.

Make It Cheaper

Of course, this data is not intended to dampen the joy of going to the cinema. Few things are as enjoyable as experiencing a great piece of art in a communal setting. However, it’s hard to deny that cinema trips can sometimes be intimidating for people’s wallets. Especially those on lower incomes. So, how can we make going to the cinema cheaper?

From a viewer’s perspective, it’s always worth keeping an eye out for offers. For example, if you already have Amazon Prime, Tesco Clubcard, Aldi Plus or Sky Cinema, you can receive cinema discounts, free tickets or access to offer schemes. Various last-minute schemes can provide cheaper offers. Some of which are listed in the link above. It’s also always worth trying to go in a group. As it means you can split money on things like food and transport. Look into screenings outside of peak times, for example, mid-week and check whether it’s cheaper to book online or in person. Also, while concession purchases help cinemas, bring your own food and drink if finances are stretched.

Meanwhile, beyond permanently reducing prices, here are some suggestions cinema chains should consider to entice viewers to come more often. Things like offering ticket or food discounts or waiving fees on the purchase of multiple tickets would help attract bigger groups. Offering discounts, like those trialled by the BFI, or schemes for those who are low earners or on universal credit, would also help make the cinema experience more accessible. Even things like discounting parking could help make a night out at the cinema seem less taxing.

That’s Not All Folks

Since the pandemic, cinema attendance has been struggling to return to pre-pandemic figures. Action needs to be taken to bring people back. Cinemas need to have variety and a sense of community. But above all, it needs to be affordable for audiences to keep coming.

The post Cinema vs Streaming in the Cost-of-Living Era: Why Filmgoing Feels Pricier Than It Looks appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Nicholas Hoult

Hoult was a child star, performing in About A Boy, but Tony Stonem introduced him to a whole new audience. He demonstrated great range and showed he could shine in both an ensemble cast and in the spotlight. He was nominated for a Golden Nymph award for his role. After Skins, he worked on many acclaimed projects. Including TV series The Great, Mad Max: Fury Road, X-Men: First Class, Nosferatu (2024) and Superman (2025).

Dev Patel

Like many of his castmates, Dev Patel had little industry experience when he started working on Skins. However, his funny and relatable performance as Anwar Kharral resulted in his eventual casting in the Oscar-winning Slumdog Millionaire. Since then, despite admitted rough periods, he has appeared in critically acclaimed films like Lion (which earned him an Oscar nomination), The Personal History of David Copperfield, The Green Knight and he produced, wrote, directed and starred in the incredible Monkey Man.

Kaya Scodelario

Effy, Tony’s sister and centre of Skins’ second generation. Scodelario’s talent earned her a Golden Nymph nomination and film work. From 2009-2011, she performed in Moon, Clash of the Titans (2011) and Andrea Arnold’s Wuthering Heights. Later, she starred in tentpole releases like the Maze Runner series and Pirates of the Caribbean: Dead Men Tell No Tales and led the minor hit Crawl. While not garnering as much recognition as her former costars, she has still succeeded with audiences thanks to the likes of Netflix’s The Gentlemen.

Daniel Kaluuya

Arguably, Skins’ best actor. Daniel Kaluuya’s Posh Kenneth marked the start of his pre-stardom work. This period saw work in projects like Doctor Who, Kick Ass 2 and crucially Black Mirror: Fifteen Million Merits. This standout performance caught Jordan Peele’s attention. He was then cast in Get Out (earning him an Oscar nomination), and his career shot into the stratosphere. He was later part of acclaimed casts for Black Panther, Widows and Spider-Man: Across the Spider-Verse. Additionally, he received awards attention for his performances in Nope, Queen and Slim and Judas and The Black Messiah (winning him an Oscar).

Jack O’Connell

This is England, Eden Lake and his revelatory turn as James Cook established Jack O’Connell’s talent for playing troubled people in harsh circumstances. See his Starred Up, ‘71 and Unbroken roles. In 2015, he won BAFTA’s Rising Star award; however, 2025 saw O’Connell’s star truly ascend. He returned with the second season of the acclaimed SAS: Rogue Heroes. He had an eye-catching part in 28 Years Later, and he wowed as Remmick in smash hit Sinners. 

Building Skins

According to co-creator Bryan Elsley, the show’s inspiration came mainly from his son Jamie Brittain. Wanting to see a more realistic teen drama than the popular American imports, Brittain called Elsley’s current show pitches “boring, middle-class, middle-aged rubbish” and told him to make a meaningful show focused on teenagers. Working together, they created the idea for Skins, which E4 then commissioned. 

For casting, the creators went to young drama groups as well as holding open auditions to get actual teens involved. They also enlisted Brittain’s flatmates and other teens (Daniel Kaluuya later among them) to write and advise on scripts to ensure the characters acted like real teenagers. This, along with a lack of pressure from above, allowed the show to create a more authentic depiction of teenage life, with little moralising on topics like sex, drinking and drugs.

That said, the production did have problems. Actors April Pearson and Laya Lewis said they weren’t given enough safeguarding or coaching when filming intimate scenes. They also said several women stars were reportedly subject to controlling behaviour regarding their bodies by the show staff. Something Channel 4 and Elsley’s representatives were forced to address.

Conclusion

Skins was a generational touchstone and catapulted many talented actors into the A-list. It showcased young people’s creative capabilities, but also the dangers of a lax attitude towards the duty of care. Skins shows us that teenagers deserve platforms that foster their creativity in a way that foregrounds their voices and safety.

The post Skins: A Generation of Stars and the Behind-the-Scenes Story appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Fandoms: The Loud Partners

Fandoms have often helped to keep TV franchises going. It was through fan work that properties like Star Trek, Sense8, Firefly and more were able to continue beyond their initial runs. Fandoms have also continually brought interest to older shows. See how fans continue to drive interest in properties like The Golden Girls. That said, in the streaming age, fandoms are now much more valuable.

There are so many streaming services competing for viewers’ attention, and many people have complained about a lack of adequate promotion for streaming releases. Viewers’ attention is therefore often skewed in favour of shows that already have marketability. For example, they have a big star or creator attached or are part of a recognisable franchise. The only way to ensure a lesser-known property is renewed is through popular support.

In 2016, Stranger Things became one of Netflix’s biggest properties thanks to word of mouth and social media. Enabling it to gain a huge audience. Since then, media companies have recognised the huge potential of social media to provide them with viewers. A 2025 Deloitte report said 56% of surveyed young people were more likely to watch something if it was discussed on social media. 53% favored recommendations from social media over other forms of marketing. Meaning social media is a site of great interest for companies seeking to engage younger audiences with their projects. Especially since it’s a great way to tap into fan labour.

Labour & Visibility

Some argue that fans creating things for their favourite show is not labour. It is just something done for fun. However, the mindset doesn’t change the fact that fans are using their time to create things that ultimately act as marketing. Which benefits companies by helping them retain and grow their potential customer base. It also betrays a lack of value placed on the work that fans create. Industry workers are rightly paid to write reviews, create art, videos, spinoff stories and more and organise screenings for influencers who will advertise projects. Why should fans doing the same thing through social media not be considered actual work?

It also can’t be discounted that many marginalised audiences (people of colour, women and queer people) contribute greatly to the success of industry projects through various means. Providing different perspectives and a wealth of creations that amplify and enrich the experiences of many projects. Despite the industry itself consistently failing to fairly represent these audiences across the creative process. 

Fandoms help aid the development of both creative people and the creative industry. But, as is the case with unpaid internships, the industry will happily accept the work of those wanting to contribute to it without compensating them for their labour. Which is unacceptable.

Never Do It for Free

Especially when media companies are looking to influence people through social media investment, fans should be entitled to some kind of recompense for helping to promote a project. Though that brings up the argument of authenticity. After all, many people trust fans on social media because they think of them as authentic. Something that can be damaged if people believe creators are only promoting something for a company’s attention.

One base-level industry practice should be for fans to be able to monetise their content without interference from streaming companies. Allowing them to earn something for their efforts. Additionally, if a production is renewed or proven to be successful through ratings, merchandising, etc., things like official creator endorsements, a stake in profits, wider publicisation of work, etc., should be considered for fans who helped drive interest in the property. Another idea could be to have an industry body, funded by profits from streaming giants operating in a given country, that pays fans based on the level of effort they put into fostering fan communities.

These are merely suggestions, but whatever the case, fans deserve some form of payment. The industry isn’t shy about profiting from their work, so they shouldn’t be either.

The post Fans As Workers: The Unpaid Work of Keeping Cult TV Alive appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

We are looking at the 2025 box office to see what the genre’s performance tells us about audiences and the industry. As well as what opportunities are being presented for other films.

The Year Of Change For Superheroes?

The main topic of discussion this year is the lack of high-performing superhero movies. This is the first time since 2017 (excluding 2020) that a superhero movie hasn’t been in the top 5. Additionally, the top performer is not a Marvel film but DC’s new Superman reboot.

Marvel’s usual dominance has been completely shattered. Both their newer titles (Fantastic 4: First Steps and Thunderbolts*) and their returning branding (Captain America: Brave New World) failed to crack the top 10. Something that hasn’t happened (excluding 2020) since 2011. Analysts have mentioned superhero fatigue before, but this is the first year the box office seems to reflect it.

Up and Comers

Outside of the superhero bubble, this is also the first time since 2020 that we have had two top 10 performers not in the English language from more than one country. Ne Zha 2 (China) and Demon Slayer: Kimetsu no Yaiba- The Movie – Infinity Castle (Japan).

Video game adaptations continued to do well. A Minecraft Movie is 2025’s third-highest-grosser at the time of writing. Horror also performed well. Of the year’s 20 highest-grossers, 4 were horror films. And while many of the biggest films are still sequels or films using existing IP to bolster their performance, Sinners and Weapons, 2 original films, made it into the top 20.

What This Means

Superheroes are far from being done. Superman’s success proves that, and as Kofi Outlaw points out, Marvel could recover its top position with the next slate of big brand titles, Spiderman: Brand New Day, Avengers: Doomsday, and Avengers: Secret Wars. However, this year proves Marvel’s name isn’t a guarantee of dominance anymore. The MCU films mentioned above are part of franchises that are between 8 and 13 years old. Marvel can’t rely on dedicated fans to sustain them forever. Superman’s reboot managed to capture a younger audience and DC’s diverse upcoming release portfolio covers a range of interests and age groups. If Marvel wants to succeed in the future, to justify those huge budgets, it must get younger audiences invested in the next saga project. Not just those familiar with the MCU. But even then, superheroes are seeing competition from other areas.

The top 20’s 4 horror movies each cost around or below $100 million, and took between $268 – 494 million worldwide. A market still clearly exists for mid-budget films. These films also included the year’s two highest-performing original films. Showing that when well-marketed and written, audiences will go to see new ideas.

Similarly, Demon Slayer, on a $20 million budget, claimed over $760 million. Over $520 million came from territories outside of Japan. Also, while Ne Zha 2 primarily made money in China (over $1.8 billion on an $80 million budget), it still made almost $40 million in other territories. According to Think China, it is the 10th highest overseas takings for a Chinese film. It could have made more if it weren’t for distribution challenges. Again proving, given an outlet, international cinema can be popular. 

Lastly, video game movies are having a resurgence. After the success of the Sonic the Hedgehog trilogy and The Super Mario Bros Movie, A Minecraft Movie captured family audiences and made almost a billion dollars. Thus, studios are preparing a slate of video game adaptations. Including Return To Silent Hill (Cineverse), Mortal Kombat 2 (Warner Bros), Super Mario Bros Galaxy (Illumination) and The Legend of Zelda (Sony).

Conclusion

Competition for the top is definitely getting more diverse. Among the constant non-comic book sequels, Disney animations and remakes, DC’s newfound strength will hopefully encourage Marvel to get less insular to keep audiences interested. Video game movies are also coming out to play; mid-budget horror and international releases have proven capable of reaching great heights, given the chance, and even original IP has a crack at the top. It’s definitely an interesting time to be going to the movies.

The post From Demon Slayer to Minecraft: The 2025 Box Office Shift Beyond Superheroes appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Breaking In

Hip-hop and rap began life in the early 70s in predominantly working-class black communities in the Bronx, New York. DJ Kool Herc is credited with the genre’s creation through using turntable techniques to extend percussive breaks. The musical techniques and sound associated with the genre would continue to evolve and change with time. His collaborator, Coke La Rock, rapped over the breaks. Many party attendees also performed what is now called breakdancing. From there, the music became a popular live feature at parties. In 1979, the first recorded and widely circulated hip-hop tracks emerged, with songs like Sugarhill Gang’s Rapper’s Delight.

Despite starting as party music and vehicles for an artist’s skills, Hip-hop also spoke about social and political issues. Namely, racism, class, police brutality, and it humanised people painted as criminals.

Cinema began intersecting with hip-hop and rap in the early ’80s with films like Wild Style and Style Wars. This focused on another artistic expression associated with the movement, graffiti. Through documentary (Style Wars) and the combination of live performances and scripted narrative (Wild Style), these films acted as documents of the environment that produced hip-hop. As well as the genre’s early music and style. 

Taking Over

As the 80s went on, hip-hop spread across the world. In the US, artists like LL Cool J and groups like Run-DMC topped the charts. Additionally, MTV eventually began programming shows devoted to the genre. Hip-hop was popular, and film producers took notice.

The film Breakin made over $38 million on a $1.2 million budget. Beat Street and Krush Groove enabled directors Stan Lathan and Michael Schultz to showcase their perspective on the genre to a wider audience, and Run-DMC had their own star vehicle in 1988’s Tougher Than Leather. At the same time, hip-hop songs were being used to market blockbusters. See The Fat Boys’ Are You Ready For Freddy marketing A Nightmare on Elm Street 4: The Dream Master.

Then, in 1989, Do the Right Thing came out. Spike Lee’s film is steeped in hip-hop style, music and politics. It discusses topics like racism in working-class communities and police brutality. Features noticeable use of graffiti and makes heavy use (diegetic and thematic) of Public Enemy’s Fight the Power. It succeeded commercially and critically. Proving that hip-hop and film could be powerful partners.

Culture And Industry

Since the 90s, hip-hop, rap and cinema have become inseparable. Genre stars, including Tupac Shakur (Juice), Ice Cube (Boyz N the Hood), Queen Latifah (Set It Off) and Will Smith (Men in Black) and more, headlined acclaimed movies. The genre was part of the DNA of New Black Realism and informed modern world cinema. See films like La Haine (France), Kneecap (Ireland), Mogul Mowgli (UK) and the films of Ryan Coogler and many others. Hits like Straight Outta Compton dramatised hip-hop group N.W.A’s story. Meanwhile, the Spider-Verse films feature hip-hop heavily as part of Miles’ world. Artists like Eminem, Three 6 Mafia and Frayser Boy and Common have won Oscars. Kendrick Lamar’s work on the Black Panther soundtrack was also nominated and marked as the start of a new renaissance for movie soundtracks. Hip-hop and rap music are also commonplace within film marketing. 

This is just scratching the surface of the immense impact of hip-hop and rap on cinema. Yet despite all this, the genre’s main architects and audience, black Americans, are still underserved by Hollywood. Roles for black artists, in front of and behind the camera, are still disproportionately low in the US. The executives making the bulk of the money from the artists’ work are still overwhelmingly white, and little is being done by mainstream cinema to achieve hip-hop’s more radical goals. Hollywood will use rap and hip-hop to sell tickets, but will also happily discard artists when convenient. Still, for all the corporate attempts at co-option, there are still earnest uses of the music to give voice and enjoyment to the unseen and downtrodden. That is when cinema truly embodies hip-hop’s spirit.

The post Hip-Hop Hollywood: 50 Years of Rap’s Influence on Film appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

To accomplish this, I will try to pick actors who are not yet huge stars, though some may have high-profile credits. Just to avoid this being a star-studded fan casting. Plus, the players will be in their mid-20s to early 30s. Like the original cast when they started.

Monica – Hari Nef

Throughout her relatively small career, Hari Nef has showcased many of Monica’s key qualities. Her role in Barbie demonstrated her comedic talent and her caring nature. Additionally, Assassination Nation platformed her more cutting wit as well as a vulnerable side that could be well utilised for Monica’s insecurities. Also, given that she stands out and plays well as part of an ensemble cast in both projects, it’s undeniable that Hari would make a great pick for the Friends’ mother figure.

Chandler – Jacob Batalon

Could there be a more perfect modern embodiment of Chandler Bing than Jacob Batalon? His turn as Ned in the MCU Spider-Man films shows that he can do pretty much any type of comedy you can throw at him. He is pitch-perfect as the funny, loyal best friend archetype. Coupled with this, his sweet small-scale courtship with Angourie Rice’s Betty Brant in Far From Home provides a great basis for him to build on with Chandler and Monica’s relationship storyline.

Phoebe – Geraldine Viswanathan

Phoebe Buffay wears her heart on her sleeve. She is also unpredictable, with a sarcastic, sometimes dark sense of humour. Geraldine Viswanathan can nail sarcasm and emotionally honest moments. Her underappreciated work in Drive Away Dolls proves it. Meanwhile, Miracle Workers: End Times gets many big laughs from her delivery of dark punchlines. Seriously, imagine Phoebe in a post-apocalypse scenario. You will end up with something like Geraldine’s performance in Miracle Workers: End Times.

Joey – Jacob Elordi

You see, Joey Tribbiani is an actor, he’s also charming, a devoted friend, and one of TV’s most beloved himbos. Who else could pull that off? Well, as Saltburn‘s Felix is a charming himbo who defends someone he considers a friend, and other projects like Priscilla and Euphoria indicate he can play a variety of roles, which he could utilise for Joey’s acting projects, Jacob Elordi would be fantastic as the jobbing actor.

Rachel – Aimee Lou Wood

Initially sheltered and naive, Rachel Green rises to have her own career while maintaining a welcoming personality. She is Friends’ most well-known character. If there is any equivalent that instantly comes to mind, it’s Aimee Lou Wood’s Aimee from Sex Education. Aimee also has a privileged background and appears naive at first, but she also goes through a lot of development and keeps a sense of warmth throughout. Plus, Aimee is really funny, having won a BAFTA for her performance. Which is a big deal.

Ross – David Corenswet

Yes, the new Superman would make a fantastic Ross Geller. He can play both the charming and darker aspects needed for Ross’ love life, see his Projectionist performance in Pearl. The sense of humour that saves Ross from being a repulsive presence is also on full display in his interviews. The dedication to acting we see in his role as Hollywood‘s Jack means he can also pull off Ross’s passion for Palaeontology. 

So ends our look at who we would cast in the iconic Friends roles in 2025. Who would you pick for these beloved parts?

The post Casting Friends in 2025 appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

In this article, we look at how TV horror has managed to hook modern viewers. Analysing how the storytelling techniques and content have changed.

Serial Horror Can Work

TV horror has been steadily challenging its established structures for a while. Twin Peaks focused on the long-running, intersecting, surreal and often horrific mysteries and characters connected to the death of Laura Palmer. Now modern shows like American Horror Story choose a new horror genre to explore for each new season’s arc. Meanwhile, The Walking Dead, Yellowjackets, Hannibal, The Last of Us and more unfurl their horrific stories across multiple continuing seasons.

Many of these series have succeeded with viewers for two reasons. Firstly, they use their length and scope to explore a diverse array of characters and the worlds they inhabit in more expansive ways than a standard horror film allows. Plus, the expanded time spent in these characters’ worlds and company builds a sense of temporal familiarity that films can’t easily replicate. This allows moments of horror to potentially have a greater impact because of the connection built with the audience.

Secondly, these shows have successfully mapped horror beats onto long-running serialised storytelling. Those made for broadcast TV use the mini-climaxes before advert breaks to keep viewers on edge. Mainly done through character revelations, sudden shocks that leave us wanting a fuller picture or building up suspenseful situations. Steadily, though, more shows are structuring their episodes like movies, focusing more on building atmosphere and mystery throughout the entire episode. Rather than needing to heighten tension every few minutes. Meaning shows can also revel in a slow build. Both formats craft tension in their own unique ways, and both formats usually end with a finale that shocks us enough to want to continue the narrative. Each episode gradually reveals more about the characters, the story and the overall threat. With no true status quo restored until the season’s end, these shows know just what to do to keep TV audiences watching.

Scary & Engaging

It’s not just the unique style of horror storytelling that is drawing people to these shows. With the restrictions of yesteryear no longer constraining what can be shown on cable and streaming, and rising production budgets TV horror is allowed to be more adult. For example, horror shows can now deliver movie-level effects to meet the needs of the story. Adding another level of immersion and entertainment for both general watchers and horror fans.

These shows are also not afraid to tackle big issues such as addiction (The Haunting of Hill House), climate change (The Last of Us), trauma (Yellowjackets) and more. Horror has, of course, always dealt with big themes, but with restrictions no longer watering them down, these stories can be much more confrontational in how they approach the topic. Many audiences gravitate to these shows because of their ability to showcase dark themes in an honest way.

Small Screen Screams Staying

Horror has shown itself fully capable of working in the world of serialised TV. Through its focus on building engaging characters and settings, adapting the beats of horror to the needs of either broadcast and streaming formats, as well as tackling big themes with horrific effects, horror has shown itself to be a truly unstoppable genre. Time truly is no barrier to scares.

The post Prestige TV Horror: Scary Stories Going Serial appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Bombing Runs

Ben Kuchera popularised the term “review bombing” in a 2008 article that discussed backlash to the game Spore having a limited number of installs. This resulted in disappointed gamers leaving negative reviews on sites like Amazon in hopes that bad press would force change. 

Since then, review bombing has become synonymous with a particular type of response to films and TV shows. This is where rating sites like IMDb and Rotten Tomatoes are flooded with negative reviews. They can be used in both sporadic and highly organised fashions. They sometimes happen before projects are even officially released, and are reactionary in their content. For example, see reactions to Ghostbusters (2016), Star Wars: Episode VIII: The Last Jedi, The Little Mermaid (2023), Snow White (2025) and even films like The Promise.

Entitlement and Identity

Many of these reactionary campaigns focus on popular/big-budget action-adventure-oriented media. Using them as vehicles to attack perspectives that have been historically marginalised within cinema. Such as those of women, people of colour, LGBT+ people and those who suffered under imperialism. There are, of course, many blockbuster films that focus on marginalised perspectives and also have political messages. So why are only particular films bombed? 

Essentially, the targets are often chosen because they are new big releases that deviate from a historical “norm” that certain insular in-groups hold as important. Whether it be pre-existing media or historical narratives. A “norm” which didn’t include certain evidence and perspectives because of historical, cultural and political biases. As a result, these in-groups are resistant to addressing social injustice based on historical marginalisation, as it would challenge their view of something crucial to them. Because these projects’ size draws broad attention and deviates from the bomber’s preferred narrative, review bombing is used to assert dominance regarding what stories are told. All done to hold onto a certain high ground. Whether it be through fandom gatekeeping or national pride. This tracks with research suggesting that reactionary sentiment is fostered by the idea that someone’s status of relative privilege may be threatened.

Effects and Response

While studios often ignore review bombing campaigns, many workers and fans, particularly those who are marginalised, can be made to feel unwelcome or can be driven out of fandoms and the industry through the hateful atmosphere they perpetuate. Plus studios are more than happy to abandon social consciousness to make more money if pressure becomes too much. This serves only to embolden the hatemongers and drive away marginalised people. Thus, measures are needed to dilute potential harm.

Both Rotten Tomatoes and IMDb have tried to mitigate the impact through differing measures. IMDb introduced weighted average ratings and a warning label for when it detects unusual voting activity. RT, meanwhile, has a verification system for audience film ratings that requires proof of ticket purchase to be verified. They then allow people to see the difference between raw audience scores and verified ones. Additionally, they limit reviews until the project’s official release date. These approaches have merits but also their own problems. RT’s measures emphasise cinema runs over other distribution methods, and have implemented nothing for TV ratings. IMDb’s approach, meanwhile, is very poorly signposted. Plus, allowing for ratings to take place after one public screening is ripe for abuse.

Something like an improved version of RT’s system is probably one of the best methods to combat the bomber’s impact. It showcases the difference between potential review bombers and those who care enough to be verified. This, along with better community tools to flag potential troll activity, perhaps requiring written contributions for reviews to be accepted and allowing more time after a project is released to verify activity, could help. Ultimately, a comprehensive system transformation is needed to combat this hateful rhetoric.

The post Fan Rage: What Review Bombs Tell Us About Fan Entitlement appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today, we will look at the stories that are giving physical media enthusiasts a lot of pleasure. We will also analyse why hard discs still hold appeal for audiences. Along with what it could mean for the future entertainment landscape.

Physical Media’s Comeback?

In 2024, Phil Halliday, HMV’s Managing Director, said that the retailer saw visual media sales increase by 5% in 2024’s first quarter, with “4K and Blu-Ray…doing particularly well”. A big deal for a store chain that entered administration twice in the 2010s. Those figures for 4K and Blu-rays proved prophetic of the entire year. The Digital Entertainment Retail Association later reported that 4K and Blu-ray sales had increased from 2023-2024. Blu-ray sales totalled around £81.6 million, with 4K titles bringing in £31.5 million.

Additionally, news like the selling out of Oppenheimer’s 4K release at many major retailers, the continual rise in prominence of high quality physical releases from boutique blu-ray labels such as Arrow Video, Second Sight Entertainment, Radiance Films, 88 Films, Second Run and more, which offer high quality releases of obscure and well-known titles, all packed with extras that provide more insight into the films and who made them, and the physical disc market making £160.8 million (including through rentals), shows that physical media still holds some sway with entertainment lovers.

What is Driving It?

While big streaming platforms still dominate home viewing, there are many reasons physical media remains attractive. Firstly, many titles simply aren’t available on streaming sites. This is especially true when it comes to older, obscure cult films and international releases. So, if an online platform can’t provide, many physical media companies are more than happy to pick up the slack.

Secondly, it provides a sense of security. With rights constantly changing hands, some titles vanishing altogether, film companies gating off their own content for their own platforms, and prices rising for both subscriptions and internet access, access to something is never certain in the streaming age. Some companies, like Disney, even alter projects without making the original version accessible online. Having a hard copy means viewers can always access their favourite properties after one payment, with no danger of them being altered or recalled.

Thirdly, the inclusion of extra materials in physical releases (especially from boutique labels), like commentary tracks, behind-the-scenes documentaries, outtakes, short films and more helps to provide not only more value for money but also gives audiences a much deeper appreciation of the work that goes into making media. Rather than allowing titles to just be seen as content.

Lastly, the disc experience guarantees high quality. Unfortunately, internet connections are still not constant. Many homes have spotty connections, which can lead to constant buffering, quality drops and cut-offs when streaming. There are also many people who still don’t have household internet access (around 2.8 million in the UK alone). Along with this, several big streaming services have now introduced adverts to their platforms, which intrude on the viewing experience. By contrast, barring disc scratches, watching something on a disc means consistent quality with no possibility for interruptions. 

Here To Stay Or Gone Tomorrow?

It’s hard to see streaming losing its market dominance anytime soon. Especially with how streaming services offer convenient access to such a wide variety of work.

However, with all the problems mentioned above, physical media will likely remain a fixture for viewers wanting to access the most artistically satisfying and best quality experience of something they love or can’t access elsewhere.

Physical media may not be able to reclaim its glory days, but as the vinyl revival proves, having a lovingly curated physical version of a beloved piece of art is something that entertainment lovers will always value.

The post Long Live Physical Media: A Rebellion in a Streaming World appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

YouTube

Perhaps the first option that everyone will think of. YouTube, as a platform, attracts a great number of short filmmakers because of its global reach and popularity. Although the YouTube algorithm is more geared towards headline-grabbing content, meaning short films are unlikely to be initially recommended to users, the platform’s ubiquity means audiences are most likely to discover short films by using YouTube. 

Vimeo

Despite in some ways being quite similar to YouTube, Vimeo has done a lot to differentiate itself, particularly by appealing to filmmakers. One point against Vimeo is that to get the most out of the platform (including access to its best tools and more video upload space), filmmakers must pay for subscription plans. However, Vimeo also offers higher-quality video output, along with more customisation and privacy options for filmmakers to utilise branding and protect their work. The site is also more specifically focused on courting a viewer base interested in short films. For example, the platform has partnered with the European Film Academy. In doing so, it created a curated collection of high-quality shorts for viewers to watch. It’s a platform that is more centred on filmmaking than general video content.

Klipist

Essentially, Klipist is the Netflix of short films. The site has a good library of modern shorts that viewers can watch for free without adverts. Klipist also allows filmmakers to submit their projects to the service. In addition, links on each film’s page allow viewers to learn more about the film’s production and crew. The asking price for submissions of shorts is fairly steep. But, as a platform intended to foreground the prestige that short films are capable of and encourage viewers to learn more about the people making them, it is quite a good resource for short filmmakers.

Filmd

This platform is probably the most unique of all the resources listed here. Acting as a platform for film workers to interact with each other and seek out job opportunities, Filmd also allows film workers to upload their work. Through its Screening Room feature, other workers are encouraged to watch and provide feedback on a library of primarily short films. Again, subscription fees prevent the full utilisation of the platform for smaller creators. That said, it has the potential to be a great tool for encouraging artistic development, especially for those making shorts.

Streaming Platforms

Beyond platforms that are useful for both uploading and watching short films, they have become a much more accepted presence on streaming services in recent years. Among the major streaming platforms, MUBI and BBC iPlayer are likely the most underappreciated. Both provide a great space for short films to be considered alongside features. With a great variety and quantity of films available on their platforms.

These are merely a few resources that demonstrate the greatness of short films and encourage short filmmakers to showcase their work. If you take anything away from this article, let it be this: the world of short films is as vast and rich as longer-form movies. It deserves to be appreciated and nurtured just as much.

The post Great Homes For Short Films appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Sinners

As I write this, Sinners is 2025’s highest-grossing original film. It’s also written and directed by Ryan Coogler, one of Hollywood’s most revered and popular recent directors. That said, being popular doesn’t stop Sinners from being a cult film in the making. Like many cult films, Sinners constantly shakes things up with different genre elements. One minute it’s a 1930s gangster story crossed with a fun hangout movie, the next it’s a full-blooded horror film. All while peppering in a cast of brilliant characters, songs and musical numbers, and deep thematic topics. Such as cultural legacy, appropriation, ingrained power structures and America’s racism. Modern big-budget films are rarely this audacious. Considering Sinners’ success seemingly has studios spooked, we may not see another huge film this unique for a while. That’s why this film is destined for cult stardom. It’s too special and significant not to inspire a legion of fans.

I Saw the TV Glow 

Many cult films also speak to marginalised experiences, particularly LGBTQ+ audiences. This is where I Saw The TV Glow slots in. Its discussion of how media provides great outlets for young people to express themselves, along with its difficult but important discussion of how hard it is to break free from an identity that society expects of you and that you have internalised, holds particular resonance for trans audiences. Plus, it’s framing through a lens of 90s and early 2000s nostalgic memory and heavy psychological horror gives I Saw The TV Glow a distinct style and feeling. These elements and the film’s bittersweet message at such a horrendous time for trans people will ensure a devoted following.

Polite Society

Smaller action films are also prime targets for cult status, especially if they have an instantly iconic main character. Polite Society centres on Ria, a British-Pakistani teenager aiming to become a stunt performer. When her beloved sister, aspiring artist Lena, unexpectedly gets engaged, Ria tries to sabotage their relationship. Slowly, she discovers a dark plot involving cloning that will require all her skills to overcome. A loving ode to sisterly love, with two fantastic central characters, that surreally mixes martial arts and sci-fi trappings into a grounded family drama, Polite Society has all the right ingredients to become a fixture of playground conversations for a new generation of off-kilter action fans.

The Tales From Pandora’s Box Series 

Another proud cult film category is the so bad it’s good film. Tales From Pandora’s Box is a horror and sci-fi anthology trilogy with the same charm as The Room. The filmmaker clearly had big ideas for the stories, but a lack of budget and no care given to film production basics make the final products feel incredibly amateur. When the films feature an astounding amount of out-of-place nudity, hilariously bad dialogue, use of still images to transition between stories, the same actors popping up again and again, Windows Movie Maker transitions, and more, it’s impossible not to laugh a little. These films could definitely become Halloween roasting rituals for drunken friends.

Stopmotion

Cult films are also known for how they experiment with cinema as a medium. Stopmotion’s blend of live-action and animation is an unnervingly impressive reminder of how great smaller-budget genre films can be. Additionally, it has some hard-to-watch effects work, a layered story about the creative process and Aisling Franciosi’s outstandingly raw lead performance. While Stopmotion should be held in higher regard, it will undoubtedly become a future cult favourite.

The post Five Recent Films Poised to Become Future Cult Classics appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

In this article, we will examine what his administration has done to roll back protections for marginalised people. We will also unpack what these actions could mean for the entertainment industry and its workers.

Eroding Work Protections

In January, Trump signed three executive orders. These orders mainly focused on rolling back Diversity, Equity and Inclusion programmes. Along with affirmative action and protections for trans people. High, Jordan and Ostrager note that though the orders were aimed mainly at federal agencies, they instruct agencies to make “reports identifying…private sector companies with the most ‘egregious and discriminatory’ DEI programs.” Along with “potential civil compliance investigations of publicly traded corporations and large non-profits.” Meaning they will have wide-reaching effects.

What This Means

These orders are meant to send the message that measures being taken to protect and cultivate better working environments for marginalised people and address systemic hiring biases that often disadvantages people who are marginalised because of, “their race, colour, religion, sex, sexual orientation, gender identity, or national origin,” will be vilified by the Trump administration. Companies that voice inclusive policies even face potential legal action. Meaning this is being done to create an intimidating environment for marginalised people. Crucially, although these orders frame themselves as anti-discriminatory, the ACLU says these orders “weaponize civil rights laws’ to reverse decades of progress for women, people of color and for all communities.”

Company-implemented programmes around diversity measures have been criticised for how businesses often use them to whitewash their image over taking concrete steps to address company discrimination. However, they still help many marginalised people. These orders aim to destroy even these small protections that make businesses consider their hiring practices, employees’ talents and well-being.

How Companies Are Responding

Big media companies like Warner Bros Discovery, Paramount, Disney and Amazon have already changed their policies significantly. Amazon excluded a section from a 2024 report that indicated the company was focused on “diversity and inclusion in hiring”. They also said they are “winding down outdated programs and material,” relating to DEI initiatives. Disney is changing its Disney+ content warnings, shifting its “talent strategy” to centre on business outcomes over fostering diversity and inclusion, and closing a website celebrating the contributions of underrepresented voices at the company. Paramount has rolled back its targets to attract more diverse employees and has removed website content speaking to DEI initiatives. WBD are also changing their language to revolve around “inclusion”. In addition, it is making its application process “uniform and consistent”.

Many of these companies are trying to make it clear that they still value diverse perspectives and inclusive environments. That said, these measures, coupled with Amazon creating content around the Trump family and WBD having reportedly had similar suggestions made, Paramount’s potential merger on the way, and Disney pulling content featuring diverse characters, indicate these companies are just trying to garner favour from the Trump administration to protect their financial interests. All while trying to hold onto marginalised audiences and workers, despite capitulating to policies made to make them feel unwelcome.

The Future

We will have to wait and see how these orders affect the whole American film industry, as well as the film industry broadly and if workers and companies will fight these orders. However, these actions also reiterate a dark truth. The film industry has long dragged its feet on improving on-screen and behind-the-scenes representation. Now that high-profile companies have retreated from commitments to diversity and protecting marginalised groups, it has the potential to alienate diverse creatives from the entertainment industry further. Thereby depriving them of a voice within culture and their workplace. Plus, if these companies bow to pressure, the number of productions pandering to the Trump administration will undoubtedly rise over the next few years. Which will serve to normalise its hateful rhetoric. For that, these companies should be ashamed.

The post How Film Studios Are Responding To Donald Trump’s Attack On Diversity, Equity & Inclusion appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Stellar Artistry

It cannot be underestimated how integral the show’s craftsmanship is to its popularity. One of the series’ most awe-inspiring elements is how each episode unfolds in one continuous take. It is an amazing technical feat that provides immediacy to the story. The direction of the camera and the actors, with everything flowing smoothly in real time, gives viewers the sense that they are locked into the narrative until the end. It also instils the feeling that this story’s subject matter should not be turned away from. 

The inability to cut away also means the actors must embody their characters for much longer than expected on TV shows. Thereby making them feel less like constructions for the screen and more like real people.

Where a conventional approach may have made Adolescence seem like just another TV drama, the show’s focus on crafting authenticity and immediacy gives the subjects discussed the weight they deserve.

Pressing Issues

Adolescence has also struck a nerve because it is one of the highest-profile projects to highlight the real-world concerns around online misogyny culture.

The show uses the actual terminology and symbols of misogynistic online circles e.g. the red pill, the 80/20 rule, incels etc. even name dropping Andrew Tate, to make the story feel realistic. It also highlights the gulf between young people and their guardians on this issue. The boys are all immersed in internet culture. They encounter manosphere content just by being online. Several even feel comfortable expressing the manosphere’s sexist attitudes openly. This correlates with studies saying many young people have heard of people like Andrew Tate. With a not insignificant number admitting they agree with his horrendous views. Meanwhile, the adults are always on the back foot. Many are trying to understand something they have little experience with. Even those who understand have trouble combating the message’s impact due to social media’s prevalence. Something many parents and teachers are concerned about. 

And as the show discusses, the unchallenged proliferation of this content can have horrendous consequences. The 2024 Killings of Carol, Hannah and Louise Hunt, the Plymouth 2021 shooting, and the 2014 Isla Vista killings all show how internet misogyny culture can contribute to violence.

It Takes A Village

But what elevates Adolescence is that, beyond highlighting the dehumanising, dangerous misogyny growing online, its effects on young minds and older people’s inexperience with the internet hindering potential help, it shows how other things contribute to Jamie’s radicalisation and his murder of classmate Katie.

Jamie’s parents don’t frequently check in on him, and his dad is often away due to work. Meaning he lacks parental guidance. His school’s staff are stretched to breaking point, causing young people to slip through the cracks. Toxic masculinity is also shown to be fully normalised offline. DI Bascombe is indifferent to guns being pointed in innocent people’s faces, and male teachers shout at kids rather than trying to engage with them. Boys ruthlessly mock or turn away in shame when boys show anything perceived as weakness. As Jamie’s unfortunate football story illustrates. Plus, girls/women are often viewed antagonistically for not letting boys do what they want. Teachers are insulted, and Katie is viewed negatively for rebuffing Jamie.

Systemic and cultural factors also help create an environment where Jamie is made to feel isolated and resentful, particularly towards women. Making him a prime target for online misogynistic indoctrination.

Conclusion

Adolescence is a brilliantly made, thoughtful show that highlights concerns of online misogyny leading to real-life harm in a way that rings true to viewers. However, the creators also know that solutions to this problem are not just down to individuals. Systemic change is also needed.

The post How Netflix Drama ‘Adolescence’ Sparked A Much Needed Debate appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

IP Law

Briefly, IP laws give people and businesses control over creations of the mind used in commerce. Through copyright, trademarks and patents, among other things, they enable creators and rights holders to be compensated for their work if stolen or licensed out. 

Of course, IP law is not perfect. Often, big companies wield IP law like a sledgehammer to extract as much money as possible. Think of Disney using all its resources to guard its IP despite working from many public domain sources. The contributions of many workers to an IP can often be overlooked and attributed to the business they work for. To say nothing of how the horrendous enforcement of IP law can sometimes serve as a tool to enforce hegemony. See the guarding of medical IP during the pandemic. Additionally, considering most ideas are built on the ideas of others, sometimes IP law can feel restrictive to creators. You could understand someone agreeing with this in a vacuum and all things being equal. 

But that is not the situation we are in. Plus, while these laws may be abused and reform is certainly needed, they are useful to ensure smaller creators’ work is protected and that they are compensated for it.

Money vs Art

So why did Dorsey tweet this? In a later tweet, responding to the dangers of AI, he clarified, “Creativity is what currently separates us, and the current system is limiting that, and putting the payments disbursement into the hands of gatekeepers who aren’t paying out fairly.” This indicates that his main goal for deleting the current system relating to IP laws would be to remove data gathering barriers to allow for more possibilities with AI projects and monetisation. Charitably, you could say he hopes for an equal playing field between people creating IP. However, as someone worth over $3 billion with his own AI venture, it reads like he is saying AI companies shouldn’t be limited by IP restrictions. Including paying to use IP that AI tools use to make their owners’ profits. But how does this relate to art?

Recently, we have seen many stories about AI concerns in the art world. One key concern of the SAG-AFTRA/WGA 2023 strikes was the encroachment of AI on industry jobs. Debates have raged around AI being used in Oscar-nominated films, and everyone saw the AI images imitating Studio Ghibli’s aesthetic. Undoubtedly, to Hayao Miyazaki’s annoyance. But while you can argue about how AI can benefit smaller budget productions, enhance already existing production elements and produce shitposts online these tools will largely be used by big companies to streamline the making of art over anything artisticly valuable. As Jack Dorsey proves, it will be done to maximise profits for those with resources at the expense of creatives. 

Art-ificial 

In the era of Elon Musk, we shouldn’t be surprised when billionaires use social media to try and advance a selfish and harmful agenda. Though their proximity to power is cause for concern. Ultimately, this is just the latest example of how businesses continue to try to devalue art. Seeing it as a money-making venture and little more.

With AI tools becoming more widespread, artists will have to continue to fight for their work to be respected. Some small-scale recommendations include manually removing your work from AI data scraping and being more cautious about posting work online. Larger-scale actions such as workplace and industry union organising to influence company procedures, cultural attitudes and regulations around AI will also be needed moving forward. The future for AI in the arts is uncertain, but art and artists deserve to be seen as more than data to generate material for the profits of billionaires.

The post Twitter Co-Founder Wants to “Delete All IP Law” – How Will Filmmakers and Writers Be Protected in the Age of AI? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today we want to look at the greatest movie heists. But beyond simply talking about why these films are great, we will also rank them by the money/monetary value they got away with.

The Great Train Robbery

It may not have all the hallmarks of later heist movies, such as placing great detail on the planning of the job and the psychology of those involved, but The Great Train Robbery pioneered the heist’s cinematic language. Throwing us right into the action, we watch as robbers meticulously enact a plan to halt a train without the police knowing. We then see the bandits rob the train’s occupants, before escaping and eventually being hunted down. Robbery’s structure formed the basis for all cinematic heists that followed and is still a mandatory watch for cinema buffs. We don’t know the worth of everything robbed from the train. However, it was certainly enough to etch this crime into film history.

Widows

Widows is arguably the best heist film of recent years. It not only uses the genre’s codes and conventions in a well-crafted way, but it also takes time to build up the emotional journeys of the central cast and firmly root us in its world. A place where stealing is not just done by individuals but has been part of American policy throughout history, where people of colour are systemically disadvantaged and threats against women are seen as the cost of business. Then there are the fantastic lead performances from Viola Davis, Michelle Rodriguez, Elizabeth Debicki and Cynthia Erivo as the all-women crew. Their heist brings them $5 million, around £4.9 million today. A modest taking, though definitely one that packs enough punch to make it feel earned.

The Killing

The perfect example of a classic heist film. The Killing has it all. A gang, each with their own specialities, intricately plotting to rob a location of a large sum of money, a spectacular robbery set piece and twists no one planned for. All done with a confident, propulsive energy conveyed through great camerawork, editing and writing. Plus it has one of the best conclusions of any heist movie. The prize here is $2 million or £18 million now. Certainly no laughing matter. 

Rififi

Many heist films showcase the job in a stylised way. With fast cutting, compression of time and music used to amplify the situation’s intensity. Rififi flips these tropes upside down by crafting a heist sequence that lasts for over 20 minutes of screen time. During this time, long takes focus on every detail of the action with no music. Other heist films bask in the thrill of the crime; Rififi makes you feel the tension. All of which results in the team netting jewellery worth ₣240 million. Or roughly £31 million today.

Inception

Movie heists are mostly semi-realistic affairs. Inception uses an immaterial method for material gain. Inception’s heist revolves around implanting an idea into the mind of Robert Fischer, heir to an energy conglomerate. The idea? To break up his father’s company. Thereby allowing his competitor to dominate the market. To do this, the inception team must construct several scenarios in Fischer’s dreams to get him to lower his defences and make him susceptible to the idea. With the top two energy conglomerates at the time reporting revenue of between $275.564 – $278.188 billion (£310 – 312.8 billion now), that’s a lot of money for his competitor to sweep up.

Wallace & Gromit: The Wrong Trousers

Leave it to Wallace and Gromit to show us that even light-hearted heists can still be enthralling. Feathers McGraw’s silently sneaky plan to rob the Blue Diamond using techno-trousers, a claw helmet and a sleeping Wallace to hold it all together all adds up to a thrillingly hilarious ride. Although the actual loot is incidental, the Blue Diamond is said to be incredibly valuable. Some even list it as priceless. Not a bad haul for Feathers.

The post Cinema’s Best Heists (And Their Loot) appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

In this article, we will look at both character’s international reach. Additionally, we will analyse what makes their comedy so appealing worldwide.

Disclaimer

This analysis is not a defence of Charlie Chaplin’s horrendous crimes; it is merely concerned with the impact of his work.

International Reach

Firstly, how do you measure international success? Well, according to the BBC Mr Bean’s TV show was sold in around, “250 foreign territories,” and garnered, “a slew of international awards.” Additionally, the character’s two feature films collectively grossed over $400 million at the international box office. The films did particularly well across Western Europe, the USA, Australia, Japan and Brazil.

International box office numbers are harder to find for Chaplin’s films. That said, according to Chaplin biographer David Robinson his first feature film, The Kid, was shown in over 50 countries. With his profile only growing from there. His films received awards in Finland and Japan. He also has an international presence among artists. Figures like Federico Fellini (Italy), Jacques Tati (France), Jackie Chan (Hong Kong), Andrei Tarkovsky (Russia), Satyajit Ray (India), Idrissa Ouedraogo (Burkina Faso), Emir Kusturica (Bosnia & Herzegovina), Abbas Kiarostami (Iran) and more have praised or been influenced by his work. Thus showcasing his wide reach.

So what attracts audiences to these figures?

Universal Language

The most noticeable answer is their focus on silent physical comedy. Aside from some sparse dialogue both The Tramp and Mr Bean don’t talk. Instead, they rely on facial expressions and body movements to convey personality and the story. Their comedy is also focused more on choreographed slapstick. Audience laughter comes from the character’s exaggerated actions and reactions, the elaborately choreographed situations they find themselves in and the tension felt by audiences seeing more of a comedy setpiece than the characters.

This focus on comedy without words and instead on big displays of emotion and well-timed physical routines allows these figures to cross the language barrier because the focus is on feelings and visual storytelling not on dialogue. Making them more universal.

Relatable

But those qualities can be seen in many silent comedy stars, like Buster Keaton, Harold Lloyd and more. Is there anything unique about The Tramp and Mr Bean? Well, both characters live in relatable worlds. While both characters are played for comedy they also go through situations many of us can relate to. The Tramp is an underdog who comes from poverty. Many people across the world who are underprivileged can relate to the Tramp’s constant struggle to get by. Mr Bean also sources comedy from situations that many of us find familiar. Such as going to the swimming pool and struggling with the high diving platform or being terrified of a horror movie. These situations are relatable to many people across the world which allows us to be more involved with the comedic narrative.

Both are also rather childlike in their demeanour. They wear their emotions openly on their faces in a way that really makes you understand how they are feeling, are often oblivious to adult codes of decorum and conduct and seem to not be aware of the impact their actions might have on the world around them. However importantly their conduct is not done out of pure malice. Both characters feel like they just don’t know any better. Often they both act on impulse with solutions that would only really make sense to a child. They’re both essentially kids in situations everyone knows butting up against the rules of the world. Which is a feeling we all know, regardless of background.

Conclusion

In the end what makes The Tramp and Mr Bean so universal is the fact that they face the same trials as many of us, with an emotional innocence that we all recognise and they speak through their actions instead of words. These elements that speak to all of us are then elevated to the point of absurdity. Allowing us all, regardless of background, to laugh.

The post Comedy Across Cultures: The Universal Appeal of Charlie Chaplin and Mr. Bean appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Global View

When it comes to cinematic influence US Films have a huge reach. Guan et al. attribute this to the English language’s prominence across the world, due to British imperialism, America’s unparalleled attraction of investment, technology and craftspeople, due to its status as the global hegemon and cultural policies that ensure the pushing of Hollywood films into the global market. This huge presence yields great financial rewards and cultural influence. As can be seen with the top grossers at the global box office often being American productions.

Conversely, Chinese films (specifically mainland China’s films) have less global reach despite being a major film market. Largely this is due to Chinese culture and languages not being as widely known across the world as well as the demonisation of China’s politics in Western spaces. Chinese films have instead focused on domestic audiences over global reach. In 2024, 3 Chinese productions made the worldwide box office top 20 based mostly on domestic takings. However, that may soon change. Currently, 2025’s highest-grossing film is the Chinese fantasy Ne Zha 2. Which performed well domestically and grossed over $19 million in America. Putting it in the top 20 highest-grossing films in America.

USA on Film

US films foreground the idea that American values (freedom and democracy, the strength of the individual and humanism) are universal and thereby everyone, regardless of background or identity, can fit into American social and political life. Especially through film. Additionally, because of its technological capabilities, its films place America as the centre of innovation. Even films that critique these values strengthen America’s image as being a place that values freedom of speech.

A good example of this is Mickey 17. The film, made by an international cast and crew, shows concern for the well-being of the majority of lifeforms and values the ability of individuals to affect change. It also uses extensive special effects to realise futuristic technology, alien creatures and new worlds. Even the film’s critiques of capitalism and colonialism, the system that America embodies, and focus on collective action demonstrate America’s willingness to criticise itself. Thereby maintaining its image. 

China on Film

Regarding cultural image Chinese films are often concerned with showing the capabilities of the Chinese film industry with dramatic spectacle aiming to rival Hollywood. China’s films also showcase Chinese history, traditions and cultural attitudes (the importance of family, community and reserved sexuality) to encourage identification with China’s culture, people and political project. Both nationally and worldwide.

You can see these traits exemplified in films like Ne Zha 2. The film is rooted in Chinese mythological stories (Investiture of the Gods), uses designs inspired by traditional Chinese art and focuses on themes such as collective responsibility to stop oppression and is a high-budget visual spectacle aimed at showing that blockbusters aren’t solely the USA’s domain.

New Cold War

With the US continually vilifying China as China increases in prominence tensions are rising between the two nations. Their films in effect function as arms of influence. The US uses films to position itself as a global leader that cares about democracy and people’s welfare worldwide. Thereby positioning anyone the US doesn’t like as an enemy and justifying US aggression. But US governments have carried out many horrifically anti-democratic and violent policies. Including enabling genocide in Palestine and the deportation of migrants without due process.

Meanwhile, China’s government seems to use films to maintain political cohesion by encouraging patriotism in domestic audiences. Internationally, they act as a way of showcasing who the Chinese people are and what their system is capable of. However, this also has harmful pitfalls, as government censorship means that topics such as governmental human rights abuses aren’t touched on.

Ultimately both industries are used by governments for promotional purposes, but China’s filmic soft power is more based on showcasing itself to the world. Whereas America uses film to demonstrate dominance on the world stage.

The post Cinematic Soft Power: How China and the U.S. Use Film to Influence Global Perceptions appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Bureaucracy

One of the main themes of Brazil is how the system’s excessive administration has dehumanised the residents of its world. People are imprisoned and tortured because of faulty information passed through so many departmental layers that no one bothers to check or take responsibility for. The administration then shields itself from consequences because responsibility is obscured at every turn by the administration, which is segmented and deliberately alienating. The system views people as paperwork, numbers, and codes to be shifted around and dealt with according to official parameters. 

You can easily see how it parallels modern stories about the failures of bureaucracy. Think of the numerous people on universal credit or PIP in the UK. Claimants have to navigate a web of forms, meetings and requirements to get the necessary funds to live on. Only to be hit by sanctions that most of the time are overturned. A huge number of which are overturned based on already available information. So long as claimants submit themselves to the time-consuming appeals process. There’s also the hive of bureaucratic failures that enabled the Windrush scandal. These cases paint a picture of ordinary people being impacted by bureaucracy that sees them only as points on a page, with the system then making it difficult for them to seek justice.

Surveillance

Additionally, Brazil showcases a vast surveillance state that constantly keeps track of all its citizens. It records and can access supposedly private phone calls. Security cameras litter the landscape. Programmes allow bosses to keep track of what their employees are doing and there is a massive database full of everyone’s personal information (among other things).

Of course, living in a post-Snowden world, in which it is known that government departments spy on their own citizens in various invasive ways, the world of Brazil feels truly prophetic. CCTV is now also a prevalent part of everyday life. Plus the sheer amount of modern methods that employers use to keep track of employee workplace activity, makes Brazil’s dystopic vision feel quaint by comparison. Apps and monitoring software keep track of employee activity on phones and computers. Scanners time employee activity on the job and devices even monitor the time employees spend at the desk.

Security & “Prosperity”

Beyond the broader themes, Brazil has many details that add to its contemporary feel. There are implications in the story that the government uses the terrorist threat to justify infringing on people’s privacy. Though notably, it does not make people any more safe. All of this sounds very familiar to the actions taken by the US after 9/11 as well as the UK’s supposed anti-terror measures like Prevent. The use of militarised police along with a system which forces wronged people to pay for the damage incurred by the police has also been seen in the US.

We see people like the Buttles ground down and living in cramped accommodations in neglected areas. A problem many working-class people can relate to. Consumerism is rife. Absurd adverts push newer, better pipes and goop has taken the place of prepared food. Which is not far away from fast food, despite what airbrushed promos try to sell us, and other adverts encourage us to upgrade everything. Along with this posters tell people to suspect others and anti-immigrant bile is still found on the streets which all feels right at home in 21st Century Britain.

Sci-fi or Political Cartoon?

Elements like the constant surveillance, the justifications given for the way things are, heavy-handed punishment and the importance placed on money show a society concerned with rigid adherence to a system that most benefits only those closest to the levers of power. Meanwhile, dissent and those seen as less important are dehumanised through the mountains of bureaucracy, state paranoia and racist attitudes. Leading to a world in which those framed as ‘undesirable’ are removed while many are kept disenfranchised with little but dull consumption for comfort. Brazil’s nightmare commentary holds so much resonance it could have been released yesterday.

The post Inside Brazil’s Dystopian Vision: A Deep Dive into Bureaucracy, Surveillance, and Consumerism appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

We will first briefly review the environment, The Matrix was formed in, and how anime was developing at this time. We will then analyse one of the key anime films that had an impact on The Matrix, Ghost in the Shell, to look at some of the visual and thematic similarities.

Anime in the 90s

While anime was known in English-speaking markets before the 90s with films like Akira receiving great praise from critics and many anime TV shows being imported for younger audiences, it wasn’t until the anime boom in the mid to late 90s that the medium really began to gain a firm foothold. This time saw several beloved anime series licensed, dubbed and broadcast to great success, such as Dragon Ball Z, Sailor Moon and Pokemon. This time also saw the breakthrough of more adult-focused anime. One of the most successful films of this period was Ghost in the Shell. After having underperformed at the international box office, it became a cult classic on home video.

It was in this background of anime’s growing prominence that The Matrix emerged. Lilly and Lana Wachowski, the film’s directors, were inspired by several anime projects including Akira, Ninja Scroll and Ghost in the Shell. Meanwhile producer Joel Silver reportedly said the sisters pitched the Matrix by showing him Ghost in the Shell and saying, “We wanna do that for real.”

A Ghost in the Matrix

Ghost in the Shell’s influence on The Matrix is easy to spot. Both have opening credits that use changing code to communicate the focus on technology and AI. Both have a secondary character with a look that foregrounds being unable to see their eyes (Batou and Morpheus). The film’s stories both have moments where the heroes have cables attached to their heads/necks. There are machines that look like animals, scenes featuring machines crushing the hero with an arm-like appendage and both also feature a strong, stoic woman with a great jacket in a central role (The Major and Trinity). They also both have a cold look. Communicating the isolation felt by the main characters.

They also have overlapping themes. Both films discuss the impact of memories. Neo reflects on how his memories of being part of a simulation mean he has never experienced freedom. Meanwhile, Ghost in the Shell shows “false” memories being used to manipulate while also making artificial creations feel more alive. Both also touch on AI creating new life. Agent Smith and The Puppetmaster start as AI programs but eventually begin exhibiting more emotional traits that indicate sentience. Agent Smith hates his duties and The Puppetmaster wants to break away from its function to try and evolve. The films also explore how identity intersects with technology and power systems. Technology can help to realise someone’s true self. Such as helping Neo become more heroic and helping The Puppetmaster claim a real body. However, they also show how systems of power use technology to control people. The Machines and The Service reduce people’s identities to just being part of a machine that shields those in power. Themes that still resonate today.

Giving Back

The Matrix’s success arguably opened the door for more open anime influence in Western cinema. The sequels continued to demonstrate their love for the artform, the Wachowskis even developed a project called The Animatrix as an opportunity to show appreciation to the creators who inspired them, with several anime studios animating short stories based in the Matrix universe, and the revolutionary effects work brought live-action cinema a lot closer to capturing the imagination of anime spectacle. The Matrix was part of a wave that showed that anime was a creative force of its own. Capable of telling their own stories and inspiring others that captured the attention of audiences worldwide. Which helped to inspire many filmmakers today. From James Cameron to Jordan Peele and beyond.

The post How ‘Ghost in the Shell’ Inspired The Matrix: A Cyberpunk Revolution appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Studio Ghibli’s Creators

Studio Ghibli was founded by directors Hayao Miyazaki and Isao Takahata (along with producer Toshio Suzuki). Both directors grew up in a Japan destroyed by WWII at a time which, according to Takahata, saw Japan move away from the sustainable system it had upheld until then. That being humans living in tune with nature. 

The two began working together in the late 1960s at Toei. After they left they created several works (together and separately) before the formation of Studio Ghibli. Some of which demonstrated a love for nature and/or man’s relationship to nature. Including Panda! Go Panda, Heidi, Girl of the Alps and Nausicaä of the Valley of the Wind among others. 

The two went on to found Studio Ghibli in 1985. With Miyazaki often talking about how nature and humanity are intertwined and Takahata saying that the two creators shared many of the same attitudes regarding politics, it’s easy to see why Ghibli’s output consistently focuses on care for the environment.

Princess Mononoke

One of the works that best exemplifies Studio Ghibli’s environmental themes is Princess Mononoke. This 1997 film tells the story of Prince Ashitaka who, after being banished from his village because of a curse inflicted on him for killing a boar, stumbles into a war between the industrialised Irontown run by Lady Eboshi and the creatures of the forest fronted by a human named San.

Princess Mononoke is not subtle with its pro-environmental message. The central conflict revolves around man’s use of technology to kill and subordinate avatars of the natural world. The film focuses on how constant growth through industrial production and arms manufacturing will destroy the environment. Along with humanity.

Many critics have pointed out nuances within the film. For example, the natural world is portrayed as just as capable of violence as Irontown. There are also divisions on both sides of the conflict regarding how to resolve the fighting. Additionally, the potential for certain useful advancements made by industrialisation is raised.

However, this does not lessen the film’s fierce call for humanity to live in harmony with nature. On the contrary, the use of nuanced characters and storytelling along with natural animation for characters and the environment means the film feels like a more realistic depiction of the world than many others. Animated or live-action. This allows audiences to be engaged not merely politically but emotionally. Through showcasing the fine details Princess Mononoke encourages us to find the best way forward based on empathy for all living things.

Environmentalism in Ghibli’s Filmography

While Princess Mononoke is an oft-cited example of Ghibli’s environmentalism many of their other features have themes relating to nature. Films like My Neighbour Totoro, Only Yesterday, Ponyo and The Tale of the Princess Kaguya showcase a love for living in community with humanity and nature. Grave of the Fireflies, Howl’s Moving Castle and The Wind Rises all contrast the beauty of living in tune with nature to humanity’s use of technology in war. Spirited Away and The Story of Yanagawa Horiwari (Ghibli’s only primarily live-action film) argue for the restoration of clean water. Laputa: Castle In The Sky emphasises the possibility of cooperation between natural preservation and futuristic technology. And Pom Poko is just a flat-out plea for humanity to stop destroying wildlife.

Even films directed by other Ghibli creatives feature at least some form of an environmental message. These include The Red Turtle’s (Michaël Dudok de Wit) look at man’s relationship with animals. As well as When Marnie Was Here (Hiromasa Yonebayashi) emphasising nature’s beauty marching on despite personal tragedy.

Across its 40-year history Studio Ghibli has done a good job at not only recruiting other creators who share Ghibli’s environmental consciousness but also entertaining and inspiring generations of film fans to engage with and think about their relationship to the world around them.

The post Animated Realities: How Studio Ghibli Films Address Environmentalism and Human Impact appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Kurosawa’s Samurai Cinema

Akira Kurosawa is well-known for his Samurai jidaigeki (costume drama) films like Seven Samurai, The Hidden Fortress and Yojimbo. Most of these films are revered for their fantastic action choreography and cinematography that showcases the state of the environment and the weather as much as the narrative.

They are also noted for being heavily influenced by Western films, with John Ford’s films being a huge reference point. Particularly, for their focus on individuals standing up against a huge threat. But they also used the important figure of the samurai to comment on issues facing both Japanese and worldwide audiences. Whether it be the inability to tell the full truth is what holds humanity back (Rashomon), the failure of those in power to help others (Seven Samurai), the corrupting nature of power (Throne of Blood), the ferocity of violence etc. Kurosawa’s samurai films were about using figures from the past to highlight problems with the present. 

Samurai and Jedi

Kurosawa’s influence on Star Wars is immediately obvious. Famously the plot of The Hidden Fortress deals with two peasants helping a princess during a war against a much bigger army with an older warrior’s help. Which is strikingly similar to A New Hope’s plot. The two peasants resemble both R2-D2 and C-3P0, in terms of plot function and their constant bickering, and Han Solo and Chewbacca, with their motivation revolving around greed and self-preservation. Additionally, Star Wars, like Hidden Fortress, features a dynamic between two rival warriors fighting to settle an old score. The masterless samurai of Seven Samurai and Yojimbo impacting small villages resemble Obi-Wan’s waltz through Mos Eisley. Additionally, Seven Samurai’s recruitment of a team of archetypes to fight the enemy is also something Star Wars uses. Lucas even reportedly approached actor Toshiro Mifune, Kurosawa’s most well-known collaborator to play Obi-Wan and later Darth Vader.

Stylistically Star Wars also incorporates wipe transitions. There are also landscape shots that demonstrate the character’s apparent insignificance next to the immensity of the environment. These were frequently featured in Kurosawa’s samurai stories. Some writers have also noted how the editing and cinematography during the fight between Obi-Wan and Darth Vader bears similarities to a duel in Hidden Fortress.

Then of course there is a lot of thematic overlap too. Both Kurosawa’s early samurai work and Star Wars use figures of cultural and mythological significance and settings outside of the present to comment on current issues. Star Wars comments on imperialism with the technologically superior Empire fighting against the rag-tag rebel forces. Lucas expressly linked to American interference in Vietnam but also commented on how this repeats throughout history. And they also focus on individuals making a difference by fighting oppressive forces for the oppressed and for future generations.

George Lucas’ Star Wars

It’s easy to see why George Lucas was so attracted to Kurosawa’s samurai tales for inspiration. Lucas’s films frequently dealt with figures of the past commenting on the issues affecting the present and future. Whether it be the hopeful Buck Rodgers serial sharply contrasting the stifling authoritarianism of THX-1138 or American Graffiti, the coming-of-age lament for the generation who by the time of the film’s release were being sent to die for American imperialism in Vietnam. So when looking for inspiration for his sci-fi fantasy that used many mythological and cultural touchstones to comment on imperialism it’s easy to see why Lucas drew inspiration from Akira Kurosawa. He was seen by many as the key samurai filmmaker and he dealt with similar thematic elements that critiqued power. But Lucas turned Kurosawa’s at times pessimistic outlook into one of refreshing optimism.

The post Akira Kurosawa’s Influence on Star Wars and George Lucas appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Synopsis

When a family moves into a new house after a tragedy impacts the daughter, they must each wrestle with their own personal emotional challenges. All while dealing with the creeping feeling that another presence is hovering over the home.

What Did I Like?

Anyone discussing this film’s positives will invariably focus on two things, firstly the camerawork. The flowing, long takes used to deliver the film’s story are astounding. The smooth movement between rooms, often phasing in and out of different characters’ conversations, natural placement and motions and the perfect timing of each camera manoeuvre make the camerawork both a technical marvel and an effective way of characterising the presence observing the story. This film will undoubtedly be used in media courses for years to come. It’s an amazingly efficient example of how to involve audiences in a film’s world, story and atmosphere using the camera.

The second aspect many will focus on is the central cast’s performances. Callina Liang deserves the biggest share of the praise. Her performance as Chloe is fantastic. She mixes wonderfully played teenage vulnerability with a good amount of humour, strength and warmth. But all the other performers also do great work here. Chris Sullivan is quietly brilliant as Chris, the dad who does his best to help his kids. Even if he feels emotionally raw about his marriage. Lucy Liu’s Rebekah is brash but always realistic and sympathetic. Plus Eddy Maday’s Tyler and West Mulholland’s Ryan capture the vile sexist nature of many teenage boys disturbingly well. All of these performers individually and collectively make the drama fiercely engaging.

Beyond these points, it must also be noted that the effects are, mostly, very well done (artificial camera shakes aside). With the presence’s ghostly powers being pulled off without any behind-the-scenes seams being visible. The production design is beautiful. The direction of the action, as is expected from Steven Soderbergh, is so perfect it’s pretty much invisible and its discussion of issues relating to sexist force and violence hanging over the family is pointed and very relevant.

What Did I Not Like?

Undoubtedly the weakest element of this film is the writing. The story is fine and the characterisation of the main players is incredible but pivotal plot moments such as the use of a psychic and the final act feel either forced or like they aren’t given enough build-up, which makes the ultimate resolution not hit as hard as it could have. On top of this some of the dialogue, despite the cast’s best efforts, feels very much like it comes from the mind of a screenwriter rather than the characters speaking.

Also aside from the moments of the camera drifting around the house on its own the use of music feels rather forced and distracting. It’s as if it is trying to artificially heighten emotions that are already being achieved. Honestly, the filmmakers should have had more confidence in the characters and the direction’s ability to carry the story. 

Finally, the editing choice to end most scenes with a black screen feels like it always grinds the film to a halt. Something else should have been done to help give the impression of a change in time.

Conclusion

Presence is an admirable technical experiment with a memorably played set of characters and a well-realised small-scale world with a big message. It’s just a shame the plot and some poor sound and editing choices mean the film never quite matches the smoothness of the titular presence.

Rating: (3.5 / 5)

Also Read: Unsane and the iPhone Revolution

The post Review: Presence – Steven Soderbergh’s Latest Movie Takes A Novel Approach To A Haunted House Thriller appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Today, we will briefly look over the historical and cultural attitudes towards animal rights in filmmaking. Before looking at some examples of pro-vegan/animal rights films (old and new) to see how their messages were delivered and how they have changed.

Animal Rights in Cinema

Cinema has a long history of animal cruelty, from the cruelty inflicted on film horses for early Western and historicals to the horrors of Heaven’s Gate, which led to SAG and the AMPTP contracting the American Humane Association to oversee animal treatment in films. However, even recent films like Life of Pi show that cinema is still willing to mistreat animals for art.

That is not to say that film workers don’t care about animals. We should also be wary not to fall into racist stereotyping when discussing international cinema that shows animal cruelty and films that feature the practices of Indigenous peoples. However, with large-scale animal slaughter, testing etc being so ingrained in society, animal well-being is often devalued. This is often further compounded by tight finances incentivising filmmakers to cut corners.

That said, rising awareness around healthy eating and social justice among millennials, coupled with concerns around climate change (with deforestation and industrial food production impacting climate as well as animals) have led to a growth in people identifying as vegan and a growing movement for environmental and animal justice over the decades. Which in turn has led to films exploring both themes.

Green Gems

Of course, movies with pro-vegan and animal rights themes are not limited to the modern era. Blood of the Beasts (1949) showcased the brutality of slaughterhouses and through its juxtaposition with suburban France showed how a supposedly idyllic life is built on violence. The Texas Chainsaw Massacre (1974) comments on how slaughterhouse practices impact those who work in them. Also, its brutal allusions to violence encourages viewers to see the characters as animals being killed for meat. PETA listed it as one of the 10 movies to make you go meatless. There is also the double bill of Watership Down (1978) and Plague Dogs (1982). Both used animal characters to comment on how brutally humanity impacts their lives. Through changing their environments and experimenting with them.

One thing these examples have in common, aside from being independent productions, is that despite having animal rights themes they never explicitly vocalise action to stop these practices. Instead making audiences draw their own conclusions.

Evolving Times?

Nowadays we still see films that focus on animals being abused and killed to elicit sympathy for animals. Examples include acclaimed documentaries like The Cove and Blackfish.

But there have also been films that have favourably advocated for explicit action regarding both subjects. For example, while it has numerous flaws, Christspiracy uses its questionable narrative thrust to encourage activism and to link movements for social and environmental justice to those of animal rights. Saying a fight for a better world must ensure both humans and animals are treated better.

Then there is Okja. One of the best high-profile animal rights stories. Through great performances and CGI, we can see what animals mean to people and the emotions that animals are capable of. Therefore when the Animal Liberation Front come to help our hero get Okja back we see them in a sympathetic light. Largely mainstream movies have shown militant animal rights activists as naive people who just end up causing trouble (see 28 Days Later‘s opening). And while the ALF do questionable things the film always portrays them as fighting for the right reasons. To save as many animals as possible from a corporation that is killing them on a mass scale. It’s a film that makes animal rights activists into actual characters, not caricatures and dares to say they are right.

Conclusion

It is unclear if the current landscape will continue to inspire more thoughtful and forthright animal rights films. But there have always been filmmakers willing to challenge the status quo. Plus in the fight for a better world, why should animals not also be cared for?

The post Lights, Camera, Compassion: The Evolution of Animal Rights Films appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.