Project Hail Mary starts with Dr Ryland Grace on a spaceship waking up from an induced coma designed to make the journey easier on the astronauts. Originally, Grace cannot remember who he is or what is going on, but soon things start to come back to him. He is part of “Project Hail Mary”, a worldwide effort to save Earth; the Sun is being eaten by a new form of life, and within decades, the resulting cooler temperature will make life on Earth impossible. This mission is a huge roll of the dice, a long-shot doomed to fail – the analogy of a “Hail Mary” pass in American football, something that will almost certainly not work, but what do you have to lose?

The film focuses on Grace on the Hail Mary spaceship as he travels to a distant star to find out why it isn’t being dimmed by these lifeforms, and is interspersed with Grace back on Earth. Starting with him as a middle school science teacher to being recruited to “Project Hail Mary” and the work done to get the project going.

The film is directed by Christopher Miller and Phil Lord, best known for directing The Lego Movie and the Spider-Verse animated films. While they have worked on live-action films before, animation has been their main concern. The film is a spectacle. They mix wonderfully created sets of spaceships with the immense beauty and desolation of open space. The film is full of breathtaking shots of stars, the atmosphere of distant planets, of rotating spaceships and the sky seemingly being on fire.

The trailer of the film was controversial in that it shared information many fans of the book thought should have remained secret, namely, the existence of Rocky. Rocky is an alien lifeform that Grace meets on his mission…who is on a similar mission for his own people. In scenes reminiscent of Arrival, Grace and Rocky spend some time simply trying to communicate with each other, both realising the other is there for the same reason. Rocky is so-called because, to Grace, he looks like a bunch of moving rocks. Most aliens in Star Trek, Star Wars etc are humanoid, similar in form to us; Rocky is not. Credit is due to the directors and Gosling for making us care so much about Rocky; they have a personality that is conveyed to us, and we become invested in their well-being and that of their planet. Rocky is created using puppetry rather than CGI and motion capture, which all involved have credited with a part of the reason people care about Rocky. Gosling is acting with something physical, not something that will be added using CGI later.

Ryan Gosling spends long sections of this film being the only actor on screen, and he easily holds our attention. The scenes on Earth show this rather unlikely saviour – an anxious, uneasy, kind, damaged person, who was severely punished when they tried to excel and so stopped trying to excel. The rest of the cast gets little time on screen; there is a mix of astronauts, scientists, and government figures who we meet and are in the background. The exception to this is Eva Stratt, played by Sandra Huller, the person running Project Hail Mary. She is an almost emotionless, stern, principled person trying to save the world; she has no time for jokes, doubt, procrastination or anything like that. This emotionless exterior is not a lie, but it becomes clear she is doing all this because of how much she cares and just what she is willing to sacrifice.

Project Hail Mary is one of those films that fulfils so much of the cinematic experience, a genuine visual spectacle, heart-wrenching, tense, funny, mind-opening and more. It is a film about trying, trying to do the right thing, trying to be better today than you were yesterday, trying to put others first and while we may not always succeed, there will be other opportunities.

Rating: (4 / 5)

The post Review: Project Hail Mary – A Bold, Emotional Sci-Fi Epic Worth the Journey appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What’s Going On

OBAA is a thriller from Paul Thomas Anderson, who is undoubtedly one of the greatest directors working today. The film starts with the French 75, a revolutionary direct action group in America and in particular, members Bob Ferguson and Perfidia Beverley Hills, husband and wife. The antagonist is Colonel Steven Lockjaw, who takes the lead in bringing the group down with extreme methods. The film then cuts to 15 years later, when Bob is simply trying to raise his daughter, Willa, in peace and safety, but Lockjaw is once again seeking them out.

Behind The Scenes

The film is directed and written by Paul Thomas Anderson, whose previous films include There Will Be Blood, The Master, Punch-Drunk Love and more, and some are calling this film the best of this already great career. Anderson’s films cover a range of genres, with this being one of the more straightforward, at least on the surface. The film is based on the book of the same name by Thomas Pynchon. Anderson has already adapted one of his works, Inherent Vice, a very different sort of film.

In Front of the Camera

It is a big cast, but Leonardo DiCaprio does probably have the most screentime, and it is essentially his character’s story that we follow. He plays Pat/Ghetto Pat/Rocketman/Bob Ferguson, Bob being the last identity he adopts, and for clarity’s sake, he shall be referred to as Bob Ferguson.

Perfidia Beverly Hills is played by Teyana Taylor and is very convincing as the committed revolutionary who wants to overturn practically every element of society. Like many in the group, she has an assumed revolutionary name – Perfidia Beverly Hills. Taylor is probably better known for her work in music as a singer, songwriter, choreographer and more.

Sean Penn plays Colonel Steven J. Lockjaw and gives one of the best performances of his career as one of the most unpleasant characters seen in film in a long time. Penn is a two-time Oscar winner and known for his roles in Milk, Mystic River and Carlito’s Way.

One Battle After Another is brilliant and ranks amongst Anderson’s best films. It is an incredibly complex representation of the struggle the revolutionaries are fighting and the authorities they are fighting, but also family bonds, communities in crisis, betrayal and obsession.

The audience sees the story from the point of view of Bob in the French 75, but they are not the “good guys”; the first revolutionary act we see is them briefly taking over a detention camp for undocumented migrants and liberating it. This is not represented as clever rogues getting one over on the authorities – the oft-employed Hollywood trick of the good guys having guns but not having them loaded is definitely not used here – but a genuine attack. Certainly, the French 75 seems like they do not want to actually kill people, but doing what they do, someone is going to get hurt, and indeed, someone does. The forces of law and order, such as they are, as exemplified by Lockjaw, are horrendous. It is true that the higher authorities may not be aware exactly what Lockjaw is doing and certainly not why, but the fact that that is possible is damning. It is never made completely clear exactly what Lockjaw’s position is – sometimes appearing to be a military officer, in which case, why is he deployed on US soil? Sometimes he seems more like some aspect of law enforcement, in which case, why does he act like an invading army? This ambiguity could be for several reasons: the difficulty of quickly explaining this, the fact that the distinction in the use of military and law enforcement in America is blurring, or that it is blurred to give the audience the impression that Lockjaw had effectively limitless power with no accountability. The only pushback to Lockjaw is from forces outside the authorities. It could even be thought that those above Lockjaw knowingly turn a blind eye, as spending ten minutes in his company would seemingly highlight the fact that he should not ever be given any power. He plays a supremely sinister villain, who keeps adding new layers to villainy, abuses of power, just plain abuse, and violence of every kind. He has an unrelenting nature, which is sometimes more akin to a villain in a slasher film. Yet he is simultaneously a ridiculous figure, riddled with insecurity and self-loathing, but that takes nothing away from how dangerous he is.

DiCaprio’s change from wild rebel to burned-out father is very well done, with his focus for action moving entirely to his daughter. DiCaprio’s best moments are when he is separated from his daughter and trying desperately to find her and help her, particularly the series of conversations he has with revolutionary agents, finding out where his daughter might be, but he can’t remember the long and convoluted password system.

Paul Thomas Anderson is not typically known for action scenes, but towards the end of the film comes an incredibly tense and thrilling set piece on deserted American roads that wind and undulate, hiding characters from each other and then coming into view spectacularly quickly. The extended sequence of what feels very much like an ICE raid on a city is non-stop tension for what feels like six hours.

OBAO is definitely one of the best films of the year and feels incredibly timely, as heart-wrenching as it is thrilling and packed with so much going on that lots of details weren’t able to be included in this review.

Rating (4.5 / 5)

The post Review: One Battle After Another – One of the Best Films of 2025? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

It’s worth remembering that stunt performers die doing their work, and this is not just a thing of the past; Joi Harris died in a motorcycle stunt on Deadpool 2. And of course, there are non-fatal but devastating injuries they can sustain. Some actors may give a lot for their art, but death is not usually part of it. Stunt work goes back to the beginning of cinema; one of the things people liked to see was danger and exciting incidents, and that meant stunts. The legendary comic performer Buster Keaton also performed very dangerous stunt work in the pursuit of laughs. Steamboat Bill, Jr features a stunt still held up today as one of the best ever. The whole front of a house falls forward, seemingly going to crush Keaton, only for him to survive as he just so happens to be standing in the spot where there is a window. There is no double for Keaton, and it is essentially carried out by precise measurements. Eventually, Hollywood decided it would be best to have trained professionals doing this because a) actors typically aren’t trained to do these things, and b) if your star breaks an ankle and you can’t film that’s a big problem.

Keanu Reeves is an actor who does a lot of the rough and tumble work of his action films, but has stated “I don’t do stunts, I do action” meaning that if he’s doing it, its not a stunt, an example he’s given is that he can do some of the fight choreography but when John Wick gets hit by a car, that’s his stunt double, and Reeves has shown enormous respect for the work done by stunt performers. Tom Cruise is an actor who has perhaps gone a different direction, seemingly intent on not only doing as many of his own stunts as possible but trying to do ever more impressive stunts.

Mad Max: Fury Road gave a lot of work to stunt performers. The majority of the film is a car chase, and a car chase featuring car crashes, car explosions, car crushings and more car-based carnage. The film was mainly done with practical effects, with CGI used to remove seatbelts and other safety features. These were stunts that could involve five, six, seven or more vehicles, with stunts involving going from one moving vehicle to another. Even with all the safety precautions, it was both dangerous and technically difficult.

So stunts can be breathtaking, exciting, scary and even funny, but they are more than just window-dressing. There is verisimilitude; the film feels real, good stunts create the sense of jeopardy, and they add weight to a character’s struggle. We can see the hits they take, the struggle they pursue for a goal. When scenes in a film don’t look real, it can spoil the scene or even the whole movie. Few would deny that the body language of an actor, how they move, and their expressions are a hugely important part of the performance, so why should this stop when another performer steps in to do the dangerous part of that for them? Of equal importance is the team behind the stunt performer, those who design and make these stunts. No one would see it as odd that both an actor and a director get an Oscar each, so why not the stunt performer and stunt crew?

Of course, stunts aren’t just jumping off buildings and getting set on fire. Something as straightforward as a character jumping over a gate is a stunt. George Clooney’s The Descendants has ten people credited for stunt work for what is essentially a film of Clooney running around Hawaii in flip-flops, and this film still needed a whole team. People who are essential to every type of film should be recognised for their contribution and talent.

The post Why the Oscars Need a Stunt Category: Recognising the Risk Behind the Action appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Legendary film critic Roger Ebert described cinema as an empathy machine. When you watch movies, you identify with characters, you see things from their perspective, you can gain some understanding – perhaps limited and incomplete – into their life. This is incredibly powerful and can lead people to change how they see the world and other people in it. But does it apply to documentaries in the same way as fiction movies?

Movies

Bleak versions of our future have been a staple of sci-fi for as long as it has existed. The Road, set after some unspecified climate disaster, is perhaps the bleakest film you will ever see, where the best-case situation is still awful. Children of Men shows a not-too-distant future where the birth-rate has fallen to zero, the youngest person in the world is in their late teens, with no idea why this is happening it’s hard to imagine it being fixed. The absence of children is hugely oppressive, and the utter futility of what everyone is doing is almost impossible to bear. One character has been charged with saving artistic treasures from around the collapsing world – why? In a matter of decades, there will be no one left alive to appreciate them. The Mad Max series of films suggests a nuclear apocalypse, which has led to an ecological disaster, and gangs of post-apocalyptic thugs fight to the death over the dwindling resources. Even Pixar’s Wall-E shows a world overrun with trash, leading humanity to abandon Earth and live in space, enjoying an empty existence of lazy indulgence. Are these films trying to influence people? Some have a very direct message – so Wall-E is saying make an effort and clean up the planet. The Mad Max films, like many films that play with the idea of an end by nuclear war, suggest that it was almost inevitable that once humanity had these weapons, they were going to obliterate the world. The Road has a very the-living-will-envy-the-dead feeling to it. If these films are trying to stir people to take action against climate change the problem may be that they usually rely solely on fear. An article published in the journal Science Communication found that while the scary futures shown in these films do get attention, they also make people feel powerless and don’t lead to change.

It may be surprising what films have had a big impact on society. As well as being a cinematic masterpiece, Jaws forever changed people’s attitude to sharks. Both authors of the book, Peter Benchley and film director Steven Spielberg, have stated they feel bad for making people see sharks as an outright villain and especially dangerous. So effectively have sharks been vilified by Hollywood that in a 2023 documentary, Sharksploitation was made to address this mischaracterisation. Horror films like Rosemary’s Baby and The Exorcist created fears out of almost nothing, with the former creating the image of devil-worshipping human-sacrificing cults. The Exorcist led to genuine hysterical outbursts, as well as cementing the sinister reputation of Ouija boards and ideas about possession. References to oujia boards, possession, and satanists today will almost certainly reference these films. The movie The China Syndrome, about a journalist uncovering coverups at a nuclear power plant and the risk to the public there was very the real Three Mile Island nuclear power plant partial meltdown, forever linking the film with the anti-nuclear power movement.

Documentaries

The most famous climate change documentary is undoubtedly An Inconvenient Truth, a documentary made by former Vice President Al Gore. Gore has long been an environmentalist, and once out of politics, it became his main focus. The film won an Oscar and got Gore a Nobel Peace Prize. 2014’s Cowspiracy focuses on the harm animal agriculture does to the environment, and is a huge contributor to greenhouse gas emissions, deforestation, destruction of the rainforest and many more environmental problems. The Leonardo DiCaprio-produced Before the Flood was a well-received documentary about climate change, but it does not seem to have broken into the public consciousness in the way.

One of the most impactful documentaries of the past 20 years is Loose Change, a documentary on 9/11 that gives credence to a number of conspiracy theories about the attack. It had a huge impact on many people and for a lot of people shifted the narrative from a terrorist attack to something even worse. The fact that the document was roundly criticised by journalists, experts in everything from aviation to structural engineering and the authorities did little to dent its popularity.

It is exceedingly rare for one documentary to have a big impact on society, but often, they are a smaller piece of a bigger societal change. They might not inspire millions to action, but they can inspire individuals who then go on to make that change. One problem for documentaries is that real experts tend to talk in specific, limited and unsensational terms, estimated increases of a few degrees in temperature over years, which will impact the ecosystem… It’s not going to grab everyone’s attention. The Day After Tomorrow grabs your attention.

The post Climate Change on Screen: Do Documentaries or Disaster Movies Drive Real Action? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Formula 1

Perhaps the film that kicked off this recent resurgence was Senna, a documentary on F1 driver Ayrton Senna that was released to critical acclaim, following the driver over the course of his career to his death at the 1994 San Marino Grand Prix. The film dealt with Senna’s background, his rivalries and his tragic death. It is likely that Senna was a big reason that Formula 1: Drive To Survive was made. This is a Netflix show that condenses a season of Formula 1 into one season of television, and has been very popular and opened the sport up to new audiences. However, the show almost immediately ran into controversy about the spin the showmakers were putting on the real events. Drivers complained that rivalries were manufactured in the edit, that all kinds of events were misrepresented, put in a different context or exaggerated. This led to F1 champion Max Verstappen refusing to be involved in the show for several seasons. It has been said that some people watch F1 for the possibility of a crash, although no driver has died in a race since Ayrton Senna, and obviously a season retrospective documentary will not be breaking the news of such an accident.

The Last Dance focuses on basketball colossus Michael Jordan and the Chicago Bulls, zooming in on 1997-1998 season, Jordan’s last season with the team. Whilst a critical and commercial success, the series has faced a lot of pushback. Some of those who took part claim they were misled, believing they were taking part in a documentary purely about that season on the Chicago Bulls, not that it had a particular spotlight on Jordan. Again, there were claims some contributors were portrayed in a negative light, and Jordan, who clearly was essential for the programme, was deferred to too much. Michael Jordan’s production company, Jump 23, was additionally a co-producer on the documentary which could potentially give him even more influence.

There are documentaries that go into very dark sides of sports, such as 2024 Concussed: The American Dream, which focuses on Chronic Traumatic Encephalopathy, CTE, in American football. This condition is caused by repeated blows to the head, contrasting the careers of Tyler Sash and Brett Favre. Tyler Sash was a promising young professional football player who died in 2015 and after an autopsy was confirmed to have CTE. CTE can cause cognitive issues like memory loss, trouble concentrating, but can also lead to drastic changes in mood and behaviour, with issues like mood instability, aggression and suicidal behaviour all being associated with it. Tyler Sash’s short career and tragic death are contrasted with football legend Brett Favre, who also has had repeated concussions and head trauma from playing the sport and has become a prominent advocate in safety in football and understanding CTE. The title of the film Concussed: The American Dream is telling, as playing professional football is a dream for many Americans, but one that can leave them facing huge medical problems.

True Sport

The biggest two differences between these two true crime and “true sport” are that in sports documentaries, you are dealing with celebrities, who are usually still alive, and the trauma and negativity they portray is less destructive than violent crime. With The Last Dance, there are questions about how much influence Jordan had over the documentary; he is listed as a producer and without his involvement, would the documentary have taken place? On the other side of this issue, Formula 1: Drive To Survive had the issue of prominent drivers refusing to take part because of the problems they saw, which they can do in a TV show that goes on for years. Ken Burns, the legendary documentarian, specifically criticised The Last Dance for a lack of journalistic credibility and integrity, as it easily gave way to pressure to show Jordan in the best light.

The second difference in the subject matter is of even more importance. Of the four documentaries mentioned, The Last Dance is about the success and talent of Jordan and the Chicago Bulls, Formula 1: Drive To Survive, the excitement and tension of a sporting season, Senna, about the life and tragic death of a great competitor and Concussed: An American Dream, the suffering caused by CTE. The first two documentaries have issues, but their subject matter has less weight than most true crime dramas; while obviously Ayrton Senna’s death was tragic, the documentary doesn’t exploit that and Concussed: The American Dream has a very specific viewpoint on an ongoing problem. The manipulation of violence, death and suffering for ratings, a problem so prevalent in true crime, is nowhere near as widespread. Again, this is due to inherent differences in reporting on crime or sport; the latter has far less tragedy. It seems the bigger problem in true sport is not the trauma but the manipulation of the story, either by producers looking for more salacious plots or the very sportspeople who the documentaries are about.

The post Are Sports Docs the New True Crime? Editing, Access and the ‘Truth’ Behind the Drama appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Spoiler Warning – huge spoilers for 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later and 28 Years Later

Rage

In the first scene of the first film, it is stated that the infection is rage. In an effort to understand then deal with rage, anger and the bad impulses of humanity, scientists have “infected” monkeys with rage. As is the way with such things in films, the safety precautions of the lab are breached and the infection gets out. The Infected are humans who are driven purely by anger and malice, charging headlong at any people with a desire to destroy and/or infect. They cannot communicate and are incapable of carrying out anything but the most basic actions. This and their ability to infect others is what has prompted many to describe them as “zombies”. When Jim, the central character of 28 Days Later, awakens from a coma into this new horrible world, he is very confused (and scared). One of the first non-infected he meets is Selena, who advocates doing only what will help you survive. Their encounter with a group of British soldiers does not lead to a better life, nor does it improve their opinions on other survivors.

Duty

The opening scene of 28 Weeks Later is certainly the high-point of the film. A small group of survivors are taking refuge in a country house, including Don and his wife Alice. When their house is overrun, Don tries to get his wife to safety, while Alice focuses on saving a child. Alice runs upstairs and is cornered by the infected, closely followed by Don, who looks at the seemingly impossible situation and runs, abandoning his wife, whom he assumes – with good reason – will die or become infected, and it would have been virtually impossible to save her. Later, Don is reunited with his children to whom he tells a variation of that story in which he saw their mother die. But she didn’t die. Alice is immune to the infection, but is a carrier. She survived and was later found by the children. Obviously, this creates a rift between Don and his children as they question his version of events. Much of this film is about duty – Don’s duty to his wife, to his children. Doyle, an American sniper, has to choose between his duty to the army and not shooting uninfected children. It should be stated that Doyle’s choice of kindness to those children will lead to the deaths of far more people.

Love

28 Years Later has genuinely one of the most moving scenes I’ve seen in a long time. In 28 Years Later, a group of survivors on Holy Island carry on despite the devastation to the UK. The film revolves around Spike, a 12-year-old boy, who is being taken to the mainland for the first time with his father, in part to scavenge but also as a rite of passage. They make it back more or less successfully. We also learn that Spike’s mother, Ilsa, is seriously ill with an undiagnosed condition (undiagnosed as there are no doctors), and when Spike learns of a doctor on the mainland, he disobeys all the rules and takes his mother to the doctor. Let alone that the mainland is extremely dangerous, let alone it is just Spike and Isla, let alone that Spike learned of the doctor it is through a horror story of a crazed doctor who collected bodies and burned them.

It turns out Dr Kelson, as is his name, is not crazy. He is surprisingly normal and indeed is a medical doctor. He has spent the past 28 years building a memorial to the dead, burning their bodies, collecting their skulls, and adding them in a vast monument, not of terror, but as a mark of respect. He describes it as a memento mori, a Latin phrase meaning “remember you will die” – not as a horrific prophecy but to appreciate life as it is finite. The skulls are of both the infected and non-infected as he sees them all as equally human (many people in the world do not see it this way). When it comes to Isla without medical equipment, he makes a rudimentary diagnosis of a brain tumour and she does not have long to live. She chooses to die painlessly now, and Dr. Kelson begins the process of reducing her body down to the bones. He presents the skull to Spike and asks him to add it to the memorial with the words memento amora, “remember to love”.

This is a film series that has spent the vast majority of its time on rage-infected “zombies” vomiting blood onto people and beating them to death. But the defining moment of the third film is reminding the characters and the audience of the importance of loving other people, and this is a staggering, almost unbelievable achievement. It is a heartbreakingly beautiful scene. The death that brings this to us is not from the infected but a medical condition, something familiar to the audience. It may be sad, but it is not terrible. She is not alone. The towers of skulls are featured prominently in the posters for the film and certainly project them as a sign of death and horror, but in the film, they symbolise death and love.

There is perhaps another reason 28 Years Later had such an impact on me – the survivors are on Holy Island, in the north-east of England, where I am from. Normally, if you hear the accents from this area in a film, it is about striking miners. Spike refers to Isla “me mam” or “my mum” as much of England might say, and it is exceedingly rare to hear something like this in media.

But local resonance aside, Danny Boyle creating a zombie film with the audience coming away thinking about love is achieving the almost impossible. 28 Years Later Part 2 comes out next year.

The post Danny Boyle’s 28 Days/Weeks/Years Later: Horror, Duty and a Final Act of Love appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What’s Going On?

Ageing famous musician Herb McGwyer is hired to perform at a private party by fans on a remote island for a huge fee, only to find out that there is only one fan – Charles. Not only that, but Herb’s old bandmate Nell Mortimer has also been hired without his knowledge, complicating matters additionally in that they were not just bandmates.

In Front Of The Camera

The film stars Tim Key, Tom Basden and Carey Mulligan. Tim Key and Tom Basden are long-time friends and colleagues in the British comedian scene, both were stand-up comedians and have worked together on numerous projects, including BBC sketch show Cowards and Anthonya short film about Santa Claus crashing his sleigh and the brutal survival battle he and one of his elves then have to go on. To go through some of their credits – Peep Show, Plebs, Inside No. 9, After Life, various Alan Partridge shows, The Detectorists and more.

Carey Mulligan is a much bigger star than either of these two and a high-profile actor from films like Drive, Never Let Me Go, Shame, and more and presumably Mulligan was attracted to this film because she believed in it rather than the fame and money it could bring.

Behind The Scenes

The film is written by Tom Basden and Tim Key. Basden has written the BBC show Here We Go, as well as working on Plebs, Gap Year and has written for many sitcoms like Peep Show and Fresh Meat. Key has fewer writing credits but has contributed to many interesting projects, and as his stand-up comedy is mainly comedic poetry, he has published books of his poems, as well as winning the 2009 Edinburgh Comedy Award.

The film is directed by James Griffiths, who has primarily worked in TV, directing episodes of Black-Ish, Episodes and Free Agents, as well as directing the original short film that The Ballad of Wallis Island is based on.

Does It Work?

Tom Basden and Tim Key bring a particular kind of humour to all of their projects, and it won’t be for everyone. Key is immediately incredibly awkward as Charles, or rather makes the audience and everyone else awkward, his eagerness and constant need to make gentle quips could be either irritating or endearing (both in reality and in the film). Tom Basden as Herb is almost equally immediately unlikeable, despite the fact that we would surely see his point – a famous musician who is being rowed to a gig where he has to wade through several feet of water, as there is no dock or jetty, does not scream professionalism. Despite Charles’ genuinely annoying behaviour at times, you cannot help but absolutely love him. This is a man who follows what he loves, lives a relatively simple existence. He has found and lost genuine soul-mate type love, but carries on enjoying life. The interaction with Herb and Nell helps to bring him out of the semi-isolation he has landed himself in is one of the joys of the film.

Carey Mulligan is very good as the third part of this unusual dynamic – she does bring a husband, but he conveniently goes away for several days – and we can see the ways in which she sees things differently from Herb, especially as to how things ended between them. But ultimately, the key relationship is not between Herb and Nell but between Herb and Charles. Basden and Key are both fantastic, and while sometimes Key’s range can feel limited (and looking at his other acting performances, that may well be true), what he can do, he does brilliantly.

The film avoids any number of clichéd ways to go – avoiding rom-com tropes and the like. Charles’ constant references to “we” and a partner who is clearly not around are painfully ignored by Herb for as long as possible. The understated sadness of Charles is very rarely ever visible on the surface, and ultimately, while he has sadness within him, he isn’t sad; his existence now is not merely lamenting what he has lost. There are other clichés that the film avoids, which would be spoilers and as such avoided here, but lead to a refreshing feel of the film.

Rating: (3.5 / 5)

The Ballad of Wallis Island is a charming, funny and emotionally touching film that anyone could enjoy but for some people who click with the style of comedy, will love.

The post Review: The Ballad Of Wallis Island – A Charming, Funny and Emotionally Touching Film appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What’s Going On?

International businessman, arms manufacturer and all-around cad Zsa-Zsa Korda survives another assassination attempt while planning his greatest project to date (the titular “Phoenician Scheme”). After this latest attempt, he reconnects with his daughter, Liesl, who is on the verge of becoming a nun. Korda is an eccentric, free-thinking individual with seemingly little time for conventional family life, or conventional anything. Korda wants to name Liesl his sole heir…on a trial basis, the trial being as they complete the Phoenician Scheme. Also present is Bjorn, an entomologist, as Korda likes to have an expert on hand for quiet moments when he can learn about something.

The trio of Kodor, Liesl and Bjorn (who also now serves as administrative secretary) take off in Korda’s seemingly endless supply of planes to finalise the scheme and most importantly cover “The Gap”.

In Front Of The Camera

The film features a cavalcade of perennial Anderson actors in minor roles – Willem Defoe, Jeffrey Wright, Scarlett Johansson but the central cast consists of Benicio Del Toro as Korda (who has previously only appeared in one Anderson film The French Dispatch), Mia Threapleton as Liesl and Michael Cera as Bjorn.

Behind The Scenes

The director Wes Anderson is one of the most celebrated directors working today; his previous films include The Grand Budapest Hotel, Rushmore and The Life Aquatic With Steve Zissou. That said, whilst his charming eccentric style is loved by many, others find it pretentious and light on substance. It is safe to say that The Phoenician Scheme is adding to his stock of eccentric and divisive films.

The film is co-written by frequent Anderson collaborator Roman Coppola (son of cinematic giant Francis Ford Coppola), who is known primarily for his music videos and working with Anderson.

Does It Work?

The Phoenician Scheme is a very enjoyable comedy adventure of Korda constantly trying to do the impossible; scheming, plotting, lying, and liberally giving out hand grenades to potential business partners. Del Toro is an almost unstoppable force in the film; his character has survived numerous assassination attempts and plane crashes (which were likely assassination attempts) and has a “habit of surviving”. Korda is as much an anti-hero as you’re going to get in an Anderson film but as he puts increasing importance on his relationships with others – particularly Liesl, and less on his schemes he becomes increasingly likeable.

Whilst Korda is busy on his scheme, we see glimpses into a room of besuited bureaucrats seemingly running a sabotage campaign against Korda for America and its allies. The matter of fact emotionless discussion of their plans is a different tone to the larger than life shenanigans of Korda and the three minute explanation of an everyday screw is a highlight. We also see glimpses into an almost biblical scene of judgement, in black and white with everyone, including Korda, looking like they had stepped out of an ancient world morality play that is seemingly only taken place in Korda’s head as he contemplates his life and actions.

There are the typical Wes Anderson stylistic choices. The actual scheme is laid out to Liesl via a series of boxes – shoe boxes, glove boxes, shirt boxes, etc., each containing different parts of the plan and are arranged and viewed in the neat and symmetrical style of Anderson. The costumes are fantastic and ridiculous and Liesl’s transformation from dressing like a nun to dressing like a more stylish and secular nun is amusing to watch in the little pieces of flair that are added.

The film’s greatest strength is Del Toro’s performance. He captures the spirit of an unstoppable, almost unkillable figure, who is constantly moving and dealing with assassinations, spy conspiracies, unhappy business partners and unhappier familial relations. Threapleton is very believable as the conflicted religious young woman who, nevertheless, is somewhat enchanted by Korda, relentlessly pressing on him to be a better person (for example, actually being a father to his eight sons). Liesl’s relationship with Korda is very complicated, in part because he hasn’t seen her in years, in part because of their wildly different moral stances, but mainly because it is widely believed that Korda murdered her mother. Michael Cera as Bjorn is almost dull as a character but his love and enthusiasm of his subject matter – bugs – whilst events of international importance and very real danger swirl around him, wins you over.

Like most of Wes Anderson’s films, there must be two reviews of this film, one for fans of Anderson and one for everyone else. Some are brilliant and so rise above this need but The Phoenician Scheme does not.

Rating: (4 / 5) (For Anderson fans)

Rating: (3 / 5) (For those with no particular attachment of Anderson)

Also Read: The Unique Style of Wes Anderson

The post Review: The Phoenician Scheme appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Satire is supposed to highlight the idiocies, hypocrisies and flaws of those in power using comedy, often with comedic exaggeration, to make these points and when done well, can be a powerful force in shaping public opinion. How did this film shape public opinion? It is hard to say, especially from 2025, but the Cold War did not end in nuclear armageddon, so there’s that. Moreover, any reference to nuclear weapons and nuclear war will trigger the absurdity of Dr. Strangelove in the minds of those in the audience. Politicians who wanted to increase the nuclear arsenal of America to add a few more thousand warheads would be confronted with pushback influenced by Dr. Strangelove.

Satire To Bring About Change

Don’t Look Up is a comedy written and directed by Adam McKay in which scientists discover a planet-destroying asteroid is heading towards Earth, and their struggles to be heard and when they are heard, for action to be taken. The film is shot through with criticism of the media – who at first treat the impending disaster as some kind of puff piece; incompetence in government with the president played by Meryl Streep portrayed as an idiotic, vain and selfish leader; and tech billionaires with Mark Rylance playing such a figure who wants to manipulate the situation for his own benefit and is utterly consumed by arrogance and hubris. The film is very clearly about climate change; it is not especially subtle, but it doesn’t seem like McKay was trying to be. Part of the problem of Don’t Look Up is the idea that despite the fact that the danger has been pointed out and more or less understood and accepted, nothing is being done, the message has not motivated change, and how will the film do that? Part of McKay’s solution to this seems to be simply abandoning being subtle. Did Don’t Look Up shape public opinion? This seems mixed; it was very successful but likely preaching to the converted, but one thing it did perhaps achieve by its intentional lack of subtlety was to try and drive home the drastic nature of the climate change problem.

Satire To Learn From The Past

Death of Stalin is a film by one of Britain’s greatest comedy writers and political satirists, Armando Iannucci, who has been involved in The Day Today, Alan Partridge, The Friday Night Armistice, The Thick Of It, In The Loop and Veep. The film is based on a comic loosely based on the death of Joseph Stalin and the turmoil that followed as various people tried to scheme their way to power. The Death of Stalin is not exactly trying to satirise Stalin and his government, after all he’s been dead for 70 years, but rather show the ridiculousness of power and tyranny. How the genuinely terrifying dictators are also stupid people who did stupid things. In the film, Stalin lies for hours after having a stroke with no medical assistance, despite people hearing him collapse, as they are all too scared to enter his office. And even when the other soviet leaders find him, they want to be quorate before they vote on calling a doctor, and even then…most of the medical establishment was caught in Stalin’s purges. It also shows how the seemingly invincible can be brought down spectacularly quickly. Beria, as head of the security services, was poised to take over, but instead was arrested and shot within minutes.

Satire To Bring Down The Powerful

A recent Oscar contender was The Apprentice, a satire about Donald Trump, but not President Trump, the much younger real estate businessman being mentored by right-wing demagogue Roy Cohn. Presumably, the film is a contest about who can be the most objectionable person in America. It has often been said that Trump is beyond satire, and perhaps this is why this satire didn’t focus on his recent political career but on his earlier business career. Is Trump’s political career unsuitable for satire? After all, this was a person whose right-hand man organised a press conference about how the election was “stolen” at Four Seasons Total Landscaping opposite an adult book store rather than the Four Seasons hotel. That is beyond Spinal Tap levels of ridiculous incompetence, and perhaps how every music documentary since This Is Spinal Tap has had to make sure they didn’t have a Spinal Tap moment, every filmmaker wanting to make a satire about Trump with have to wrestle with the problem of using comedic exaggeration against a man who long ago passed any imagined exaggeration. How did it shape public opinion? It will be very interesting to see how/if it does. Most people are in very definitive camps regarding Trump, but it is possible this film could successfully change how Trump’s business career is seen. His supporters will often say he is a billionaire businessman, obviously, he knows what he is doing, could this undermine the foundations of his supposed brilliance?

The post Why Political Satire Remains Crucial in 2025 appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Most depictions of artificial intelligence portray it as a bad thing. Part of this is because most key plot points in films are bad things, it is the conflict which drives the story, and so we have had AIs that take over the world, that want to destroy humanity, or rule it. Or perhaps it is AI that is blinded by its own programming into doing heartless evil things? In the last few years, AI has exploded in the public consciousness and what tasks it is being asked to do becomes more varied with every passing day. Will AI rule over us? Will AI become our friend and companion? Will AI take over the creation of art?

Inventing AI

If we take Ex Machina as a jumping off point for a more up to date discussion of how AI is portrayed in movies more recently, what do we have? Ex Machina is a 2014 film directed by Alex Garland, in which a billionaire genius brings an employee to view his robot AI creation. The film deals with all manner of questions about AI, identity, life and more. The AI robot, Ava, is a creative, gentle, and nice person, and we sympathise with her, as she appears to be little more than a captive. The employee certainly forms an attachment to her and we see her and the employee being manipulated. Ava escaping at the end of the film is seen as a heroic moment, and we see the billionaire and even the employee as being people who mistreated her.

Your Friend and Companion

A common theme in recent AI films has been to move the issue away from world-conquering computers but to focus AI as something in the home, a threat to you and those around you. M3GAN is a 2022 horror-sci-fi movie in which Gemma becomes the guardian of her niece, Cady, after her parents are killed in a car accident. Gemma gets a M3gan doll, a child-sized robot with AI, designed to be a great playmate and companion for a child. At first, it is a great success, but when the adults around Cady become concerned about the girl’s attachment to the doll, things begin to change, and M3gan attacks and kills people who would get between her and Cady. In the sequel M3gan 2.0 it seems like a military contractor has decided to use the M3gan technology to make a weapon, obviously making it tougher, stronger, etc., because if there is one thing to learn from movies is that people refuse to learn.

In 2025’s Companion, an AI robot, Iris, is a companion robot – who would form “real” relationships with humans – in this case Josh. In this movie Iris is unaware that she is a robot and that she can be controlled by Josh via a remote control, he can alter her intelligence, send her to “sleep” and more. After some rather dramatic developments, Josh tells Iris about her true nature, and, like Ex Machina, we sympathize with her. Recent German TV show Cassandra has a family moving into an old “smart home” that was thought to be the future, but has been left empty for decades. The house robot, Cassandra, assists the family and helps run the house, but after so long alone is determined never to be abandoned and turned off again.

The Enemy

The Creator has a more typical depiction of AI, at least at first, in that it presents a struggle between AI and humans. But it is an exceptionally complicated world of different relationships – humans who hate AI and want it wiped out, humans who have formed relationships with AI, humans who see AI as their equals and work with them. US soldier Joshua is sent to destroy the AI’s newest weapon, Alpha-O, but upon learning this is a simulant child, he stops and rescues the child.

The Many AI of Black Mirror

The television show Black Mirror has numerous episodes about AI. Of course it does, it’s Black Mirror. There is the horrifically unsettling Be Right Back where AI is used to create a facsimile of a deceased partner, to Hang The DJ where a dating app uses AI to run scenarios to find people the perfect partner (one of the few “nice” episodes). Most recently is the episode Joan Is Awful using AI software to create a television programme using a real person’s life as inspiration, not needing writers or actors for the hit TV show.

One thing that is interesting in many of these recent depictions is that we are generally very sympathetic to these AI characters. Even in M3gan and Cassandra, where they are the villain, they are driven by desires for love and connection. M3gan sees herself as Cady’s parent, Cassandra does not want to be alone, very understandable instincts. With Ava and Iris, we have two characters who we see as being abused and/or held captive and we want them to escape. In The Creator it is the humans who are utilising massive weapons to utterly wipe out their opponents, as opposed to the depiction of AI in The Terminator franchise who seeks to wipe out humanity.

For many of these films and TV shows, the AI is far closer than they used to be – Terminator’s Skynet was some distant supercomputer, whereas now they live in your home. They are not just weapons or tools, they are companions, friends and are used to make art. The concerns that we now have are not that AI will seize political power as much as that they will take our place in life, they will become the friends, the companions, the artists, and not only that, but that possibly it is humans and not AI who are the villains.

The post From Villains to Allies: How AI Portrayals in Film Are Rapidly Evolving appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

It is not possible to diagnose a character in a film with a mental health problem, partly because we don’t have all the information of what is going on but also the actions they take will be made for purposes of storytelling, not accurate descriptions of health conditions. So when the 1960 classic horror movie Psycho used that word to describe the film and its villain, what were they trying to say? Most of the conversation of Norman Bates’ diagnosis seems to suggest Dissociative Identity Disorder, DID, previously known as Multiple Personality Disorder. The term “psycho”, or even psychopath, is not present in either of those conditions. “Psycho” was simply a word used to denote a dangerous and “crazy” person. The audience does not need any understanding of mental health to know what the title is suggesting. An academic article in The European Journal of Trauma & Dissociation argued that portrayals in media of people with DID were prone to over-the-top displays of switching of personalities and they were violent, dangerous and engaged in criminal behaviour, despite “that the vast majority of individuals with DDs (dissociative disorders) do not perpetrate violent crime; instead, they are more likely to be victims of it”.

The word “psycho” is a shortened form of the clinical term psychopath, this is someone felt to have a severe form of Antisocial Personality Disorder. There is also the term “psychosis” which is when someone suffers from a break from reality. Many, many horror villains would probably fall under the umbrella term of suffering a psychosis, but again those suffering from psychosis are more likely to be a danger to themselves than others. It is safe to say that the portrayal of DID, psychopaths, and those suffering with psychosis in the film Psycho is an inaccurate and negative one.

Halloween

Another horror movie considered a classic which leans heavily on mental health tropes is Halloween. The killer Michael Myers murdered his family as a six-year-old and has been held in a secure hospital ever since. There is a very vague explanation of any mental health problems Michael Myers has and more relies on the fact that he is a dangerous violent person who escaped from “lunatic asylum”. There are assertions about Myers being pure evil and even in the first film suggestions of superhuman or supernatural abilities. The clinical psychologist in charge of Myer’s care refers to him as “it”. Halloween is not trying to make a nuanced film about mental health, and neither would most of the audience accept this as a realistic portrayal but it further feeds into extremely negative views on mental health.

Split is a relatively recent addition to the horror genre and again focuses on Dissociative Identity Disorder. James McAvoy plays the villain, a serial killer with 23 distinct identities, some of whom are violent and dangerous and often seem to have abilities beyond normal humans. There was a negative response to the film from those working in mental health, stating that it sensationalised aspects of the disorder and showed that someone suffering from DID as inherently dangerous. In the movie the villain’s psychiatrist is pushing the medical community to move from a model of incarceration to treatment for people suffering from DID, many of her former patients have been incarcerated rather than treated. Now given that the villain is her patient, and is in fact a very dangerous individual who is actively harming people is Dr. Fletcher simply a naïve patsy? A message that for all doctors talking of treatment, understanding, and compassion are misguided, even though the actual real-world reality shows the view of people with DID as violent is incorrect.

The Babadook

Not all films handle mental health in such a negative way. Horror masterpiece The Babadook has a lot to say about depression, grief and the genuinely soul-destroying exhaustion a parent can go through, dealing with incredibly dark thoughts and feelings of negative thoughts a parent could have of their own child. Hereditary, widely considered a modern horror classic, is largely about grief and family trauma. This is not new – Don’t Look Now released in 1973 while dealing with typical horror ideas of the occult and murder is about parents grieving the loss of their child. What is notable about these films and their relationship to mental health is that the horror is a metaphor for the problems they are going through, it is not that a person who is suffering from depression and grief is murdering people but rather the supernatural danger they are dealing with represents that.

The criticism of how these films handle mental health is not to say they’re bad movies but that they could have made other choices, and portrayed things differently. Almost inevitably if the villain of a horror movie is identified as having a mental illness…then that will be the driver behind their actions and routinely misrepresented and sensationalized.

The post Beyond the Screams: Challenging Mental Health Tropes in Horror Movies appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Perhaps the most famous example of this is “The Star Wars Despecialized Edition by Harmy”. In the 1990s The Star Wars trilogy was re-issued on VHS and then DVD, George Lucas took this opportunity to go back and change things in the trilogy. Often this was to do with things Lucas felt he couldn’t do in the 70s due to technological limitations, many of the changes reflected aesthetics, or things like removing the actor who played Jabba the Hutt in A New Hope with a CGI version looking more like the “slug” creature from Return of the Jedi. This annoyed some people but when further releases of Star Wars were exclusively this special edition of Lucas’ edits and the original unedited films were no longer available to buy some people became very annoyed. Harmy, a pseudonym adopted by a Czech teacher, released a de-specialised edition they made themselves, describing Lucas’ edited version as an act of “cultural vandalism”.

Now Harmy was doing a work of “restoration”, bringing something back that was not available that people wanted, but there are fan edits where people make editing choices themselves. Fanedit.org is a website containing information on many fan edits, it does not host them but points you in the right direction to find them. The website breaks down the different types of edits, with labels like FanFix – making minor changes and improvements, or FanMix which may provide an entirely different story. A lot of the films sound like a labour of love, stories of fans disappointed with a franchise they adore that they feel dropped the ball, or being able to edit a really good film into being amongst the less entertaining theatrical release. Some edits are incredibly minor, removing what might be a genuine mistake. Some are approaching a little more of the toxic fandom (note – I have not watched any of these fan edits so I am relying on the description), such as a franchise film where the edit seems mainly concerned with cutting out a female character. When these edits seem to simply be enthusiastic fans and/or filmmakers trying to express their interpretation it seems like an interesting pursuit but sometimes there seems to be an urge of “I will make this better!” a wounded cry that the film isn’t exactly to their taste, and not just a matter of opinion, but a demonstrable fact.

What drives fans to make these fan edits? Well, 95% of the fan edits I could find were of franchise films, Star Wars, Marvel, and Lord of the Rings, where there are huge fandoms who care massively about the material. Seemingly there are far fewer or more “serious” films, which I think has less to do with that these films are inherently better and so have less to edit (as they are not inherently better) but fans feel more able to tinker with the franchise movies. After all, there is no definitive Spider-Man story or interpretation, numerous movies in the last twenty years and then decades and decades of comics. After the original Star Wars trilogy there were dozens of books, comics etc that suddenly were no longer canon as new films were released. This was a franchise that seemed to be actively telling people to change things, to make their own improvements and with an average person having the technology to do so…they did.

The post Why Fans Re-Edit Films: Inside the Growing Trend of DIY Director’s Cuts appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

In Front Of The Camera

The film has a large ensemble cast, lead by Gabriel LaBelle as the show’s creator and mastermind Lorne Michaels who is trying to wrangle some of the most unreliable and unpredictable people in the country to make a show. Willem Dafoe plays the positively sinister Dave Tebet; an NBC executive who can choose to cancel the live broadcast. There are too many actors to list here but particular attention should go to Matt Wood as John Belushi who is so incredibly convincing you think its they’ve just put footage of the real Belushi into the film, Cory Michael Smith as Chevy Chase who is so unlikable you want to punch him for most of the film and Rachel Sennott as Rosie Shuster, writer and Lorne Michael’s wife, sort of, who bursts with confidence and the ability to wrangle Lorne.

Behind The Scenes

The film is directed and co-written by Jason Reitman who is probably best known for directing Juno but also has great films like Up In The Air, Young Adult and more. Reitman has also done some work on SNL before.

Does It Work?

The film takes place almost entirely in the ninety minutes before the first live broadcast. The show is scheduled for 90 minutes but is estimated to be running at double that judging by all the acts they have, major cast member John Belushi hasn’t signed his contract, Chevy Chase is upsetting everyone with his ego, a llama has arrived and there are a million problems any one of which could sink the show. Many of the people involved are now well known as being difficult to work with – John Belushi is uncontrollable, Chevy Chase is not always popular with other cast members, guest host comedian George Carlin could not be relied upon in any way to not swear – or worse – on live tv and everyone seems to delight in poking the person from Standards and Practices, essentially the censor.

The film, especially the first half, will make you dizzy. Long unbroken shots follow Lorne as he tries to keep the show on track, snippets of conversation form a background hum of not quite discernible talking. Every five seconds someone is shouting about a delivery, a problem with costume, a phone call, a meeting. It feels exhausting just trying to keep up as the audience how anyone could handle making this film or the tv show behind it is hard to imagine.

The question is repeatedly asked – what is this show? It’s not a sitcom, it’s not a variety show, it’s not a sketch show like Monty Python, there were no stars in the cast and it’s often suggested, sometimes outright stated, nobody wants the show to succeed. When we see glimpses of some of the other things NBC is broadcasting, like the dire variety show The Rumpus Room you can see why SNL would be challenging and surprising. Milton Berle, a superstar from the early days of television whose nickname was Mr Television, hangs around the studios seemingly unimpressed with the show and everyone involved. He is a very concrete symbol of old television or perhaps television just before SNL. In a hugely uncomfortable moment talking to executives, affiliates etc, Lorne Michaels describes it as the first show made by the first generation who grew up on television. As brilliant as previous performers might have been television was a new medium for them.

As well as the various conversations about art, censorship, ambition, etc the film is very funny. Classically trained actor, playwright and opera singer Garrett Morris’ odyssey of trying to work out what his place is in this show, as the only non-white member of the cast he feels out of place and complains about only getting to play hoodlums and pimps – the end of this journey culminates in one of the funniest moments of the film. Nicholas Braun pulls double duty as the oddest of the odd performers Andy Kaufman and loveable puppeteer Jim Henson. Kaufman is never not in character and seems to wander the building not knowing where he is meant to be. Henson’s incredibly gentle demeanour sits uncomfortably with the foul-mouthed cast who also resent working with puppets, and Henson states that the problem is they’re not puppets, they’re co-stars. Which perhaps would not win over cynical comedy writers and performers.

Is It Real?

This is not a documentary. Many events depicted in the film didn’t happen in that way, at that time, in that order. Some didn’t happen at all. However, what Reitman was trying to recreate was the anarchic feeling that seems to have genuinely infused the show, the feeling of being on the very edge of failure but just maybe you could pull it off and do something spectacular. The show was not as unpopular with management as is shown, the cast was not quite as dysfunctional, and early TV legend Milton Berle wasn’t lurking around the set being Milton Berle-y. But the show was expensive, live and untested, who would put that on the air? The cast did have a lot of problems, Chevy Chase and John Belushi did not get along at all and to this day people still talk about how hard Chase is to work with. And Milton Berle did guest-host an early episode of SNL that Lorne Michaels hated.

Saturday Night is a funny and enjoyable film, which will work even better if you are a fan of SNL and American comedy.

Rating: (3 / 5) (3.5 out of 5 if you’re a fan of SNL.)

The post Review: Saturday Night appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Comedians Being Serious – Jim Carrey

At this point, Jim Carrey has starred in a number of genuinely brilliant films where he gave amazing performances that stretched his range, whether that be comedic, dramatic or a mix of both. The two that particularly stand out to me are Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind (for which everyone involved should have gotten an Oscar from the director to the fake dead bird) and The Truman Show. This was made in 1998 and followed a string of commercial successes in Ace Ventura: Pet Detective, The Mask, and Dumb and Dumber. The Jim Carrey from these films was an almost uncontrollable ball of energy, twisting his face into weird permutations, being incredibly loud and behaving ridiculously. Jim Carrey’s career trajectory would have been to star in more wacky comedies until people got bored. Instead, Carrey did something very different – he starred in The Truman Show. Truman is a quiet, sensitive and kind man, put upon by various pressures in his life, yearning after a lost love he cannot understand. The only moments of manic Carrey come in what are played as distressing and upsetting moments, not comedy. It is a revelatory performance.

Franchises

For this, we have the child stars of Daniel Radcliffe, Robert Pattinson and Kristen Stewart. Radcliffe as Harry Potter, Pattinson and Stewart as Edward and Bella in the Twilight series. They spent years at the beginning of their careers playing one character, often in films that were not well-received outside the fanbase. Stewart and Pattinson in particular have been on a mission to break the stereotype of franchise star to serious actor. One of Stewart’s first films after this franchise was Camp X-Ray, where she played a soldier based at Guantanamo Bay. The same year the final Twilight film was released Pattinson was in Cosmopolis, a David Cronenberg film, which is enough of a description to know that it would be a very different film to Twilight. Radcliffe seems to have gone down the route of not doing as much but just whatever interests him; popping up in odd roles like Swiss Army Man or Guns Akimbo, starring in the not-as-well-known-as-it-should-be Weird: the Al Yankovic Story.

Romantic Comedies

Few people are having a better third act of their career than Hugh Grant. Grant rose to fame in Four Weddings and a Funeral and then spent years starring in romantic comedies about befuddled Englishmen. At some point though something seems to have snapped in Grant leading him to take very different roles. In Paddington 2 (which let’s not forget is a contender for the greatest film ever made) he plays a thieving cad, in Dungeons and Dragons: Honor Amongst Thieves he also plays a thieving cad, in the recently released Heretic he is neither a rom-com lead or thieving cad but is quietly terrifying in the trailer of this horror movie.

Sandra Bullock was one of the most well-known actors in the world and this was for mainly appearing in rom-coms. She starred in, amongst others, While You Were Sleeping, Hope Floats, Two Weeks Notice, and The Lake House. In fairness some of these rom-coms have a surprising amount going on in terms in plot – so The Lake House features time travel letter writing and While You Were Sleeping through a convoluted turn of events Bullock pretends to be the fiancé of a man in a coma. IMDb lists her nicknames as America’s Sweetheart and The Girl Next Door. And then she won an Oscar for The Blind Side. Sandra Bullock was always a very good actor but after The Proposal it didn’t seem likely she would soon win an Oscar. Bullock went on to make Gravity essentially being without any other actors, let alone romantic interests for the whole film.

Nice British People

It is hard to think of a more complete transformation than Hugh Laurie playing Prince George in Blackadder to Hugh Laurie in House. Along with Stephen Fry, Laurie had cultivated an impeccably English idiot comedy persona, a meticulous work of cultural understanding of being English. And then he played Gregory House a doctor so mean and unpleasant they really shouldn’t have let him be a doctor anymore. Matthew Macfadyen was another nice British actor – he played Mr. Darcy for God’s sake – who then went over to Hollywood and played Tom Wambsgans in Succession a cruel bullying obnoxious caricature of a person who’s saving grace is only that he never personally murdered someone. Then Olivia Colman who for twenty or so years was an excellent sitcom actor, Peep Show, 2012, Rev and so on, and it’s not to say her acting isn’t brilliant in Peep Show but she is now working on a different scale.

Also Read: 1994: The Year of Jim Carrey

The post When Actors Break Free From Stereotypes appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Cinerama

Competition from television drove a lot of innovation in formats and Cinerama is a classic example. Briefly, Cinerama involved three cameras set up as one unit to film a scene, when shown in cinemas you needed three carefully positioned projectors. The screen was curved allowing a panoramic picture, taking up most of the audience’s field of version. Not only did this add to the immersion of the audience but for something like a Western with long shots of never-ending spectacular nature it added a lot to the experience. Filming in Cinerama was expensive, you needed three times as many cameras, if the film from one camera was damaged then the complete footage from all three would be useless and while it could look spectacular you needed to be in the right place in the audience, and this by no means meant everyone in the cinema. Due to the high costs, Cinerama was phased out for cheaper techniques – such as the Ultra Panavision so beloved by Tarantino.

VistaVision

VistaVision was Paramount’s attempt at showing people the value of cinema. This was a higher quality 35mm print that was very good for widescreen. Even when more traditional film stocks gained in quality some persisted in using VistaVision, famously for special effects scenes Star Wars used it. In fact VistaVision was still used in some shots for The Dark Knight, but that is just the sort of thing you’d expect from Christopher Nolan. Such cinematic classics as White Christmas and Vertigo (Hitchcock used it a lot) were filmed using VistaVision. Another benefit to this format over some of its contemporaries was that it didn’t need the cinema to sacrifice seats to make space for it, it needed less specialist equipment to show and as always, making money was of paramount importance.

3D

Like an 80s horror villain 3D is the format that will not stay dead. The technology has been available since the early days of cinema but has come and gone in crazes – most famously in the 1950s (once again, brought out to defeat television). Most recently the 2000s saw a huge boom in 3D films – with one of the early adopters oddly enough being the Spy Kids franchise. These booms went through artistic peaks and troughs with highlights of films like Gravity and Hugo, which tried to do something with 3D and not just have something occasionally thrown at the camera. Avatar is one of the most financially successful films of all time with James Cameron putting huge amounts of time and effort into making it look amazing. And while at one point there was talk that 3D was going to be the future of filmmaking it has once again receded into obscurity.

Super 8

To filmmakers of a certain age Super 8 film is of incredible importance. It was a home movie film stock but due to its numerous advantages became a phenomenon of DIY filmmaking (this being memorably highlighted in the film Super 8, about kids making their own zombie movie and accidentally getting caught up in much bigger events). Super 8 was relatively cheap and one of the fastest loading recording systems ever made, it was incredibly simple and did not require the user to thread the film or even touch the actual film.

Digital

Actual tangible celluloid film is now a rare thing in filmmaking, instead, it is digital. There are many detractors of digital filmmaking and there are valid points to be made but there are huge advantages. It is cheaper, the film costs money and every take costs more. For editing purposes film is a nightmare, you literally cut it, and a cut is permanent. Distribution and copying are immensely easier, as is storage (with no Inglorious Basterds infernos). There is much that can be done digitally, it is flexible and easy to manipulate. Of course, many of these benefits are even more important for small filmmakers. Super 8 film was cheap and easy to use and led to an explosion in home filmmaking; Thomas Edison once said he would make electricity so cheap only the rich would burn candles and we have made digital filming so easy we have TikTok.

Also Read: Iconic Monsters In Film & Television

The post Exploring Film Formats: How Technology Shapes the Stories We See appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

It is worth pointing out that an audience watching a film in their native language, made by people of the same culture in the same time period can still lead to different interpretations so adding the complexity of another language only makes it more complicated.

In terms of distributing films for audiences that do not speak the language the film is made in, there have been two options – dubbing or subtitles. Dubbing is the process of having actors who do speak the language of the audience redo the dialogue, for a long time dubbing was a source of much derision due to the unnatural feeling it gave movies and poor acting but in recent years it has become far more accomplished. Subtitling was long seen as the more authentic experience but still had its limitations. Any film, whether it be Citizen Kane or The Fast & The Furious, has a complexity to language that can be lost when translated. Even just thinking about some of the pithy one-liners from films – Dr. Strangelove – “Gentlemen, you can’t fight in here, this is the war room!” Silence of the Lambs – “I’m having an old friend for dinner” or even “You’ve got to ask yourself one question: ‘Do I feel lucky?’ Well, do ya punk?” from Dirty Harry. How easily the meaning could be lost if any of these were translated into Mandarin or Portuguese or Arabic? Translating is not just about specific words, there is meaning in context.

Then there are the problems of expressions and turns of phrase, for example, by the skin of one’s teeth, is not an expression that makes any sense when taken to another culture. The Chinese expression “Draw snake, add feet” meaning to overdo something does not make any sense. You could probably find examples of other expressions that would work in other languages, or just have the subtitles not use the expression and just say it…but then is something being lost?

It is well known that comedy doesn’t travel well, with it often not working when it leaves the place it was created. Often stereotypes about countries not having a sense of humour are that they simply have a different sense of humour. If we look at one of the great comedies of all time, Shaun of the Dead, and even just focus on the scene of throwing records at zombies. There are a number of different jokes going on – the silliness of fighting zombies with records, Shaun’s preciousness of his collection even in a life and death situation, the various jokes about different albums – such as Shaun insisting he likes The Stone Roses’ album Second Coming. How would this be translated for other audiences?

Famously when German television asked to broadcast Monty Python’s Flying Circus in Germany the Pythons decided instead of letting them dub it or subtitle it they would make specials in German, feeling that would convey the humour more. Admittedly, none of the Pythons spoke German so they learned it phonetically. But even if they didn’t learn the language they did make changes for the culture, settings change, clothes are different, it is trying to connect with the German audience.

Looking at some of the most successful non-English language films in the UK and America we have films like Parasite, Amelie, Pan’s Labrinyth. The first of those is a complex story of class and cultural tensions in South Korea, the second a film saturated in French cinematic style and taste, and the final a fantasy coming-of-age story amidst the aftermath of a fascist victory in the Spanish Civil War. There is a lot of room for misunderstanding and keeping the meaning and style of the original is an art form in itself.

Also Read: Parasite and Foreign Language Films in the UK

The post The Language of Subtitles: How Translation Shapes Our Understanding of Foreign Films appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

The Plot

Teenager Elliott is preparing to head off to college, she lives in a beautiful rural area of Canada on her family’s cranberry farm and is desperate to head off to the city. She has a wild mushroom-fuelled adventure with her friends to celebrate her 18th birthday and in the drug-altered state is approached by Older Elliott, her, from the future, aged 39. Their communication continues once the drugs wear off with Older Elliott eager to impart wisdom and advice to her younger self.

In Front Of The Camera

The movie stars Maisey Stella as Elliott and would perhaps be known as a star of the tv show Nashville and has few other credits to her name.

The other star is Aubrey Plaza – Older Elliott. Plaza has been a cult tv and film star for a long time and is constantly breaking into bigger and bigger roles. Her breakout role came as deranged and perennially eye-rolling intern April Ludgate in Parks and Recreation but has starred in films like Emily The Criminal, Ingrid Goes West, Black Bear and many more. Plaza is known for her odd performances often with dark humour and weird premises. In reality, Maisey Stella plays the only main character, with everyone else, including her older self, revolving around her.

Behind The Camera

The film is written and directed by Megan Park, an actor and filmmaker. Park has appeared in films like Charlie Barlett and directed a number of music videos and short films and then made the critically acclaimed Fallout, a film about a high school student who survived a school shooting, with the film focussing mainly on her life after that, the “fallout” of that life-changing incident.

Does It Work?

My Old Ass is a funny and emotional coming-of-age story. It constantly has beautiful shots of the stunning landscape in which the film is set. Maisey Stella is fantastic, managing to be endearing and annoying at the same time. The film however ultimately felt disappointing. The premise of the visitation of your older self and how that would impact you and the advice they could give you to make things better is interesting but the film does not actually spend much time on this idea. Older Elliott provides some useful if not terribly original advice about spending more time with your family and appreciating them more. Some of their conversations are genuinely engaging, funny and emotional but it does not feel like the idea was fully explored in this film. It could be that Park does not want to explore that idea a great deal, it is a solid film with or without it, but many in the audience will expect it to be a larger part of the story, to do more with this idea of your future self.

Much of the above criticism is about expectation management and it shouldn’t take away from the great parts of the movie. There are tender and kind moments aplenty, the friendship between Elliott and her two friends, Ro and Ruthie, is a highlight. As Elliott does become closer to her family we see the value this brings, the improvement to all of their lives. There are a couple of devastating scenes that are handled perfectly by all involved. While Plaza and Stella are fantastic in these scenes Percy Hynes White as a newcomer to the area, Chad is also very good and his brief interaction with one character is especially poignant.

My Old Ass goes through the usual travails of coming-of-age stories, love, attraction, planning your future, fear of that future, friendship, looming adulthood and more and while it may not be hugely original takes on these things coming-of-age films rarely do and are there to give each new generation their own coming-of-age films and not have to rely on ones made forty years previously where no one has a mobile phone.

My Old Ass is a good film and perhaps for someone who the coming-of-age story would be more applicable would enjoy it more. Megan Park and Maisey Stella are definitely people to look out for in the future.

Rating: (3 / 5)

The post Review: My Old Ass appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Disney

Walt Disney has made many of the fairy tales found in the Brothers Grimm into some of the most beloved children’s films ever made. Its first feature film was Snow White and the Seven Dwarfs, a classic Grimm fairy tale and this film from the 1930s still has a lot of cultural power. Inspired by the 1916 silent film of the same name the animated version would become one of the most important animated films ever made. We can put everything from Cinderella to Tangled in with Disney’s hugely successful adaptations of Grimm fairy tales.

Cartoons

Next, we have Tex Avery’s Red Hot Riding Hood loosely based on Little Red Riding Hood. Cartoon legend Avery presents a twist on the familiar tale, starting the cartoon in the typical rural medieval setting and then changing tone and location entirely; putting the wolf in a tuxedo and Little Riding Hood as a singer at a fancy club. Whilst you may think you’ve not seen this cartoon you almost certainly have at least seen parts of it (let alone the huge influence it had on future cartoons). It has a famous early example of a “cartoon character seeing an attractive woman” and the exaggerated and impossible reactions of the cartoon character.

Horror

The slightly askew interpretation of the fairy tale by Tex Avery is far from the only example, with numerous horror films using them as inspiration. Those who aren’t terribly familiar with the stories could perhaps wonder why filmmakers are using children’s stories for horror films…but there is murder, torture, horrific cruelty and more in the source material.

Hansel and Gretel has served as a great example, with 2020’s Gretel & Hansel as a recent addition, a twisted horror-fantasy focussing more on Gretel and exploring the various themes of the original story. The fairy tale runs the gamut of poverty, parental abandonment, homelessness, kidnapping, gaslighting, child torture, the prospect of cannibalism and burning a witch alive in her oven.

A brief note on 2005’s The Brothers Grimm a fantasy adventure featuring the brothers as the central characters. Rather than being academics collecting stories they are monster hunters, travelling the land fighting evil…well actually, they’re con artists, creating these monsters with theatrical skill and cheap tricks.

The Brothers

It’s hard to separate the Brothers Grimm and their work from their nationality and culture. The brothers were born in the 18th century in the Landgraviate of Hesse-Kessel, part of the Holy Roman Empire. They were German people but the country of Germany did not exist and would not until much later in the nineteenth century. The brothers felt a strong connection to fairy tales as art of the people, traditional and genuine, as opposed to high art which they considered more convoluted and artificial.

So why do these stories, collected by the Brothers Grimm over 200 years ago, based on stories that are far older still connect with people today? In European and American culture these stories are ubiquitous, giving a shared understanding. Reading your children these specific stories is a tradition. Whilst the stories may focus on stories of peasants, monsters and royals you get a lot in them – love, death, betrayal, heroism and usually a handy lesson to learn. Of course, at this point we are now in a feedback loop of cultural understanding, these stories, already prevalent, were stamped on the minds of children through Disney, the stories successfully attaching themselves to the new medium of cinema not long after its inception.

Also Read: Horror and Folklore: Movies Inspired by Myths and Legends

The post The Enduring Legacy of The Brothers Grimm: From Folktales to Cinematic Masterpieces appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What We Know

Section 31’s main character is Philippa Georgiou (played by Michelle Yeoh); not the Georgiou who was captain of Discovery at the start of that show but rather the evil version from The Mirror Universe (the origin of evil versions always have goatee beards trope), also featured in Discovery. Suffice it to say, there is not time to explain the previous sentence in this article, but fans of Star Trek will be nodding sagely.

Georgiou is recruited to provide some much-needed villain energy to the Section 31 organisation. One member of Star Fleet is specifically part of the team so they don’t get carried away with murdering so it could be assumed that without her they’re going to fail spectacularly at “black ops”. Not much is revealed about the other characters as all the focus is very much on Georgiou.

The Trailer

This does not seem like Star Trek. It is actually reminiscent of trailers for films like Guardians of the Galaxy, Suicide Squad or even the recently released Borderlands. It has fast cuts, modern music and garish colours and could even perhaps be described as “wacky”. There is also the feeling that Section 31 is a team of misfits and people who didn’t fit in elsewhere, perhaps even seen as a bit useless, which is something that has been seen many times but not so much in Star Trek. They are usually supremely competent, professional, and often genuinely brilliant. Problems in Star Trek arise not from a character’s foolish mistake but from moral quandaries, loyalty being pulled in different directions and so on.

This is definitely a new direction for Star Trek. The franchise has always been good at finding different ways to do fun things outside the confines of Star Fleet and the Federation, The Mirror Universe of evil duplicates being a great example. But with unique planets with a strong theme, time travel, holodecks, and more they can have fun and not do too much damage to Star Trek canon. This would be a movie where the central theme runs against how the Star Trek universe is usually portrayed. For all of its numerous faults Star Trek: Insurrection has Picard go off on one of his monologues about the philosophy of the “ends justify the means”, with vehemently stating that is not what he or the Federation believes. Section 31 is possibly torn in too many directions, the central character an evil emperor from a parallel dimension who killed millions is brought into an organisation where they’re told they can’t kill people. It will perhaps not satisfy those looking for a darker Star Trek story as it will not embrace the idea of what a black ops division actually does. The organisation of Section 31 always stood out as an odd anomaly in Star Trek and to make a whole movie about it may tear a hole in the spacetime continuum – or similar technobabble the franchise is rightly famous for.

But for those who are less wedded to the underlying philosophy of Star Trek – people like JJ Abrams for example – what are the good points? First, you have Oscar winner Michelle Yeoh, a great actor clearly giving it 100% in the Alan Rickman style of playing a villain. It looks fun with a great many explosions, space battles and over-the-top costumes. For a franchise that can take itself very seriously, this is perhaps moving more into fun – even containing a fourth-wall-breaking censor-style disclaimer at the beginning of the trailer from Star Fleet media division. It’s worth noting that Lower Decks, a Star Trek animated show, which has a more sillier tone than Star Trek in general has been very successful.

We will have to see if Star Trek: Section 31 can pull off this new direction and if traditional Star Trek fans will go along with it.

Also Read: Five Star Trek Fan Films You Should Watch Right Now

The post Section 31: The Good, The Bad & The Star Trek appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

What Is An Audio Drama?

Audio dramas are podcasts that are fictional and tell a story. Similar shows have obviously existed on the radio since the dawn of that medium and at one point were one of the major cultural touchstones. BBC Radio 4 show The Hitchhiker’s Guide To The Galaxy would be a good non-podcast example of this sort of show.

There are hundreds, maybe thousands, of these podcasts and leaving aside any quality control enough to keep Hollywood going for decades. In fact, there are several that have already been made into TV shows. Limetown an early masterpiece of audio drama podcasts was made by Apple TV, Archive 81 appeared on Netflix, and development hell, rumours and failed projects have stalked many of the more popular podcasts.

So will are the good and bad parts of focusing on audio dramas as the next source of Hollywood inspiration:

Pro: Quality

To be absolutely clear in any medium the gamut of quality runs from terrible to brilliant but there are truly sensational audio dramas out there. Given the relatively low costs and easy accessibility to the medium, virtually anyone can make a podcast and this has given voice to talented writers, directors etc who may never had the opportunity to make a tv show or film. Within The Wires, for example, is a continuing source of originality, drama and genuine beauty, depicting a possibly dystopian future or alternate timeline with each series told via an ingenious delivery method.

Con: Story Structure

Most fiction podcasts tell long stories. WtNV has almost three hundred episodes, The Magnus Archives around 200, and often part of the point is the long drawn-out nature of the story. Now how do you take WtNV and its 300 episodes full of characters, organisations, monsters etc and make a film about it? Inevitably stuff will be cut out, fans will be disappointed and perhaps the spirit of the show won’t be captured. And then the very nature of some podcasts – the above-mentioned Within The Wires in the second series each episode is framed as an audio guide around an art gallery…who is going to adapt that? The answer of course would be the long awaited Christopher Nolan-Denis Villeneuve co-director project.

Con & Pro: Fame

Fiction podcasts are not well-known. Even the most popular are niche. Sometimes when adapting a book or play the filmmakers see that the source material is brilliant regardless of how successful it was. Sometimes people adapt other works simply because there is a large existing audience. You will not attract a large audience simply by adapting podcasts, but by the same token, it’s probably going to be a lot cheaper to buy the rights than a bestselling novel.

The only deciding factor will be whether it is successful. If Iron Man had failed spectacularly there wouldn’t be decades of movies following in its wake. If someone adapts The Bright Sessions audio drama (therapy for people with superpowers) and it is a huge success then there will be more.

Also Read: Five Great Film Podcasts To Listen To Right Now

The post Audio Dramas: Hollywood’s Next Frontier for New Stories? appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Spoiler Warning – this article contains major spoilers for Blade Runner, Ghost in the Shell and Minority Report.

Identity

Who are we? How do we know who we are? How do we know who someone else is? Who and what can we trust? In Blade Runner humans have constructed replicants, virtually identical to humans but stronger, needing a complicated one-on-one test to determine who is who. These replicants work as forced labour on off-world colonies, desperate to escape. Even more, it is revealed the new replicants have been given memories so they think they’re human. In Ghost In The Shell “ghosts” can be moved into new cyborg bodies and ghosts can even combine to become a new identity. Identity is a common theme of noir, sci-fi and the mixing of the two. While classic noirs are not as overt questions of identity are constantly raised – we have private detectives, criminals, victims, police, authority figures and a character’s status in these groups is important and changes constantly.

Trust

Who do you trust and should you trust them? Noir detectives venture into the criminal world but it’s not just their obvious antagonists who they need to worry about. The classic opening of a noir film is a “dame” seeking help from the private detective and how often do we learn this person is actually manipulating the detective? In Blade Runner, the question of trust is on another level. Can Deckard trust the police? Can he trust passers-by who might be replicants? Then can he even trust himself? Can he trust his own memory? Is he a replicant programmed with decades worth of memories? Maybe. Kusanagi in Ghost in the Shell has similar problems, plots within plots, foreign agents, her superiors, everyone around her – who is there to trust?

In Minority Report Tom Cruise plays a police officer running the pre-cog crime unit, where they glimpse the future and then stop the crime. When Cruise’s character is said to be a criminal he suspects that it is Colin Farrell’s character who has betrayed him, a sceptical outside investigator, when, in fact, it is his mentor, determined to see the pre-cog crime unit succeed. A recurring theme of noir films is realising the one person you put absolute trust in is your real enemy.

Morally Grey

Deckard is the good guy in Blade Runner. He is the protagonist, we follow his story, essentially a detective and cop, he’s played by all-time hero Harrison Ford. But Deckard’s job is to kill replicants who have made it to Earth. Sometimes that is the only crime they have committed. They are intelligent creatures, easily the equal of any human in the complexity of thought and they are “retired” without trial or hesitation. Why is Deckard the good guy? In Minority Report Farrell’s character specifically questions the fairness and justice of the pre-cog system, people are charged with crimes they have not actually committed. In the city there have been no murders in two years, is that proof of success? The incredibly dedicated Cruise upon being determined a pre-criminal himself then goes on the run, refusing to believe that this prediction is right…because this time it’s him.

Visuals

Blade Runner and Ghost in the Shell are rightly famous for the way they look, both are iconic. Despite being set in LA which we now think of as a land of permanent sun Blade Runner LA is dark, grimy and usually raining. It also has the unusual oxymoron of managing to be both dark and bright, dark skies lit up by fiercely bright advertisements. Ghost in the Shell has a tall and vast city that is constantly looming over everything, something impossible to escape or even ignore. Perhaps this is just the passage of time (we are past the date Blade Runner is set in) but their examples of sci-fi often seem positively low-tech. The computer monitors in Blade Runner would be laughed at now, Ghost in the Shell and its endless cables as a sign of tech likewise seems odd.

As time goes by and those classic noir films get further and further away how will this odd blend of genres evolve? Some of these sci-fi noir films are over forty years old, generations of filmmakers will have grown up on these films and will surely have something to contribute.

Also Read: Animated Horror: The Overlooked Genre Fusion

The post Exploring Sci-Fi Noir: How Blade Runner and Ghost in the Shell Define the Sub-Genre appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Linear story-telling would be a story that starts at the beginning and ends at the end. an increasingly common story-telling trope in movies is non-linear storytelling, where the story is told in different sections, with the chronological sequence of events being distorted. Sometimes this is just an interesting idea to tell stories in different ways but for some films, this very idea is crucial to the film.

Memento

Undoubtedly the film where this is most important is Memento. Christopher Nolan’s first full-length film has a narrative that is almost impossible to put in some sort of chronological order. This is because we follow the character of Lenny – a man investigating the murder of his wife. The problem is that in the attack that killed his wife Lenny is also injured and suffers from anterograde amnesia. This is a kind of amnesia where the memories before the injury remain but new ones are unable to be made. You could meet Lenny for the first time, leave the room, come back two minutes later and he wouldn’t remember you, once his short-term memory has moved on nothing is saved. This means Lenny himself has a hell of a time trying to navigate life and solve a crime. We learn at the end of the film just how disjointed the narrative is. The confusion that the viewer has in trying to keep track of what is happening gives them just a small glimpse into Lenny’s life. In the way that the audience can be manipulated into making certain conclusions or assumptions by someone who has control over how the information is relayed so can Lenny.

Pulp fiction

Perhaps the most famous example of this is Pulp Fiction. While this purely a storytelling choice unlike some of the other films mentioned, if one were to simply rearrange Pulp Fiction and put it in chronological order it would be a worse film. The film opens in a diner about to be held up and ends there as well – in between a lot happens, including the death of one of the people in the diner. Pulp Fiction tells several interconnected stories – a diner holdup, two gangsters going to reclaim their boss’s property, the same two gangsters accidentally killing someone and having to clean that mess up, one gangster taking the boss’s wife out on a platonic date and a boxer being paid to throw a fight who instead takes that money bets on himself and wins. The stories weave in and out of each other and it is not entirely clear when they place in relation to one another. Famously in one scene John Travolta’s Vincent Vega is killed by Bruce Willis’ Butch and then appears in the next scene – as chronologically his death is still in the future.

Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind

Like Memento the brilliant Eternal Sunshine focuses on memory. But in Eternal Sunshine the hook is a company will delete painful memories, so bad breakups and so on. Joel finds out his girlfriend has chosen to delete him from her memory and so decides to do the same thing. Most of the film takes place within Joel’s mind while he sleeps and the memories are deleted. There is a handy trick in the film – similar to one used in Memento – of Clem’s hair changing colour, she mentions she dyes it often and so this can be used as a rough measure of “when” we are. As the film progresses we learn that some of what we are seeing is not the setup of their relationship but that they meet again AFTER both have deleted each other from their respective memories. The time spent in Joel’s mind is inherently disjointed especially when to avoid the memory deletion Joel goes to memories that do not contain Clem.

In Television

There are a number of TV shows that have used non-linear narrative or at least elements of it. So there is Rick and Morty, a tv show featuring time travel, memory manipulation, inter-dimensional travel, literally the Devil, we have absolutely no idea who is a clone, a robot, from another dimension, what year it is, is this in our universe, is the universe simply a car battery? We don’t know. Inside No. 9 has an episode where we start at the end and jump back every scene, each time learning new things and different identities of the character, like Pulp Fiction to simply reverse the film it wouldn’t be as good. Doctor Who makes fantastic use of time travel to present a non-linear relationship, the character of River Song was the Doctor’s wife but when we first meet the character the Doctor doesn’t know who she is and over the course of several seasons and different Doctors their relationship is filled in. They often talk about “spoilers” – saying things the other doesn’t know about yet.

Also Read: ‘Killers of the Flower Moon’ Can Open For More Indigenous Storytelling and Talent

The post The Art of Non-Linear Narratives: How Memento and Pulp Fiction Redefined Storytelling appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Furiosa: A Mad Max Saga is a very different film to Mad Max: Fury Road. The latter was told over a matter of hours, maybe days, 85% of it an ultra-violent and explosive car chase. Furiosa is a film told over decades – detailing Furiosa’s life from when she was captured as a child to moments before Fury Road starts. The use of the word “saga” in the title is very telling as that is what the film is, whereas Fury Road is a frantic glimpse at that world. So where does the world of Mad Max go from here?

Looking at the original Mad Max trilogy we have three very different films. In Mad Max, some semblance of order remains with Max trying to maintain that, in Mad Max 2: The Road Warrior roving bands of psychotic raiders control the world and Max is trying to survive and help a community threatened by these raiders. And in Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome the weirdness is turned up to 11 and we have Tina Turner and Max becoming embroiled in the politics of survivor communities. Fury Road switched things up with Max hardly being the protagonist at all and a new feel to this world. Furiosa explored more of the locations of this world, in Fury Road we saw the Citadel, in Furiosa we The Green Place, Bullet Farm and Gas Town. There are all major locations that we get to explore. Going forward it’s likely we’ll see more places, a more fleshed-out world, assuming the original trilogy is canon we know there are more locations. And with more places will come more conflict. Perhaps the Mad Max saga will turn into films about the wars between these different places in the struggle for control of diminishing resources.

The obvious choice for the next film would be to carry on Furiosa’s story. Fury Road ends with Furiosa back at the Citadel seemingly poised to become its leader with Max purposefully leaving. This might be as close to a happily-ever-after as you’re going to get in this world and to have another film follow Furiosa will mean that something goes wrong. The Citadel was built on an odd quasi-religion built around Immortan Joe and what will those people who worshipped him do now? Will they be angry with Furiosa? Will Immortan Joe’s death prove he was a fraud but they simply turn their blind devotion to Furiosa? What of Immortan Joe’s “wives” and the women from the Green Place Furiosa brought back? All will have opinions on what should happen next.

As already stated, Fury Road and Furiosa are very different movies and it is certainly possible to take on different kinds of stories. Could there be a Suicide Squad ensemble cast of wasteland survivors (although the bizarre and dire-looking Borderlands may have gotten there first)? The Max Max saga is constantly pushing the line between dark and ridiculous, in Beyond Thunderdome clearly the needle had been pushed towards ridiculous but that isn’t necessarily a bad thing.

It wouldn’t be unusual for George Miller to simply forget about all of these characters and places and simply follow wherever Max goes next. The original trilogy dotted about the wasteland, never explaining what had happened since the end of the last film to bring Max to his new location. If the next film would put the focus back on Max it will be interesting to see what new locations Miller comes up with in this post-apocalyptic world.

Of course, the terrifying answer to what George Miller might do next might be what he has done before after Mad Max: Beyond Thunderdome…namely, co-write Babe and then direct Babe 2: Pig In The City. Surely this is a horror far greater than any post-apocalyptic wasteland?

Also Read: The Enduring Appeal of Post-Apocalyptic Movies

The post Mad Max: The Future of the Franchise after Furiosa appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Inside No. 9 is an anthology horror-comedy show. Each episode is a self-contained story with the loose premise that it takes place “inside number 9” and over the seasons this has included houses, train carriages and even a pedalo. The episodes range from silly comedy to genuine horror – with the action being down to supernatural creatures, everyday terrible people or just breached social conventions.

Pemberton & Shearsmith

The was created by Steve Pemberton and Reece Shearsmith, long-time collaborators who had previously worked together on The League of Gentlemen and Psychoville. It would be fair to say that their comedic taste runs to the dark, the weird and the twisted. The League of Gentleman featured a pair of shopkeepers who would regularly murder people for not being local, Psychoville a librarian who saw an imaginary singing person while he terrorised a family over an overdue library book. The anthology format of Inside No. 9 allows them to explore many different themes and tones and whether an episode will be funny, scary or both is unknown.

Pemberton and Shearsmith typically appear in the episodes but they have brought together a dazzling array of talent over the nine seasons. They have had Derek Jacobi playing a dying lawyer regretting a deal he made sometime ago, David Morrissey playing an incredibly committed football referee, Jane Horrocks as a volunteer in a crisis helpline, and Keeley Hawes as a woman dealing with her husband’s obsession over a lost shoe.

Stand Out Episodes

Reece Shearsmith has been quite public with his feelings when people have ranked the episodes or discussed which ones are better than others…but there is probably a clear fan favourite episode The 12 Days Of Christine, a heart-breaking episode with a fantastic twist, but there are many other brilliant ones. Shows doing “gimmick” episodes like musical episodes or silent episodes run the risk of it feeling like they’ve ran out of ideas, so Inside No. 9 making their second episode have no dialogue was quite a gamble but it is one of their best episodes. The crossword-based Riddle of the Sphinx is a very clever and twisty episode of puzzles, revenge and betrayal and also teaches you how to do a cryptic crossword. The Bill is an almost real-time episode of an argument of who will pay for the bill in a restaurant with the characters resorting to all manner of dirty tactics to claim the honour of paying for the meal. This final season has already at least one stand-out episode “Boo To A Goose” set almost entirely on a train carriage.

The show is sometimes described as hit and miss but this is in the nature of a wide-ranging anthology format show where the creators are trying to be original; some episodes will resonate more than others. You don’t get great episodes without the opportunity to risk making ones that aren’t as popular. All nine seasons are now available to watch on BBC iPlayer.

Also Read: Play Our New Quiz Game: Riddle Me Film

The post Inside No. 9: A Farewell to One of Britain’s Most Innovative TV Shows appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.

Um Actually…

I am a history fan and a nitpicking nerd who has said on countless occasions “Um actually…” as I issue a correction to someone. To many the idea of going through movies and pointing out the errors of Ancient Rome’s senatorial politics in Spartacus is simply being a killjoy. An understanding of history is important in society, it is a way to learn and understand things in the world. For example, the great biopic Lawrence of Arabia covers, in part, the redrawing of borders in the Middle-East after World War I, creating countries by drawing lines on maps and an accurate understanding of these events would help someone understand the political history of that region for the past 100 years. Does Lawrence of Arabia help or hinder that understanding?

Silly Criticisms

Sofia Coppola’s Marie Antoinette had mixed reviews but was criticised for its historical inaccuracies, such as not portraying all of Marie’s children. However, it was also criticised for purely stylistic choices of the director, such as when a blistering review of Marie’s dozens of shoes a pair of Converse trainers are seen for a split second. Coppola was not trying to suggest Marie Antoinette had Converse shoes. Even just the poster of Napoleon caused fury as it contained the text “He came from nothing. He conquered everything.” as he did not come from nothing, being minor Corsican nobility and did not, in fact, conquer everything. I would feel that this was poetic licence and helped to contextualise the scope of his achievements.

Revising History

Movies (as well as teachers, historians etc) are constantly being accused of revisionist history, or changing it to suit their political purposes and the real and accurate history is being pushed down. The fact is there is one correct version of history. When a historian writes a book there may be many facts about dates of battles etc but they are making an argument, an interpretation, of the events. And this has been going on since there was history. Opinions on figures, like say, Oliver Cromwell have changed considerably over the centuries from his death – tyrant, liberator, religious fanatic, champion of democracy or destroyer of it, and are never a monolith. As such if we’re saying filmmakers have a responsibility to portray history accurately…surely that would mean just portraying one interpretation accurately.

But that is an argument about the subject of history and biopics are not history. Biopics are fiction, not a documentary, and they do not claim to depict history. Their goal is to tell an entertaining story. Filmmakers adapt books, TV shows, plays and more as they are entertaining stories and history is just a fertile ground for ideas as any of these.

However, even if a biopic should be seen as a work of fiction rather than history, it is undeniable that biopics have a huge impact on how history is perceived. To use the example of Lawrence of Arabia – we have a dearth of material on and about Lawrence, he wrote books, and there are many photographs and even footage but for most people that is irrelevant, they have seen the movie. Your opinion of the real historical figures of the people portrayed in the film will be deeply affected by the movie.

In conclusion…

So we come to the difficult conclusion to the question of do filmmakers have a responsibility to history when making biopics? Yes in some ways, no in others, and it probably comes down to “it depends”. Some films, like Marie Antoinette, are not made to accurately depict every aspect of their protagonist, whereas some clearly want to create the definitive version of this person. And what are we being “accurate” about…a period costume being wrong is very different to interpreting the motivations of a leader going to war. Often a lot more leeway is granted to a figure from 1000 years ago to someone who died in the 20th Century. Its hard to imagine a biopic being made now of someone like Winston Churchill, who has equally vocal supporters and critics, who is not accused of betraying history no matter what. Ultimately if we want to watch historical figures in film then we shall have to accept they will never be completely accurate.

Also Read: Will We Ever See These Celebrity Biopics?

Also Read: Straying From The Truth: The Historical Facts Disney’s ‘Pocahontas’ Overshadowed

The post Ethics of Biopics: Balancing Historical Accuracy and Creative License in Movies appeared first on Big Picture Film Club.