Mini-Reviews

I've not been able to watch many films recently, but I've certainly been active in my TV watching. I will soon do a set of TV reviews, speaking about shows I like, and possibly looking at new shows in the US. But, for now, here are the films I've seen in the past while.

The Searchers - I'm still not a massive fan of Westerns (sorry, Andy!), but this was a pretty good film nonetheless. It was a little slow-moving for my liking, but the pace at least suited the film. Having been shown the first few minutes in a previous class, I was more than a little surprised to see the family killed off at the start. However, it is interesting that there is a whole family history that one can read from the scene that is not of massive importance to the rest of the story. Normally such a perfectly executed scene of subtle exposition would only be present when a necessity to the story. Whilst it wasn't, it gave the film's world a sense of history, and it gave us some indication to Ethan's past. One minor let-down was the strange conclusion when Ethan finds Debbie and has a sudden and unprompted change of heart about her.

Saw - Paul decided that he should introduce me to Saw, and so we sat and watched it the night before reshoots on The Golden Rule. I was pleasantly surprised to find that it was actually a very watchable and enjoyable thriller; not a horror like I had presumed - and I don't think I can be blamed for that presumption! The psychological tomfoolery (if the term is not too tame) is really interesting, and the dilemmas and tricks were well-played. A part of me thinks that coincidence plays a big part, because if anything had played out differently in that room then perhaps the game would have been rather less interesting. But, to be honest, that was an afterthought, and it didn't intrude on my enjoyment of the film. So I now join Paul in recommending that you see Saw. And then try the slide. It's delightful.

Zombieland - My favourite zombie films are Shaun of the Dead and Dead Set (okay, not really a film). Both mock the zombie-genre, and both are very funny, but they do it in very different ways. In Zombieland, we find yet another unique zombie-comedy: a zom-com, I believe. Much less of the comedy comes from the zombies or the genre itself. A lot of the humour comes from the characters and the dialogue. I would lie if I said it was witty, but it was certainly funny and enjoyable. The characters were pretty expanded, which is always a plus, and I found that Jesse Eisenberg had one of the few characterisations of the awkward-teenager that I actually liked. Additionally, I really liked the road-trip structure of the film, and the device of the rules coming up on screen - which I don't think I would have normally liked.

The Imaginarium of Doctor Parnassus - As I had expected, this was a curiously fun and strange film. Heath Ledger's performance was good, but it certainly wasn't the strongest part of the film. I was far more interested in the story, and I really wish we had found out more about the fantasy world. I'd like to highlight that I was quite impressed by the young'uns in the film. Both Lily Cole and Andrew Garfield really captivated me, and I found similarities in the latter's character to Tristan in Stardust (which is only a good thing). I really like this young, noble and British archetypal character that is developing in new fantasy films.

The Battle of Algiers - Whilst I did find myself getting into and enjoying The Battle of Algiers, I now find that I've forgotten almost everything about it. I'm quite surprised by this, and a little bemused too, particularly because it makes reflection on the film rather difficult. I can't quite explain or justify my lack of memory, though it could have been an overwhelming sense of excitement about an impending episode of Doctor Who which just made it all fall right out of my head, or possibly a lack of connection to the film itself. Either way, I enjoyed the film whilst it was on. I didn't quite buy into it being like a documentary (and Andy isn't the only source that I've heard the comparison from, either) but it did feel very realistic in its depiction of the circumstances and events of the time.

2012 - Fun Day-After-Tomorrow-like destruction, and in more ways than one. So much so that I'm actually saving my thoughts on the film for a post about the similarities between the two, and the defined structure used in all films of the disaster genre. I know; you just can't wait!

Visuals vs Dialogue

Still shiny? Good. Now, where was I? Ah yes, I was about to post about 12 Angry Men when I... well, didn't. Yes, extraciricular work has yet again prevented me from blogging like it's 2004. But fear not - I will make up for it with numerous extra posts. Like this one.

So, first on my agenda, I think I had better discuss my response to 12 Angry Men, which was a pretty unusual film. It was certainly well-directed, and the performances were far more intricate than those in most films of that time, but it did suffer from a looming sense that it was based on a stage-play. Nothing wrong with that, plays are good. But this brings up an interesting argument which I've been having with myself for a while. And, as most of you know, I can argue both sides of an argument pretty well. 'Tis a curse.

Does a film necessarily have to be led by visuals, or can the visuals supplement the dialogue-driven story? What I mean is, do films need to be told almost exclusively through visuals, as Richard pushes for? Often when I pitch ideas, they can be put to one side as either for theatre or radio. The trouble is I've no interest in writing for these platforms at the moment, so that ever-growing "stage pile" is just a nuisance. And, in fairness, I think a few of these ideas would make good short films. Okay, they require dialogue to be told, and some lack a strong visual drive, but that doesn't stop them from working as films. Very few films, and even fewer TV shows, take advantage of the visual medium in the same way that is expected of short films.

I would argue that films should use a healthy balance of visuals and dialogue (or sound, in general) to tell their story. Richard always says that if you can shut your eyes and still follow the story, then it isn't visual enough. I agree, but I also think that if you can cover your ears and still follow the story, then it's possibly too visual. Unlike radio, which is exclusively sound, film has both visuals and sound, and it should use both. And, unlike theatre, film and TV can reach much wider audiences, and are far more diverse in their ability to tell a story. That's why stage adaptations are okay - they may not be visually driven, but if it's a good story, told well, then the film will reach a much wider audience than the play could.

Since I'm more interested in writing for TV than film, this applies even more. A show like House is driven entirely by its dialogue. You'll have visual moments, but the show depends on the interaction of the characters, and the result of such interaction is dialogue. I'm currently looking forward to watching In Treatment after having it recommended by several different parties, and from what I've heard, this is even more like a play. One location, two characters, all dialogue. But that's okay. As I've said, TV can reach a much wider audience. And In Treatment seems to have been well received, proving that there is a place for such work.

To further my comparison of the two mediums, I'd add that both film and TV seem limited to Stanislavski's approach to theatre - realism. I don't think I've ever seen a film where it tries to remind you it's a work of fiction, or draw attention to the artifice, much like the theatre of Brecht. I've not seen it, but I think Dogville may be an example of this. But this approach doesn't seem to work in our industry. It can come across as cheap, and doesn't fit in with the escapism attached to film and TV.

Anyway, that was quite probably a long post which lost its way, but I hope some sense is presented. I may return to these thoughts to clarify them at some point, particularly because I don't want to be seen to oppose visual film-making. I'm merely trying to acknowledge that it's not actually as common in mainstream work as we may think.