Lux Laze is a new short film by the incredibly talented Daniel Swan. Time-travel, cartography, pangaea ultima and the neo-brutalist architecture of a merged transatlantic super-city I would describe it, but I’ll leave it for you to decode it from that. You can watch the trailer here. And purchase it here.

By Digby Warde-Aldam

- - -

…And so, in sync with “Austerity Britain”, as promoted by our dear new leader, I have taken the plunge; I’m mucking in just like everyone else. We’ve all got to do our bit, don’t we? The point of this Big Society is that we’re united, empowered, ennobled by the fact that we… can’t afford a bus ticket.

That’s right. I’m skint. I, who have boldly been going to shit films just so you don’t have to, can no longer afford to support my three movie a week habit. I’m down to £4 per day, not counting booze and fag allowances, and believe me, it’s fucking horrible.

I mean, I don’t actually do much but watch films, be they budget DVDs or opening nights at the Barbican. It’s not pretty. If I have to watch Breathless again, I will steal a car, drive to Paris, and start hitting on underage American girls, all the while attempting to collect nonexistant debts…

Seriously, though, there is a huge, screen-shaped hole in my current existence. I’ve been trying to fill it by simply reading about the new releases. This makes it slightly difficult to write a film column for South East London’s premier culture blog; Greenberg seems to mirror my own predicament rather too closely for comfort. The new Resnais movie looks like the same ol’ quirky wank that any self-respecting nouvelle vague director phones in at every two year interval, and all this Israeli/Palestinian cinema that seems to be gaining more column inches than the Middle East conflict does lives is all a bit too political for a simpleton such as I.

However, one imminent release HAS caught my eye; l’amacoeur, or Heartbreaker, a “charming and smoothly executed” (thanks, imdb) French romantic comedy, which seems to be scene-for-scene apeing the plot of the almost-unfortunately-named David Mirkin’s 2001 comedy Heartbreakers.

It may surprise you, since in the past, I have written about, like, y’know, serious films, but I LOVED Heartbreakers. As a romcom, it was up there with the very best. Now, I know the average OffModern reader will groan at the very thought that a romcom can be good, let alone tolerable, but I think this much maligned genre is one of the most refined and delicate art forms in existence.

Please, I beg you! Let me explain myself; I was raised on the chick flick. Between 1996 and 2004, I sat through every major romcom release. Whenever a Meg Ryan title arrived at the local video rental store, it was big news for my family. We’d gather around our TV set, and see the same old story played out on what seemed like a fortnightly basis. What I began to realise after a while was that, as a sonnet is to poetry, a romcom is to mainstream cinema.

Much like Racinian tragedy, pretty much every romcom follows a very narrow plot. I shan’t even bother explaining this plot, as every human being over the age of three months in the western world has seen a romcom. Oh, alright, then; handsome boy meets cheesecake girl to mutual indifference. But wait! Fundamentally, they are both similarly misunderstood and, like, deep; it must be love. Or is it? Inevitably, some dreadful misunderstanding occurs, which leaves both parties heartbroken… No! Wait! Cue mad rush to whatever unlikely scenario is enabled by the preceding drama.

Anyway, the modern romcom follows these rules. It has to. Otherwise, it wouldn’t be a modern romcom.

There are the good (Heartbreakers, Four Weddings and a Funeral, the much underrated Down with Love), the bad (How to lose a guy in ten days, Martha, meet Frank, Daniel and Laurence) and the unwatchable (almost everything else, particularly if it stars Jennifer Aniston), but the first category refines this narrow spectrum of narrative opportunities into something truly wonderful.

I know it’s easy to slag off Four Weddings (I have. In this very blog…), but it truly is one of the finest films of the last twenty years. It is a comedy of bourgeois manners unrivalled by anything else I have seen, bar, perhaps, the more artsy-fartsy oeuvre of Whit Stillman. The tired format is vehemently adhered to, yet it is of little consequence. The little embellishments, the sub-plots and auxiliary characters are so engrossing and well-observed that the central drama, and indeed, Andie MacDowell, are rendered as totally secondary to what occurs elsewhere. I have always though of Hugh Grant as the last great English filmstar, and this is the film which seals the deal. The fact that the gay characters in the film are fully formed personae rather than a bunch of screaming queens or tragic Earls Court inhabitants (as sadly, almost any celluloid homosexual has been before or since) is yet another reason to reclaim this truly wonderful film from cuddly religious festival-repeat ubiquity.

There. I have just sacrificed my dignity in public. Kill me now.

*****************************************************

Digby is a journalist, student and film fanatic from South London. He writes for his local newspaper, drinks cider and eats chikpea based soups, followed by entire packs of smuggled Russian cigarettes. He contributes monthly film columns to this ‘ere blog. Enjoy.

By Digby Warde-Aldam

- - -

I’m starting to remind myself of Tom Townsend, protagonist of what might be my favourite ever film, Whit Stillman’s Metropolitan. There’s a wonderful scene in which Townsend is arguing about Jane Austen’s Mansfield Park with Audrey, the geeky love interest. He dismisses the plot as absurd, before admitting he hasn’t actually read the novel.
‘Which Jane Austen novels have you read?’, Audrey asks.
‘None. I don’t read novels. I prefer good literary criticism’, comes the smug, evidently rehearsed reply.

Blah. Anyway, it’s often the same with movies. Reviewers, bloggers and pro-censorship groups do us all a great service in going to see the bore fests that make up 85% of general releases in this country so that we don’t have to. A week or so ago, I found myself embroiled in an argument about Lee Daniels’s uber-worthy oiksploitation flick Precious with two other wannabe cinephiles. One agreed with me that it was bland Oscar-fodder dressed as poverty porn, the other praised its unique insights into the life of those living the American Nightmare. This must have dragged on for about twenty minutes before it became clear that none of us had actually seen it.

Anyway, thank god for film reviewers- without them, I wouldn’t be able to talk about half the movies I regularly pretend I’ve seen to make myself look more clever. However, there’s a problem; if 85% of films are shit, then what of the remainder? These range from middling to great, and thus don’t deserve to be ruined by the gushing hacks who evaluate them. Take Kickass, for example; there’s unlikely to be a movie with so many column inches dedicated to it this year, whether lauding its “fresh take on the tired comic book genre” (remember the Dark Knight? Truly, cliche comes in biannual cycles), lamenting its casual violence and profanity or gossiping at the fact that it was Jonathan Ross’s wife wot wrote it. I sat through it, already knowing it shot-for-shot through pure media osmosis. As it is, I’m a sucker for sub-Tarantino postmodernism, and loved it- but there was no shock, nothing of the laugh-out-loud gut reaction that I got from watching, say, Metropolitan for the first time. I was watching a low quality DVD of Chinatown later that night (yeah, really) when I asked myself how it would have been without the media blitz. Have we always been exposed to this global equivalent of the odious South African geography teacher who, inbetween racist outbursts, revealed to me the plot twist at the end of The Usual Suspects?
Maybe. But I remember a time way when blogging was in its infancy, and 24 hour news was the kind of fanciful thing that Bond villains used as their cover for world domination. I guess I was about 14, and it was important, and significantly more difficult, to be bang up to date with popular culture. Here, I will take the liberty of recounting a conversation I must have had about 75 times;

SCHOOLBOY 1*: Yeah, Trainspotting**’s great. Have you seen it? It’s Classic!
SCHOOLBOY 2: Uuuuuh…. yeah. I’ve seen Trainspotting. I was really drunk*** when I watched it, so I don’t remember much…
SCHOOLBOY 1: Yeah, I was drunk too. I don’t remember much either. But it’s classic.
SCHOOLBOY 2: Totally. Legendary…

* I have played both roles
** Can be substituted for any other canonical teen movie, although for some reason it always seemed to be Trainspotting.
*** If characters are lying even more than is evident, replace with “stoned”

I may be wrong, but I reckon this sort of conversation just wouldn’t happen now. Anyone can get access to the YouTube clips of key scenes in almost any film that merits a conversation. Tempting though it is to blame the internet and the press for ruining cinema, I would rather have a movie ruined for me than become one of those worthy neo-luddites who only buy vinyl and refuse to work on anything more sophisticated than a pre-war typewriter. In fact, as with music, the internet has allowed us to produce, distribute and criticise films in a whole new way. Okay, admittedly, I’ve never actually seen an internet film that approaches the borders of watchability, but inevitably, some day, it’s going to happen. Will this decade’s Citizen Kane get its premiere on a laptop screen in some godforsaken bedsit in Kentish Town? Probably not. All I’m saying is don’t count it out, avoid the new Drew Barrymore movie like the plague, and stop reading articles about the new Polanski flick that comes out on Friday. I’ve got a feeling it’s going to be a corker…
Phew. Now, how many films have I ruined for the uninitiated over the last 800 words?

*****************************************************

Digby is a journalist, student and film fanatic from South London. He writes for his local newspaper, drinks cider and eats chikpea based soups, followed by entire packs of smuggled Russian cigarettes. He contributes monthly film columns to this ‘ere blog. Enjoy.

[CLICK TO WATCH]

FOR ALL MANKIND
DIR. BY AL REINART

By Digby Warde-Aldam

- - -

There’s a phrase I hate perhaps more than any other, partly due to its patent falsehood, and partly due to the connotation with half arsed upper middle class parenting. Sure, there are some strong contenders for the title of the English language’s most irritating maxim (a solid runner up would be “a stitch in time saves nine”- what the fuck does that actually mean?), but this one takes the biscuit, throws it up, and proceeds to repeat the action with the rest of the family-sized packet. I this hear this wearisome platitude a lot on my regular mid-afternoon trips to the discount section in my local Waitrose. Genteel second-time mothers of a certain age, pushing their ludicrously over designed Cameronite prams look down at their complaining, Boden-bedecked firstborn as they reach for a re-up of organic grana padano from the precarious upper climes of the deli section.

‘I’m bored, mummy’ whines the Bedales-bound genetic photocopy.

‘Only boring people get bored, darling,’ she sighs in reply, with a look of prolonged resignation that no amount of Jamon Iberico or freshly sourced Guava puree can possibly assuage. I snigger a bit, and wonder whether wearing a ratty old tie will give me the requisite professional air to purchase alcohol without showing ID.

Anyway, before I describe any more of the rolling tedium of my existence, I’ll get back on the brief; we’ve all been bored at some point. Some of us aren’t boring. In fact, I know a number of people who, for better or for worse, are incapable of ever even approaching dull. On the contrary to this well worn parental riposte, you don’t need to be boring to be bored- you just need to watch a lot of French films.

I know, I know, I’m really rolling out the standard blokey English cliches here, and would sound like an unfunny Jeremy Clarkson were it not for the fact that I have actually watched a lot of French films. Jean Luc Godard and Alain Resnais may have been pretentious and incomprehensible at the best of times, but in no way whatsoever were they ever dull. The films I’m referring to are not the products of the Nouvelle Vague, themselves admittedly acquired tastes, but the work of the so-called “quality” directors of the last 15 years.

Maybe it’s due to the contrast with our own country’s appalling cinematic output of late, but as I see it, there’s a concrete routine for English film reviewers when discussing the new releases from across the Channel. They seem to swoon at the overlong dramatic pauses, ejaculate at the inevitable moment of labored dramatic climax, and bathe in the sheer tedium and predictability of yet another film about rough sex and lonely women.

Take, for example, Philippe Claudel’s critically arse-licked Kristen Scott-Thomas vehicle Il y a longtemps que je t’aime. Pretty much fuck all happens. Kristen, gaunt, “mysterious” (doesn’t say much: gets angry at predictably unpredictable moments) and very pleased with herself for being one of only two major English actresses who can pass for a Frenchwoman, goes to a job interview, reveals that she’s spent time in jail, argues a bit with her bourgeois family, and eventually comes over all saintly as she reveals that she ‘fessed’ up to a crime she didn’t commit. I saw it in Notting Hill when it was released back in 2008. In an audience of about six oh-so-cultured cultured couples, I counted four heads arched back over the red seats, mouths agape, their snoring drowned out only by the interminable paroles of Claudel’s semi-realised characters. I think it’s safe to say that the other two insomniacs in the audience were having as much fun longing for some wet paint to watch drying as I was by the time the bore-fest ended.

Four out of five French art movies of the last decade follow much the same route. Take Francois Ozon, for example; his films follow the above template pretty closely, but with some wife-beating thrown in for good measure. These may seem like sweeping generalisations, but, really, trust me: I studied French film.

Anyway, this is why I’m so excited about Un Prophet, Jacques Audiard’s new one. Audiard, best known for The Beat my heart skipped, with Romain Duris, is a true great. His films seem to turn the most tired old cliches into something genuinely new and exciting. Take his 2001 film, Sur mes levres; Vincent Cassel and Emmanuelle Devos play the classic odd couple. He, a pathologically violent ex-con with a plan for one last big heist, and she a deaf, dowdy goody-goody who works in the offices of a large construction firm. That it’s almost entirely predictable is half the point- a lot of great films (a good example being the grand-pere of modern French cinema, Godard’s A bout de souffle) have one-dimensional plots, but are executed with such skill that they can bring an audience to the edge of their seats, and reduce their fingernails to nothing through sheer dramatic attrition. The throbbing sexual tension between Cassel and Devos elevates the will they-won’t they tropes to a time-bomb of repressed passion, and the violence, when it does occur, is genuinely painful to watch. In a good way, that is.

Anyway, I’m writing this on Friday 15th January, which, coincidentally, is the English release date for Un Prophet. I’m going to the cinema tonight. If you’re reading this and haven’t yet made the acquaintance of Audiard’s oeuvre, then I suggest you do the same, and if it’s no longer showing, blow the rent money on a complete set of DVDs. Believe me, it will almost be worth becoming homeless for…

*****************************************************

Digby is a journalist, student and film fanatic from South London. He writes for his local newspaper, drinks cider and eats chikpea based soups, followed by entire packs of smuggled Russian cigarettes. He contributes monthly film columns to this ‘ere blog. Enjoy.

[CLICK TO VIEW]

[CLICK TO WATCH]

On British Film

By Digby Warde-Aldam

- - -

It was Francois Truffaut, I believe, who once said that the English could not make films. Before I launch into my heroically unoriginal, whingeing diatribe, I must affirm that this is as ludicrous a claim as saying that Germans can’t rock (they can), or Syrians don’t use A4 paper (not so sure of this, but you get the point). However, to refine the statement somewhat, there is something sadly one dimensional about British film-making.

I can’t, off the top of my head, think of another major film-producing country with so narrow a spectrum of cinematic styles. Generally speaking, British films tend to fall into three categories (and I’m not counting the running, nay, collapsing asphyxiated joke that is the costume drama); heartwarming romantic comedies, which, with what I am loathe to call ‘typical British reserve’, rarely risk the volume of vulgarity which either makes or breaks a similar Hollywood flick. Then there is the kind of film we used to be revered, rather than shunned for making, namely the “gritty” (those commas must now be added by law) work of social realism, which stretches from the kitchen sink school of the late 50s to the gruesome (and in my mind, rather tedious) likes of Paul Andrew Williams’ London to Brighton.

Somewhere in between these categories lies the Underdog film- from The Italian Job to Billy Elliot and beyond, it has ooh-erred and Bob’s-yer-uncle’d its way into characterizing our national cinema. I’m pretty sure that the skewed image of Brits as incompetent charmers with bad teeth can be attributed more than anything to these nauseatingly predictable movies. All three categories do, of course, contain within their ranks a number of films that are perfectly watchable. The trouble is, though, that they are paragons of perfect watchability- mildly humorous, tasteful and completely unmemorable. Last night I struggled for half an hour to remember the title of Hot Fuzz, and still recall nothing of the plot, simply that it was about policemen and it had Simon Pegg in it.

There have, of course, been exceptions. These tend to be Powell and Pressburger productions or the work of directors in thrall to European or American movements. Take, for example, Chris Petit’s wonderful 1979 road movie, Radio On. With its grainy monochrome, pulsing new wave soundtrack and muted dialogue, it has the air of a mid-70s Wim Wenders film. As the credits roll up, it comes as little surprise that Wenders himself produced it. Alas, for those few British reviewers who didn’t completely ignore it, this was a step too far. With an uncomfortably xenophobic ire, Petit was condemned for jumping ship, going over to Johnny foreigner’s camp. While the film doesn’t deviate hugely from Wenders’ style of the period, it succeeds in documenting a culture which, thank god, we have all but lost. The viewer is left with the impression that the England of 1979 was not a nice place to be- the Irish war looms large, psychotic hitchhikers abound, and one can almost smell the stale gut-punch of the Ginsters pasties sold at the rudimentary motorway service stations. Petit, like Godard at his best, gives English parochiality a hint of the dignity which has made the quotidian culture of our North American cousins so iconic. Petit realized the hitherto unimagined notion of the English road movie, and breathed mythology into the second-rate motorway system and damp bedsits which constitute the mise en scene. As a work of art, the film defines its era far more successfully than many of the often melodramatically staged kitchen sink dramas of the previous decade, and thus succeeds by stealing its best moves from abroad. Similarly, Lindsay Anderson’s If and O Lucky Man borrow liberally from the canon of Bunuel and Jean Vigo’s Zero de Conduite, but their incoherent structure and whimsy only add to their overall depiction of Britain in the late 1960s, one defiantly at odds with the platitudinous image of beads, flowers and swinging London that has come to characterize our collective memory of the era. Prior to If, in 1968, it should be noted that the only true counter-cultural masterpiece set in the Britain of the 1960s was Blow Up- a film directed by an Italian.

Depressingly, it’s doubtful whether any studio exec would see fit to fund a project by a latter-day Anderson, Petit, or Michael Powell. Even indie studios won’t risk turning over a loss in the name of great cinema, which only serves to tighten the straps of our current cultural straightjacket. We have failed miserably to move on, and as our industry grapples desperately to recreate the commercial triumphs of ten years ago, we are forced to view our contemporary cinema culture as a parade of smudged facsimiles of Four Weddings and a Funeral, Trainspotting and (aaaaaaargh!!!!!) Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels.

As is clear, this is indeed a sorry state. However, from the left field, there are what you must forgive me for calling, green shoots appearing. Despite the lamentable state of British mainstream cinema, several art films have emerged over the last couple of years that offer some hope for infiltration into our multiplexes. Offerings from the likes of Steve McQueen and Julian Schnabel have surpassed all possible hopes, doing what all successful art movies should, and forcing the viewer to confront received opinions whilst exploiting the full possibilities of the moving image. It’s a long shot, but if talent of this caliber can succeed in this country, and, of course, continues to do so, there is a very real possibility that at some stage in the not too distant future, we will be able to visualize the beginnings of a new culture of British cinema. For now, however, I can only dream, and congratulate myself that I have never knowingly bought a ticket to a Jason Statham movie…

*****************************************************

Digby is a journalist, student and film fanatic from South London. He writes for his local newspaper, drinks cider and eats chikpea based soups, followed by entire packs of smuggled Russian cigarettes. He will be contributing monthly to this blog. Enjoy.