And the list keeps growing...

The list of films that I cannot wait to see just keeps growing! Watch out for Monty Pythons: "A Liar's Autobiography" this autumn.

Oh and it's animated old chaps, it's animated.

The 'It' Girl: a tribute to Clara Bow

Unfortunately I have to start this post by dishing up a slice of sad pie, as the release date of Baz Luhrmann's "The Great Gatsby" (which was meant to be 2012), and one of the five films I was très excited about in my previous post, has been postponed to summer 2013. It is thought to be because Baz Luhrmann was worried about the film having too much competition with the other suspected oscar nominated films. It's such a shame, as the promotional campaign was going great and I was getting so ready to commit to wearing 1920s flapper dresses and decadent deco jewellery. Lets just hope that people remember the film by Summer 2013. Well, from a 21st century representation of the golden era to a brilliant actress who actually lived in the 1920s, the beautiful Clara Bow. Technically it would of made more sense to post this entry on my birthday, the 29th July, as it just so happens that this silent movie diva's birthday was also on the 29th July- but no matter, her films can be enjoyed any day or year, and therefore here is my review on her silent film "IT" (1927). 

- "What is 'IT'?...

...Self-confidence and indifference as to whether you are pleasing or not~ and something in you that gives the impression that you are not all cold. That's 'IT'!"

~"IT", 1927

"It" (1927) is simply divine, as they used to say back in the 1920s. It's a film where Clara Bow rips her day dress and transforms it into a fabulous evening dress, the prices at the Ritz Hotel range from $2.00- $4.00 instead of the prices for tea being over $16.00, and Clara Bow's character has the incredible flapper name, Betty Lou Spence. It is a silent film but Clara Bow's facial expressions speak volumes. Clara Bow plays a simple shop girl in a department store when she meets a Monty, who claims she has "It", and sex appeal, and so as any gentleman would do, he takes her out to dinner. Whilst at dinner, at the Ritz of course, she meets Mr Waltham: a dashing man who happens to be the owner of the department store. Bow and Waltham fall in love with each other. However there is a problem, not only does Bow come from the lower class but she lives with a friend who is a single mother. Somehow a story leaks in the press that the baby is Clara's. However, Waltham later finds out it has all been a misunderstanding and can't help but fall back in love with the charming Clara. They end up together and discover that they are 'just a couple of It-less Its!"

The film however is not so lighthearted as it originally appears and covers some risky issues. In those days a mother raising a baby by herself was frowned upon but the film takes the subject matter in its stride. The mother of the child looks stressed but she continues to raise her child and Clara seems to have no qualms about the situation her friend is in stating: "poverty is no disgrace until meddling neighbours hear of it." The men's reaction to Clara being a single, working mother is well interpreted as they look frightened and try to avoid Clara until they discover that the baby isn't hers. The film has a happy-go-lucky feel to it and even though it is a silent film, and I know silents are not a popular choice, the film manages to convey such expression with no need for words, yet telling the story so well that the viewer can't help but fall in love with Clara Bow either: "she's a ripping sort, really! She's positively top-heavy with 'IT'," and thats how Bow will always be remembered. 

Short but Sweet Review: Easy Virtue (2008)

Director: Stephan Elliot
Script: Stephan Elliot and  Sheridan Jobbins
Starring: Jessica Biel, Ben Barnes, Colin Firth

"There's something wild about you child that's so contagious, let's misbehave" is definitely the perfect tagline to describe Elliot's sassy adaptation of Noel Cowards' 1924 play of the same name. Easy Virtue is enjoyable: full of witty lines and easy to watch but it will not enhance your life. In the film, Larita (Biel) has entered into a shot-gun marriage with John Whittaker (Barnes) and is brought to his grand family home to meet his old fashioned family. John Whittaker's mother (played by Kristin Scott Thomas) is against the marriage from the start, accusing Larita of being a gold-digger and dragging her precious son away from his family duties.

It is clear that Larita is out of place amongst the stuffy, Victorian values of the Whittaker household; firstly she is American, but also she funds herself with her race car driving, she had been married once before, she smokes, she admires Cuban paintings, has bleach blonde hair, and finally, and possibly the worst flaw in the eyes of the Whittaker family, she wears trousers (god-forbid!) Her disparity from the family is also highlighted with her pollen allergy; safe to say, Larita is not an English rose. There is a lot of criticism surrounding Biel's performance in the film, described as being rather bland and lacking the 'zest' needed to embody the films' interwar, 1920s flapper spirit. Although the sense of detachment she feels toward her new husband's family can be seen. The other characters are very definable, with John's cold mother-who is fighting to defend family values- along with his two poignant sisters, and his free-spirited father (Firth), whose experience in the war helps him empathise with Larita about feeling trapped in the oppressive Whittaker manor. The film takes a lighthearted approach to subjects that otherwise would be quite serious, such as Larita's scandal surrounding her other marriage, the debt of the Whittaker family, and the film devalues the institution of marriage.

As a whole the film is composed of delightful scenes and filled with wonderful costumes and make-up.The film uses a mixture of music from the period and jazzes up more recent songs such as 'Sexbomb.' Cole Porters famous tunes such as, 'Let's misbehave', 'You do something to me' and 'You're the top!'  also contribute to the setting of the film and lyrics are even intertwined in the dialogue- highlighting how influential the music of the decade was in shaping the era's Bright Young Things. The film is not a serious historical representation and overall is just a bit of fun, so let's misbehave!

Verdict: Well worth a watch.

The mind works in twists and turns.

For a while now I have wanted to start a blog and so after several failed attempts I believe I have finally settled on a subject which I can talk about  without boring myself or you, reader. That subject is: Film. All films, well any that I can get my student hands on.  It seems like the perfect time to start a film blog as the recent 84^th Academy Awards highlighted the importance of the beginning of the film industry:  with a reminder of the brilliance of the silent film in “The Artist” (2011) and Martin Scorsese’s reference to good old George Méliès in “Hugo” (2011); with each film scooping up five Oscar’s. 

Referring to myself as a film student often gets a few sneers and usually “doesn’t that mean you just watch a shit load of films?” Well, naturally. To be able to talk about film I obviously need to watch them. But if anyone thinks that I sat through four hours of D.W Griffiths' silent film “Birth of a Nation” (1915) for my own pleasure, one would be mistaken. I do love silent film but not for four hours and not with such an obnoxious storyline. I watched it as it is a treasured piece of cinema and there is no doubt in any cinema-lovers mind how influential Griffiths was for cinema progression; the film is not a classic for  its representation of history (dear God, no) but for Griffith’s pioneering use of the modern camera and one of the first directors to introduce the use of the narrative to the cinema. 

Moving on, four years down the line and currently in the middle of writing my dissertation on Italian cinema of the 1970’s, I find myself analysing in detail and annoyingly criticising every film I watch. I’ve become a frequent viewer of old movies telling anyone who will listen about my obsession with Cary Grant (well, he is a beaut). Needless to say a typical day for me consists of watching, at least, one film. I watch films in no particular order skipping from 1930s Britain, to 1960s Italy, back to 1950s America and coming back into the present. My blog entries will be in no particular order, and I begin on a debated form of cinema, the documentary.  Documentaries have a very on/off, love/ hate relationship with modern society. The first pieces of film to grace the silver screen can be considered to be documentaries as the main aim was to film everyday occurrences, for example some of the first films of the Lumiere brothers like "L'Arrivée d'un Train a la Ciotatfrom" in 1985. Nowadays there are so many types all with the same general aims to educate, highlight, inform, and shock spectators who want to discover more about the society they live in or how society was. 

“WWII: Nuremberg Trials” or “Sud narodov” (1947) is a Soviet Russian documentary about the notorious Nazi war trials post- WWII and the criminals being brought to justice, with archive footage of  Hans Frank, Wilhelm Frick, Josef Goebbels and Hermann Göring among others. It was directed by Roman Karmen and Yelizaveta Svilova. The film contains disturbing footage of the aftermath of the holocaust as well as the result of the trials. Having a strange fascination with this period of history it is interesting to be able to view this era and it is just as important to preserve this footage so one doesn’t forget. Film footage, like this, can be more shocking than history books as the audience is forced to see images of reality in all its brutality. In addition this film is also a Soviet propaganda piece with the narrator informing the public about the great Soviets victory over the ‘evil Germans'. Like most documentary films, it has to be viewed with a perspective of when it was released and the attitude of society it was being distributed to. Thus, it has to be taken with a pinch of salt. A look at the trials from another side, the American public, can be seen in "The Nuremberg Trials documentary" (1950) from the film archive.

I realise this isn't the lightest of subjects to begin my blog, and as Mr Fawlty would say: "don't mention the war" but, for me, these documentaries illustrate the importance of film in today's society in reflecting the past and serving as a beginning to the first of many more posts to come.