ARGH. ARGHAGAHRG. ASDFGHJKL.

I couldn't think of an appropriate quote/pun/joke for a title. And that was pretty much my actual reaction.

American History X, everyone. 

From what I can tell, this is a perfectly normal reaction to it.

Look, Derek's on the right-wing of the page.
Like he's on the right-wing of politics.
No? Too soon?

I don't exactly know where to begin with this one. Not for kids, that's a cert, but if you are over 18, and not of a nervous disposition, this film is just incredible. 

Another one that's part of my Film course at school, I don't mind admitting that I welled up in lesson at this film - the complete and total shock of Danny's death threw me completely.  It's an emotional roller-coaster, but one well worth going through for the beauty of the message behind it. 

Great acting, too - as a theatre techie and film geek I'm not often one to notice the actual performances, but Edward Norton makes it very difficult not to: Derek, extreme racist and inspiration to his gang of skinheads (that's not a spoiler, you can get that from the picture. I don't need to highlight that one.) goes through multiple huge life and personality changes throughout the film: so much so that it's difficult to believe Norton plays all variations of Derek, rather than getting a genuine skinhead to fill in for him. Ethan Suplee too, eternal idol of mine and better known as Randy off My Name Is Earl, plays an almost worryingly convincing violent, racist, white-supremist: so convincing that it took me a couple of viewings to actually recognise him as Randy off My Name Is Earl. 

Now onto my stuff, the interesting stuff - the tech stuff. Whoever's idea it was to film the flashbacks in black and white is a genius, the messages of the film just become so much stronger - not only does it age the flashbacks, making the beliefs demonstrates within them seem outdated, but the fact that the whole film is about black and white people, plus the fact that Derek only sees things as black or white, wrong or right... just, that colour scheme is the bestest most ingenious colour scheme ever. 
And as for the infamous curb-stomp: if you can bare to take your eyes off the horror of the actual murder, and it took me a couple of goes to manage that, just listen to the sound effects around it: the dull thud of the head, the drowned out police sirens, the chorus of voices that sing as Derek gets arrested - it's an incredibly moving combination.

I'm not too sure what else I can say without making this entire post highlighted in green. 

If you are of a nervous disposition, if horror/thrillers are not your thing, if you scare and scar easy then for the sake of your own sanity, do not watch this film.

For the braver amongst you: I may be new to film geeking, my 'films seen' list is limited, but I highly doubt anything will give you an emotional shock to the system quite like this. 

And if you have a film that does, please God send me a link to it. 

(Personally I don't think this trailer does it justice, but meh, it'll do.)

What did the Romans ever do for us?

I cross my heart, I will try not to go on religious or historical tangents with this one. To be honest, it will more likely be a Pythonic tangent. 

Life of Brian is a legendary film. 

Those are not just my words; and they aren't always taken positively. With it's controversial nature and equally controversial cast, writers and directors, this film was banned in hundreds of countries - as close to home as Ireland, for UK readers like myself. A discussion about it between Pythons John Cleese and Michael Palin, devoted Christian Malcolm Muggeridge and Bishop of Southwark Mervyn Stockwood, has itself been turned into a feature length film. And it is still one of the most widely debated films today in terms of content and BBFC rating. 

I love this film. I love the fact that the Pythons weren't afraid to tread the ground no one must walk on. I love the fact that, despite mainly being about standing out, it's plot is still strong. I love the fact that there's a song in a funeral scene. In short, I love it because it is entirely Python. 

Graham Chapman has always been my favourite, because he proved that you didn't have to be outgoing and loud and outlandish to be successful - readers who know me will guess that that's something I relate to quite well. And he does play a brilliant bumbling hero as Brian of Nazareth. The weaving in of the other Pythons - Palin as Pilate, Jones as Mandy, Idle as an inappropriately cheerful crucifix singer - worked quite well: their sketch show background means they're used to playing a variety of different characters.

I don't really know how to conclude this one, since I haven't really put up much of an argument. I like this film. Some people might not, and I can totally see why they might not. But what I admire most is the fact that it took guts to even suggest making a film like this - but they did it anyway. And in due time, it did very, very well. 

(film sort of suggested by my friend Jason, who may or may not have been serious about asking for a mention in this blog while singing 'Always Look on the Bright Side of Life')

Can't Kiss A Movie, Eh?

Homework from Film: research Jean-Luc Godard, fancy pants French ~Nouvelle Vogue~ director. 

From what I can tell, I really appreciate his ideas, but the more I've research him the more I've come to realise I would hate him if I met him. 

He's said many a poncy and elitist thing over his time, by brief research tells me, some of my favourites being:

• "Tracking shots are a question of morality"
• "Every edit is a lie"
• "I write essays in the form of novels, and novels in the form of essays"
• "You don't make a movie, a movie makes you" (which I think he stole from Harry Potter's Mr Ollivander)
• "I make film to make time pass" 

But he is especially famous for saying this:

• " I don't think you should FEEL about a movie. You should feel about a woman. You can't kiss a movie."

Which I disagree with. Mainly because I think it's possible, and desirable, to make a film as art that you can feel about as well. 

But also because it just isn't true. 

When John Did His Baptism Thing

JESUS CHRIST. SUUUPERSTAR. DO YOU THINK YOU'RE WHO THEY SAAAAY YOU AAAARE?! 

In all seriousness though: this musical is bonkers. Partly in a good way. Partly not so much. 

With a cast of people I don't know (and Rik Mayall) and a theatre style MDF set, I can't imagine this film had a particularly big budget. So, essentially, the story and the acting needed to make up the difference. 

I have to admit, the story was pretty ridiculous - which is odd because it is pretty much the New Testament: the songs have turned it into a bizarre West Side Story thing, with the two sides being Christians and Romans. From an atheist, feminist point of view - my own - it's nice that Mary Magdalene is female lead, or "Mary Mags" as my friend Emily has nicknamed her. 

But then again, it's hard to have any specific view on religion when watching this. You tend to get so wrapped up in the pure insanity of the fact that Judas is doing a bad Michael Jackson impression, or that Herod owns a burlesque club, or that the infamous Temple-turned-shopping centre is now selling TVs and pole dancers, that religion is put to one side. Despite this, I don't think this film could be considered disrespectful to religion in the same way that films like Life of Brian have. Jesus is still very much a hero in the face of adversity.

In conclusion, then, this film probably falls into the 'so bad, it's good' category. If you watch it and expect a biblical epic, then you will be disappointed. But watch it for a laugh and a couple of genuinely very good songs - Herod's and the Roman Guard's songs amongst them - and I promise you, you won't be. 

Let's Talk About the Love of My Life

Namely, Siegfried Sassoon - war poet, satirical genius, slightly deceased and quite, quite gay. It's unlikely he'll share my feelings, but I can dream.

Sassoon is beautifully portrayed by James Wilby in Behind The Lines, based on the Regeneration books. 

The first shot pretty much sets the tone for the rest of the film: a shot of muddy, downtrodden Now Man's Land with bodies scattered across it. The fact that it's almost impossible to tell what it debris and what is human flesh is, to my knowledge, a pretty accurate representation of the front line. 

In addition to the biographical characters - Sassoon, Robert Graves, and Wilfred Owen, all soldier-poets - the film follows two fictional characters: Craiglockhart Doctor, William Rivers, and Second Lieutenant Billy Prior. Feel free to disagree, but I think these characters were probably included to show a new perspective on the soldiers: any English GCSE student has a basic knowledge Wilfred Owen,  but what about the rest of the soldiers; the anonymous ones? Prior represents every soldier who had ever doubted his own sanity on the front line. 

But anyway, enough about history. Film review. 

Mainly centered about Craiglockhart - a beautiful set, though not actually filmed at Craiglockhart Hospital in Scotland - it differs from a lot of War films as it does not choose to focus on gore and destruction; more the sanity of the soldiers. So if you're not a huge horror fan, I can recommend this film to you easily. 

Biographical films can be filled with too many irrelevant details, but Behind the Lines  balances fiction and non-fiction pretty well. 

I am aware, as a soldier-poet fan, my reviewing are hugely biased. I am also aware that historicals do not appeal to everyone. I do think, however, that because this film creates a story around the historical facts, it will appeal to a wider audience. 

About To Soufflé

Or more commonly known as French New Wave film 'À bout de souffle', or 'Breathless'.

The French New Wave is part of my brand new shiny A2 Film Studies course; my film teacher pretty much immediately told us to approach it with an open mind. 

It's sound advice, it turns out: this film was totally different from anything I'd seen before, and was apparently pretty revolutionary at it's time. 

It's hard to see what's so special about this film, particularly as the long takes and bad continuity just make it look like it's been lazily edited at first. But my teacher explained this: the French New Wave was a protest directed towards studio-based, stereotypical American Hollywood at the time. The techniques start to make a little more sense.

The protagonist is Michel Poiccard, a wonderfully French name, played by apparent Mick Jagger lookalike Jean-Paul Belmondo. And considering he starts the film with 'After all, I'm an asshole', he's actually quite a lovable character. When Michel is shot by a policeman in the final scene, you can't help but feel sorry: yes, he's done terrible things, but only because he was in love and, apparently, didn't know how to react to this. 

Jean Seberg, our teacher told us, committed suicide around the Arc de Triumph; where a lot of this film was filmed. This is just a guess, but her character Patricia probably demonstrates a kind of typical 60's liberal woman - she stands up to Michel, isn't afraid to rebel against him which, unfortunately, ultimately causes his death. 

The story is a bit wishy-washy (technical term) but as I say, this is the first French New Wave film I've watched, and wishy-washy plot lines may be part of the requirements. And as a fan of thrillers, there were enough murders, robberies and scandals to keep me happy. 

But I'm rambling. In short: yes - I enjoyed it, yes - I would recommend it, and yes - I would like to see more like it. It's easy to see this kind of film's influence in modern films, and that makes it an essential part of my interests.  

Good Morrow to Thee, Readers

My name is Rosie. I watch films and write about them. ...Like a lot of other people.

I do, however, offer some individuality: I am by no means an expert. I'm a Film Studies A level student, hoping to become a Film Studies university student, but I am still constantly learning. Go easy on me.

This is, therefore, I kind of logbook blog - a logblog, if you will - to refer back on throughout my time studying film.

Also: there are some film reviews that I'll write which do contain spoilers. In the interest of keeping the endings from people who don't want to know them, spoilers will be hidden. A green highlighted line will contain a spoiler: to see it, highlight the line with your mouse - Well done. I knew you could manage it. I'm so proud. 

Enjoy~