Summer Updates 2015

I'm back. As you may have seen, yesterday I managed to get my Metropolis post up after a week or so of trying to tweak it before forgetting about it for many months only to remember it, finish it off and post it all yesterday.

A lot of things happened in that four month stretch of inactivity, most notably my AS exams and the preparation for them, which I believe is a good enough excuse for my lack of posts (or, at least, it’s the best excuse you’re getting). But now I'm on my summer holiday, slumped in my chair failing to be a productive member of society, I'm going to try and get back on the horse and crack out a few more posts before I go back to college in September and, undoubtedly, get snowed under by the workload.

So, what do you guys have to look forward to? First thing, and probably the most exciting: Films! No, not just films I'm going to talk about on here, but actual films I've made! Yep, this year marks the first time I've actually managed to finish a video project that I can refer to as a film with a straight face, and there are plenty more to come. Here’s a quick run-through of what to expect:

•  Rapid Vengeance – The second film by me and my partner-in-crime Andrew, made last month in only three weeks for the end of our AS Film Studies. This has already been posted on Vimeo for all to see! (Link on the sidebar or click here)
• Maxwell – Me and Andrew’s first film, made for our Film Studies coursework between November 2014 and March 2015. Since it’s coursework, I can’t really post this until after results day, but you can expect this on Vimeo mid-to-late August.
• Specimen 23 – A short stop motion film I'm about to start work on. I've finally got a few technical difficulties ironed out, so hopefully I’ll start work on this within the next few days, and have it uploaded sometime in August.
• ‘Departure’ [Currently unnamed short film] – A quick little live action summer project I plan to make. I can’t say yet how long it will take or when we’ll start production, but it’s unlikely you’ll see this before September.

I’ll be making short notices on here to let you know when each of these have been uploaded, with appropriate links for you to follow as well.

Secondly, I’ll also be trying to make a few more blog posts, of course. I must admit, when I first started this blog, I already had a couple of ideas in mind of subjects to talk about, but unfortunately that idea backlog sort of dried up with the release of the Metropolis post yesterday. However, I'm definitely going to try and come up with some more interesting things to talk to you guys about, although forgive me if some of the new posts don’t reach the essay-size of previous posts, especially 2000 word epics like Michael. But I’ll definitely try to get a few up here before I go back in September.

Well, that's about it for today. Remember to check out Rapid Vengeance, follow my Vimeo for more films, and stay tuned here for more of my mildly cynical ramblings. Until next time.

Metropolis (1927) – The Real Tragedy of Cinema

It hasn't escaped my attention that the two main films I've talked about on this blog are both German films concerning crimes against children, both with single-word titles beginning with the letter M (or even being the letter M, in the former case). So, in the name of continuing this combo, let’s talk about another German film with a one-word title beginning with M. Although it’s not about paedophilia this time. Sorry.

The film in question is Metropolis, Fritz Lang’s science fiction classic of 1927, often credited as the grandfather of sci-fi films, inspiring some of the greats of the genre, including Star Wars and Blade Runner. Now, regular followers of this blog (if such creatures exist) might find this film and director ring a few bells. Well, that would be because Mr Lang is the director of M, which he made in order to recuperate his popularity after Metropolis flopped, as previously mentioned. Despite its initial poor performance though, Metropolis has gone on to become a classic piece of cinema, inspiring countless others.

The main thing I want to discuss here today is not my thoughts and feelings on the film itself, but instead Metropolis’s troubled history. It’s no secret that Metropolis is not a complete film; with its premier cut coming in at around 210 minutes, the most complete versions available today only have a mere 153 minutes of runtime, meaning nearly an hour of footage remains lost. Before the film even starts, a brief title reads as follows;

‘All that survive of the original “Metropolis” are an incomplete original negative and copies of shortened and re-edited release prints. Over a quarter of the film has to be considered lost.

The present version, which combines all of the surviving elements, attempts to recreate the film as it was shown at its premiere.'

It’s truly a heart breaking title card, and seeing it never fails to pluck away at my heart strings, but the worst part is that Metropolis has it pretty well off. For a film as long as it was, in the times when movie censorship was relentless and with such a disappointing initial gross, Metropolis is lucky to have so much of its runtime still intact, so that we can still watch and enjoy it today. But other silent films aren't so lucky. It’s said that around 90% of all silent films ever made are currently lost.

Just going to let that sink in for a second.

Back in the day, of course, no one was bothered with film preservation. Films were mostly spectacle at the time; with the illusion of motion being the USP, rather than the storytelling. A bit like nowadays. Huh, now that’s a cyclical narrative if ever I saw one. Anyway, once a film had made its initial cinema run, the tape was often simply overwritten by a new film, since tape was expensive back then. Not to mention the infamous flammability of the old film, made from Nitrocellulose, meaning that many films, if stored in warehouses, could be wiped out hundreds at a time if a fire was started.

The industry was young; they didn't know any better at the time, and similarly, film was a relatively unexplored medium. All the standard conventions in films we’re so familiar with today had to have started somewhere, and chances are this silent era was at least partly responsible. Le Voyage Dans La Lune inspired our love for Science-Fiction cinema, Un Chien Andalou sparked the experimental and risqué films I spoke of last time, and Nosferatu can be considered one of the many grandfathers of Horror films.

So think, with all the silent films we currently have, and how they've influenced the film industry as we know it, what about the others? The films that were lost, overwritten, burned?

If these films were destroyed before the right people saw them and took inspiration from them, potentially entire threads of film history could have been prevented from existing. Entire genres, technologies, franchises, even directors may cease to be.

Take me, for example. My writing of this blog, my knowledge of the industry, my obsession and love for films, all spiralled from my earliest memory; watching Star Wars Episode V: The Empire Strike Back as a three year old child, a film that, along with the rest of its trilogy, was inspired by Metropolis. If Metropolis was destroyed before George Lucas ever saw it, Star Wars may never have been, and I would be a completely different person; my life changed beyond recognition, and I know I wouldn't be alone on that. Not to mention, all the other directors who were inspired by Star Wars would never have made the films they made, and you can start to see how big an effect this would have had.

Just consider for a moment that your favourite film may not exist. What if there was a certain silent film, made back in the 20's, destroyed in a fire, which one day would have become your favourite film, or perhaps inspired your favourite film? Except it never did, because the film was destroyed before you could get to it. Just sit and think about how different the history of film, nay, the history of humanity could have been if that 90% wasn't lost.

To quote Lang himself, “Why are you so interested in a picture which no longer exists?" Because that’s exactly what has happened, maybe not quite with Metropolis, but with others such as London After Midnight, the original Cleopatra, and The Fall of a Nation to name a few, they have simply ceased to exist, via our own carelessness in preserving arguably the most powerful and compelling form of art.

Some heavy stuff there, but I hope I've made you think. Who knows, maybe this post will inspire you. Maybe you will make a film, based on the subject of this post. Maybe your film will go on to inspire countless others to make their own films.

Maybe you’ll do what these films never got the chance to. 

Michael (2011) – Schrödinger’s Room

So, back on schedule. Now that the Oscars are finally over, it’s time to stop rambling about many films at once, and revert back to rambling about just one film in particular. Hey, it’s the title of the blog; it’s what you signed up for. I’ve had this particular article in development for literally months, and it’s been the desire to perfect this borderline-essay which caused my long period of inactivity at the end of last year (yeah, that’s the official excuse; I'm sticking with it). So, what was this remarkable film I saw last year that stunned me into transcribed silence? Well, dear readers; let me tell you about a film. A film that goes by the name of Michael.

Michael appears to be somewhat of a hidden gem, because despite having a decent IMDb score of 7.0 (that’s decent considering the kind of film it is), it seems to have flown completely under the radar. No-one I know knew about it and I only found out that it existed whilst skimming through the reviews section of the Radio Times, since by chance it happened to be showing as part of Channel 4’s “Daring Directors” season. Besides that, I haven’t seen or heard any real media attention or any kind of proper recognition of this film’s existence, which is a shame because this film deserves it, for its sheer balls if nothing else. So, I think it’s time I gave this film some praise and publicity (on probably the world’s least visited blog, but oh well), and maybe then I can spread the word on this wonder.

Now, I am willing to bet that within the next few sentences, someone reading this blog will think that this film is some ghastly abomination and needs to be burned at the stake, banned in all countries, blah de blah de blah. You know, the usual knee-jerk reaction possessed by utter twats with minds so narrow they’re practically two-dimensional. Some may just see it as some kind of shock cinema with no real value, made simply because someone had to eventually, or maybe others don’t want to watch something as serious and thought-provoking and would rather stick to their safe zone; consisting of light hearted romcoms starring Bill Nighy. But I implore you to let me change your mind.

Michael is about a paedophile and the relationship he has with a ten-year old boy locked in his basement.

Right, statistically speaking, the only people still reading this are people who are open to and intrigued by daring film ideas. Bravo to you! I know it sounds like a horrible, disturbing film but, and I hope this doesn't make me sound too much like a monster but, that’s kind of what attracted me to the film in the first place.

Now, it’s probably worth explaining that I’m quite a big fan of controversial cinema. Even though I haven’t watched many titles from this subset of motion pictures, I feel particularly drawn to any film which pushes the boundaries of what a film can depict, and challenges our own insecurities by exploring the taboo. While I haven’t seen any of the following, titles such as Pink Flamingos, Flaming Creatures and Salo: 120 Days of Sodom are all pictures which I find intriguing, and hope to watch someday. I'm not particularly fucked up in the head or anything, it’s just that a) I'm not easily disturbed/offended and b) I like films that are different, and try things other, mainstream films wouldn't dare. Which leads me nicely to my next point.

One of the biggest draws is that Hollywood would never make this film. Especially in an industry hell bent on generating money rather than any actual decent content with moral value or artistic expressions or messages. No no, we don’t want to use this incredible art form to enrich our minds and culture, or challenge our own perceptions of this cruel world and explore the vast depths of human existence; more Transformers please. Sarcasm aside, if a film hasn't got the wide, mainstream appeal to generate a nice fat profit on opening weekend, then Hollywood don’t want to hear about it. Which actually benefits the film quite nicely, but I’ll get on to that later.  With a subject as controversial as paedophilia, it’s obvious that this film did not have economic gain in mind during its inception, which is great, because it means there’s only one other reason the film was made; the director wanted to present his thoughts on the topic. So, with that in mind, Michael is a film that actually has heart and soul behind it, rather than financial backing, and that is what makes Michael so powerful.

Michael does not excessively demonize paedophilia, nor does it need to. Anyone with even the slightest moral centre knows that paedophiles are horrible people and that what they do is one of the most awful things it is possible for a human to do. So, Michael does not need to emphasize and exaggerate the titular character as some kind of demonic villain or heinous psychopath, but merely show him as he really is.

Let me explain.

If Hollywood were to make this film, which as previously discussed they wouldn’t, Michael himself would be running around, shouting obscenities, cackling maniacally and eating small puppies for breakfast. Ok, maybe not quite so literally, but that’s the kind of depiction they’d go for, which is just awful. If nothing else, it’s unrealistic, immature and borderline offensive. To treat such a serious issue in such an over-the-top manner is just such an insulting way of dumbing down a serious real world issue so that the average brain dead American can still process it whilst stuffing their face with junk food and pretending not to be racist. Michael understands this, and so presents our antagonist as a fairly average man. Michael knows and knows the viewer knows that paedophiles are horrible, and therefore the viewer is already against Michael from the get-go, therefore leaving no reason to satirise him or demonize him further, and instead focus on his day-to-day existence. That being said, this concept is marginalised slightly by the skiing scene, which felt like a bit of an “everyone laugh at the horrible paedophile as he struggles in the snow” kind of scene: where the plot ground to a halt for a spot of slapstick schaudenfreude, instead of continuing with the lovely, mature attitude set up by the rest of the film, but I’ll let it slide just this once.

From a critical perspective, there’s nothing ground-breaking about Michael; its cinematography, editing, production values, etc. are all as good as you’d expect from this kind of production. Where the film shines is simply in its character relationships: the depiction of Michael and his captive, Wolfgang. As mentioned earlier, Michael is not excessively demonised and is shown to be a fairly average guy on the surface. He works an office job at an insurance company, occasionally hangs out with some drinking buddies (although admittedly he looks rather detached from the experience) and even goes on previously mentioned skiing holidays. We even see that he still stays in close contact with his family, and here we drive towards Michael’s primary, and best presented point.

The overall message of this film is that anyone could be a paedophile. Now I don’t mean that in a paranoid way; I mean that paedophiles can be anyone and anything. They do not have special jobs or a certain appearance or any means of differentiating them from others visually or socially, (besides being a 70’s TV presenter, I suppose) and their horrendous acts could be taking place anywhere, even in your very neighbourhood and you would never know. Going back to my rant on Hollywood, one of the reasons this film would not have done well in a high budget setting is because this entire, crucial aspect of the film would have been completely lost on those over bloated money-powered automatons who run the studio, and they would never dare to present a paedophile in such a balanced and realistic fashion, and couldn’t risk scaring their naïve audience with revealing the unflinching and awful truth of this world, lest they ask for a refund for making their brains do some actual deep thinking for once.

And so, to draw this gushing to some kind of conclusion, I would now like to talk to you about the ending. So, of course, spoilers ahead.

Wolfgang, desperate to escape, waits for Michael to come and check on him, before throwing a kettle full of boiling water into his face. Whilst the audience cringe from this painful scene, Michael manages to stop Wolfgang from escaping, locking him back in the room, and then running off to treat his injuries. Michael ends up driving to the store to get some medication, but crashes en route and dies.

After his funeral, his family come to his house and begin sorting out his possessions. There is no clear indication of how much time has passed since the night of Michael’s death. His mother goes into the basement, many times walking straight past the door which hides Michael’s secret world.

I was tense, and not just because of the ending itself. This film was working towards having an impeccable ending, but just one slip could ruin the whole thing; execution was key. It would seem, however, that fledgling director Markus Schleinzer knows what he’s doing because he hits it out of the park. After several nail biting minutes, the mother finally notices the door, and cautiously, unlocks it, and enters. Cut to black. We don’t see her reaction, we know nothing of the aftermath, and most importantly, we do not know of Wolfgang’s ultimate fate. Some have argued that the film stops here because this is the point at which Michael’s control over Wolfgang ended, but I prefer to liken it to the paradox of Schrödinger’s Cat. Wolfgang is both simultaneously alive and dead, as its all down to the audience’s opinion of how much time has elapsed, whether Wolfgang knew to ration his food supplies properly and, slightly more pivotal perhaps, the viewer’s own optimism. Yeah, I know that’s not quite how the original paradox worked, but that’s the way I like to think of it. Regardless, the ambiguity of this ending is one of the strongest points of the entire film, possibly the strongest point, and Schleinzer’s choice and execution couldn’t be better if he tried.

End of Spoilers

But enough about quantum mechanics; as is probably clear by now, this is an excellent, daring and thought provoking film that challenges the bitter, over-sensitive and unadventurous audiences of today and makes a bold statement about one of the most disgusting current affairs. In my eyes, Michael is a prime example of the kinds of film the industry needs nowadays; powerful, compelling, intelligent, and arguably most important, different. It’s such a shame that this film is such an unknown, because I’d say this is one of the most important pieces of modern cinema, and I think everyone should watch it, at least once. The film isn’t particularly graphic, so if you’re worried about nudity or violence, rest assured, this film would have been a PG/12 if it weren’t for the subject matter. Be warned though, this isn’t the kind of film where you round up your mates and crash on the sofa with a bowl of popcorn; this is a personal experience, best seen on your own on a quiet weekend afternoon. With that in mind, I really hope I’ve inspired at least some of you to open your eyes and mind a tad further and explore some of the juicier fruits cinema has to offer, and if you’re already into these kind of films, then congratulations; you just got a 2000 word film suggestion!

That’s about it for now, but stay tuned, since I’ve already got my next discussion outlined, and let me tell you, my subject matters are not getting any more cheerful. See you next time!

Michael – 2011 – Markus Schleinzer - German

Score:   9

Recommendation:          High