The Cry of the Owl.

As I said in my blog on Jamie Thraves debut film I have been looking forward to seeing more films by this promising British director. The Cry of the Owl (2009) is certainly different from his other two feature films, The Low Down (2000) and his latest Treacle Jr. (2010). Firstly it is a thriller and has been filmed in and around the Greater Toronto area in Canada; his other two feature films were made in the UK. Secondly it’s a British, Canadian, French and German co-production in conjunction with BBC Films, where as the director had to remortgaged his own home to make his latest movie!

Based on a Patricia Highsmith book of the same name with a screenplay written by Thraves. It tells the story of Robert Forrester who is going through divorce proceedings. This has a profound effect on his mental well being and he starts to spy on a girl living in an isolated house in the country. She appears to have everything Robert requires from life: happiness and contentment. One evening the girl, Jenny Thierolf, catches him in her garden and from then on she take’s control of the situation, ending her relationship with her longtime boyfriend Greg, believing that meeting Robert is an act of fate. Jenny makes advances to Robert but because of his mental state he feels unprepared to start a new relationship and rejects her advances.  The disappearance of Jenny's fiancé Greg after a fight with Robert marks the beginning of a series of dangerous and ultimately fatal incidents.

The film stars the American actress Julia Stiles (Silver Linings Playbook 2012) as Jenny Thierolf and our very own Paddy Considine as Robert Forrester. Considine is one of these actors that you will not see in a bad movie. He started his acting career in Shane Meadows breakout film A Room for Romeo Brass (1999). Recently appearing in Blitz (2011) and Submarine (2010) and winning a BAFTA for Outstanding Debut Director for Tyrannosaur (2012).

Julia Stiles and Paddy Considine.

Although this went almost straight to video I found it to be a very intriguing thriller with a good and interesting story that demonstrates how a sequence of actions, once started, are impossible to stop and eventually lead to tragedy. A slow and deliberate piece of work that deserved much better distribution.

Pulp Fiction.

At the Robert Burns Centre Film Theatre Film Club an extremely privileged audience spent two and half hours in Quentin Tarantino’s ‘cool universe’. A place that is hard and fast, funny, stylish and filled deliberately with some clever references to other cinematic works. We were watching a film that veers back and forth between humour and violence, a film where your never sure if you should be laughing or cringing. Monday night’s big screen showing of one of my own personal top three films of all time:  Pulp Fiction (1994) is a film that defined American cinema in the 90’s. A piece of cinematic work that is central to its age, influencing many films that followed including our own British Film industry. Would films like Trainspotting (1996) or Lock, Stock and Two Smoking Barrels (1998) had been made without QT’s inspiration and would our own British postmodern film noir been so proficient. But far more importantly it influenced the financing of the America independent movie because up until that point it was almost impossible to get finance for anything outside of the Hollywood controlled film industry. It was because of this cross over from what could have remained an independent cult classic to a mainstream hit that really opened the door’s. Only one other filmmaker had received so much acclaim so early on in his career and that was another boy wonder Orson Wells. ‘Not since Citizen Kane has one man appeared from relative obscurity to redefine the art of filmmaking[1]”

How did this 1994 American film noir directed by the young and brash Knoxville Tennessee born Quentin Tarantino, a movie known for it extensive and diverting dialogue, ironic mix of humour and violence, nonlinear storyline and a host of cinematic and pop culture references, originally come to fruition?

Honey Bunny and Pumpkin enjoy a quite cup of coffee.

In 1992, after the breakthrough success of his debut film, Reservoir Dogs (1992), Tarantino went to Amsterdam to write a script for his next film. Originally Reservoir Dogs seems to have been part of the script idea for Pulp Fiction but it had become a full story in its own right. Some of the ideas that went into the script came from friend Roger Avary (who had been a co-worker at the famous Video Archives store where Tarantino had worked and allegedly honed his love of the movies). Avary had written the segment that became Butch’s gold watch story, and he had expanded it into a feature film script called Pandemonium Reigns, but Tarantino brought back the script and it became a section of Pulp Fiction.

Once the script for the film was completed, Tarantino and his producer friend, Lawrence Bender, took it to Jersey Films, which had offered Tarantino close to a million dollars for a script. Tarantino and Benders Company, A Band Apart, (named after a Jean-Luc Godard film Bande a part 1964) had negotiated a deal with Jersey Films that involved an offer of initial financing plus office facilities in exchange for partnership in the film and permission to shop the script to a studio. Jersey took it to Columbia TriStar Films who decided not to produce it: the rumour is that the studio heads were bothered by the violence and scenes in which John Travolta character shoots up heroin. But according to the Los Angeles Times, TriStar apparently got cold feet and decided not to go forward with production because they feared it could be hard to market. The studio’s rejection of Pulp Fiction, an under $10 million movie, was explained away by a source at the studio who explained that TriStar was currently looking to make and release more higher profile, bigger-budgeted mainstream movies with ‘stars’ and at this point had little interest in more offbeat fare, even if the financial risks were lower.[2]

Mia Wallace and ....

........her husband Marsellus Wallace.

Fortunately, another company Miramax, which had bought the US distribution rights for Reservoir Dogs and made lots of money from that experience, agreed to finance the new film. In fact, it was the first movie that Miramax (which had recently become a Disney subsidiary) financed in its entirety. Tarantino was given the same scriptwriting fee that he had been promised at TriStar, and the film went in to an eight-week shoot with a budget of $8.5 million. The largest part of which went to building the Jack Rabbit Slim’s set (but some savings were made by having the production offices at the same site so as to cut down on transportation costs). Something else that also helped keep costs down was a plan that Lawrence Bender devised in which all the main actors were paid the same amount of money, rather than according to hierarchy of celebrity and importance, which is normally the case.

Butch Coolide doing what Butch Coolidge does best!

Incidentally some of the casting history is quite intriguing. For example, there was evidently some thought of giving the role of Vincent Vega (Travolta) to Michael Madsen, who played Vic Vega in Reservoir Dogs. There was also talk of Daniel Day-Lewis playing the part. Similarly, there was some competition for the character of co-hitman Jules Winnfield (Samuel L Jackson), with Laurence Fishburne testing for the role. A number of actresses were also suggested for the Mia Wallace (Uma Thurman) character including Meg Ryan, Holly Hunter, Brigitte Nielsen and Rosanna Arquette who became Lances wife in the film (Vincent’s drug dealer). And a recurrent story has Pam Grier originally being considered for the role of Lances wife. (Who would go on to appear in Tarantino’s next feature film Jackie Brown 1997)

Jack Rabbit Slim's famous twist competition.

Production began on the 20^th September 1993. In May 1994, Pulp Fiction had its premier at the Cannes Film Festival and won the Palme d’Ore, the Festivals top prize, from a jury presided over by Clint Eastwood. This success encouraged Miramax to give the film a big publicity push. Thereafter it was nominated for seven Oscars: Best Picture, Director, Actor (Travolta), Supporting Actor (Jackson) Supporting Actress (Thurman) Best Original Screenplay and Editing, it won Best Original Screenplay. Eventually taking over $213 million at the box office, that did not include DVD’s, published scripts and of course we must not forget the soundtrack which plays an integral part of the narrative, with QT we don’t get a composed film score instead we get an assortment of surf music, rock and roll, soul and pop songs.

Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield looking cool.

There was ambiguities over credits: at the Golden Globe Awards, for example, only Tarantino was named as best screenwriter, but at the Academy Awards, Tarantino and Avary shared the Oscar. The actual credits on the film state ‘Written and directed by Quentin Tarantino. Story by Quentin Tarantino and Roger Avary.”

To a certain extent the film is in fact politically correct. There is no nudity and no violence directed against women. There’s interracial friendship and cultural diversity, there are strong women and strong black men with QT swimming against class stereotypes,[3] although some critics took exception to the word nigger, which is something that’s also coursing problems with his latest movie Django Unchained (2012).

Vincent Vega and Jules Winnfield looking decidedly uncool covered in Marvin's brains!

Following the screening of this intoxicating film a short discussion took place, subjects included how Tarantino revitalised the career of its leading man John Travolta, who went on to appear in many other award winning films, the narrative structure which is presented out of sequence forming, what some have referred to as a circular narrative and the films success and its legacy to the cinema.  I got the feeling that this discussion could have gone on all night, with perhaps a second screening late into the early hours, those were the days?

I would like to thank the RBC for programming this film. It gave some of the younger members of the audience a chance to see this movie for the first time and fans like myself, who have seen it many times, another opportunity to see it as it should be shown: on a big screen with a decent sound system.[4]

---

[1] Dawson 1995

[2] Los Angeles Times June 1993.

[3] Alan Stone. Boston Review 1995.

[4] I would like to thank Dana Polan whose reference work BFI Modern Classic was a great help in the research for my film introduction.

The Paperboy.

The very charming Charlotte Bless.

Directed by Lee Daniels, best known for the award-winning Precious (2009), The Paperboy (2012) has had very mixed reviews but most agree that the best thing about the film is Nicole Kidman. In it she plays Charlotte Bless, a deliciously trashy 40-year-old blond who falls for a prisoner on death row that she has been corresponding with and although she has never met the man they are engaged to be married.  Her role certainly deserved some recognition for Best Actress at the big award ceremonies but as usual she didn’t get it.

Ward Jensen interviews Hillary von Wetter.

Based on a novel of the same name by American author Pete Dexter it’s mainly located in the simmering sun drenched swamps of Louisiana in 1969. Hillary van Wetter (John Cusack) is on death row for the murder of Thurmond Call an unscrupulous local sheriff who it is alleged killed a cousin of van Wetter. Charlotte Bless requests the help of two Miami Times investigative journalists, Ward Jansen (Matthew McConaughey) and the Englishman Yardley Acheman (David Oyelowo), to prove that her beloved is innocent and should be released from prison so she can marry him. Ward, who is determined to get to the truth, is back on his home turf were his father and brother Jack (Zac Efron) are still living. Jack, who is to drive the two out of town reporters, has fallen in love with the sexpot Charlotte, which, as usual with matters of the heart, complicates things.    

Charlotte Bless pleads van wetter's case.

Its not as if this gothic thriller is not enjoyable, as I have already pointed out the acting from our leading lady is, as Peter Bradshaw put it in his Cannes review, “terrifically good, funny, sexy, and poignantly vulnerable” Macy Grey is very amusing at Anita the family’s maid who also narrates the story. John Cusack is scary as van Wetter and the other three main stars play their parts effortlessly. But, yes there is a but, the film is flat, and by that I mean it does not move you, its unemotional, but if you like your movies to be fun and somewhat raunchy then give it a try.

Who's taking who for a ride?

Les Miserables.

Unless you’ve been living on a far away planet you couldn’t miss the fact that Les Miserables (2012) has again been adapted for the big screen, this time by Tom Hooper who was responsible for the very successful movie, The Kings Speech (2010).  The story, as ever, is based on the 1862 French historical novel by Victor Hugo described as a tale about broken dreams, unrequited love, passion, sacrifice and redemption. It begins in 1815 in France when Jean Valjean is released from a 19-year prison term, for stealing a loaf of bread to feed his family, and ends with the unsuccessful 1832 June Rebellion in Paris.  In between we get Valjean attempting to avoid re-arrest for jumping bail, by his nemesis Inspector Javert.

Hugh Jackman as Jean Valjean.

I’m not really a fan of stage musicals, although no one can deny that that a 27-year run for any stage show is exceptional. I only attended this movie because my wife expressed a wish to see it (although I suspect it had some thing to do with Hugh Jackman being in the cast) and the fact that it was at the RBC Film Theatre on her birthday, job done. My backside was not the only thing numb at the end of its 158-minute running time! It started all right but the longer it went on the more tedious it became. The films production and the cinematography were excellent and I was pleasantly surprised by Anne Hathaway’s performance as Fantine the workhouse girl who turns to prostitution, a role that won her an Academy Award for Best Supporting Actress. But I was unconvinced by the musical score, I would have preferred a standard spoken narrative instead of one being sung to music.  Also it’s a very male dominated story with the two main characters always coming across as Hugh Jackman and Russell Crowe rather than Jean Valjean and Inspector Javert. Never mind that’s me done my bit for mainstream cinema for a while.

Russell Crowe as the Inspector.