BLACKBOXTV'S THE BABYSITTER (SHORT) REVIEW.

In film school, the majority of the first year of studies is dedicated to writing, filming and editing short films, easing students into the independent market first as opposed to throwing them in the deep end with mainstream Hollywood features. During research for writing a script for one of my short films, I came across the YouTube channel BlackBoxTV. The channel is filled with many suspenseful horror shorts directed by Tony E. Valenzuela, and a lot of them are really, really good.

Today saw the release of the latest short film by the channel, The Babysitter, and after watching it my immediate reaction was a wanting to share it with the readers of this blog. As I feel that horror is a completely overlooked genre in independent filmmaking and in the festival circuits (in fact, we were forbidden from writing horror films in our first year of university), when I find one I think is brilliant, I am overwhelmed with excitement at the fact that despite the lack of profit from short films in general, and horror-genre shorts in particular, they are still being made because of a love for cinema and for the act of scaring.

The film's cinematography is brilliant. Typical horror-genre techniques are used professionally in the film, following the character around a house, off-screen noise, off-screen space, and it all adds up into creating an extremely suspenseful atmosphere. The film is shown from the perspective of the babysitter, played by Youtube Megan Camarena, perhaps as a lot of YouTube demographics show young girls making up the majority of views, therefore making the story more real for them, or perhaps just to show how sadistic the actions that take place are from an outsiders viewpoint.

The film shows a child becoming obsessed with a video. Seemingly taking inspiration from the likes of The Ring and Spy Kids (Floop is a mad man, help us, save us), the video deals with the wider theme of technologies impact on the youth. The young boy in this video, six years old, is brainwashed by the video, witnessing the murder of his babysitter and mother without batting an eyelid. The real horror that is being presented is that of the lack of control parents are having on the information and content their children witness on the internet. The combination of a lack of parental guidance and the wrong video being watched by a child is catastrophic in this case.

Acting out the role of the extremely creepy 'host' of this video the child is watching is YouTube sensation Joey Graceffa, showing his talent in a weird yet wonderful role that diverges from his usual music videos and short internet skits.

As with all horror films, even short ones that are simply being uploaded to YouTube, the editing is key. In this film, CGI is used to create a portal that is seemingly sucking the child's mind into the video he is watching. Also used on a demonic teddy to make the eyes larger (possibly referencing the extremely successful The Shining), the combination of the editing and beautiful camerawork makes the film a joy to watch and at only seven minutes long, not a time consuming one.

With sites such as YouTube and Vimeo emerging and having billions of users, film festivals are no longer the only place to look for independent and brilliant new cinema. BlackBoxTV is just one of many growing channels on YouTube that present festival-standard shorts for free, and for that, I respect the people behind it a lot. 

For now, we'll have to just wait and see if internet shorts become as successful as they have the potential to become, and also for BlackBoxTV to announce their debut feature film. I will be first in line for a ticket on that day.

A REVIEW OF TOM HOOPER'S 'LES MISERABLES':

Now, my primary new years resolution was to visit the cinema more often, as throughout 2012 I can count the amount of times I went on both hands. Although this resolution has made me sit through the dire and laughable 'Texas Chainsaw 3D', something which made me almost reconsider my degree, passion & life in general (I joke.. kind of), tonight, I went to a viewing of the new Les Mis, a film that I have seen both positive and negative reviews for. I have one word to sum the film up: WOW.

If i'm correct, the film came out a few weeks back in the US, but tonight, the 11th, was the premiere night over here in the UK. The stage-musical sensation brought all kinds of people to the packed out cinema, and I've never seen so many people bawling at the same time.

To start with, an honorable mention is needed for the child actors in this film. Both Cosette & Gavroche  provided performances that moved the entire audience. The brilliance of their performance and the passion that is visible in both of these young actors is something that makes me hopeful for the future of cinema, something which I have been thinking about a lot recently, after reading numerous articles about Hollywood's movement away from the 35mm.

Anne Hathaway's performance as Fantine is something bound to earn her the Best Supporting Actress award at this year's Oscars, and was something that absolutely distraught me. The portrayal was just right. There is nothing more any words can add to it.
Now, the only thing I was sceptical about was Sacha Baron Cohen and Helena Bonham Carter's roles in the movie. Both respective actors in their own right (questionable for one of the pair, but.. let's leave personal opinions aside..), although I was slightly perplexed as to where they would fit in this adaptation that I really wanted to be so, so good, and thought that they could possibly bring a negative to the musical. My fears were completely pushed aside when we were first introduced to them, however, and I see the roles they were given and why they were given them, a sort-of emphasis on their lack of passion for anything moral, contrasting them to the rest of the cast's constant moral dilemmas.

One final point to stick in your mind, is the question of whether the film is good in cinematic terms, as opposed to simply an adaptation of an absolutely incredible story. In my opinion, the film is extremely good in both of these terms, and the heartbreakingly beautiful storyline compliments the artistic use of the camera throughout the film.

THE IMPORTANCE OF THE COBBLER IN ROMAN POLANSKI'S 'CARNAGE':

While waiting on an arrival of dvds to be shipped from hmv.com (worst delivery time ever, fyi, 9 days & counting..), I figured I would head into my local DVD store and pick out a few films to keep me occupied for the few days I have left at home before heading back to university. While my local DVD store is, to say the least, lacking in anything other than romantic comedies, I was lucky to come across a cheap copy of 'Carnage', a 2011 film by Roman Polanski.

After a brief (just over one hour..) viewing of the movie last night, I could not stop thinking about how effective the film was. Polanski makes an apartment in New York City, the only set of the film (apart from the opening and closing credits), the least claustrophobic place in the world. The film's overall execution is something to be applauded in itself, play-to-screen adaptations can often find themselves lacking in substance, so I have found, and although I wasn't expecting that from this film after reading reviews and hearing from word-of-mouth how good the film is, I was not expecting it to be of the level it is.

It struck me, about halfway through the film, shortly after the projectile vomiting, how the apple and pear cobbler is of much more importance than at first thought. The apple and pear (a classic combination, as said by Penelope) cobbler can be used as a metaphor to describe the whole situation of the film. We first start off with the cobbler being misplaced in the fridge, something which Penelope is unhappy with, showing it is not going to be as good as it could have been if it were out of the fridge. This can represent the meeting between the two couples. The original aim was to solve an issue between their two children, however the bitterness of both of the couples and the constant passive aggression shows that from the outset, the meeting is not going to solve anything and is going to get.. messy (quite literally..). This shows that if the cobbler was not put in the fridge, it would have been much tastier and satisfying, almost like if both of the couples did not have this bitterness and passive aggression, the problem between their children would have been solved.

This short piece of analysis of the.. cake (definitely NOT a pie, right Penelope?) can speak for the whole film, the vomiting being a result of too much anger and that is the only way it can be output effectively, the alcohol representing what the cobbler did, everybody wants a big but some can not handle it, showing their lack of ability to communicate their strong feelings in an effective manner.

The film is amazing, Polanski outdid himself again, and his cameo as a confused apartment owner towards the end of the film was the cherry on a most wonderful cake.

FANTASY AND DESIRE IN HITCHCOCK'S 'RICH & STRANGE':

Following an age-old tradition of mine, falling ill over the transitioning new year, while the rest of London partied and celebrated the arrival of 2013, I was tucked up in bed with a huge mug of tea & my notebook, watching and writing about Alfred Hitchcock's 1931 film 'Rich and Strange' (IMDB | Rotten Tomatoes). This dark comedy pre-dates almost all of Hitch's most celebrated and appreciated films and although he had not yet fallen into what would become his unofficial title, the master of suspense, he stays true to his roots of playing with the audiences emotions (see: the cuts from the shots of Fred & Emily on the deck of the boat to the shot of the ocean rising above the porthole of their cabin). While watching this film, the ever-present themes of fantasy and desire were constantly being portrayed and a question in my head appeared, as it always does, what is Hitchcock trying to say?


The Shakespearian references in the opening titles & in a title screen of the film are one of the things that first trigger questions in the audiences mind. The actors are referred to as 'players' in the opening credits, a term from the 16th century that was used to describe actors who travelled in packs to perform shows. Theatre in 16th century England was an escape from the ever-changing monarchy which caused religious uproar and a general bad time for the country. The fact that Hitchcock added this small

change to the usually orthodox title credits suggests that he wanted to make a point that the actors, and subsequently their characters, desire some sort of escapism. (see also: the scene in the midst of the travelling montage where Fred & Emily visit a theatre- possibly offering a literal and physical interpretation of the opening title 'players' reference, and suggesting the actors in the film and the performers in the theatre are similar. Subsequently, the bearded man who pinches Emily's behind could be seen as a reminder of reality, that they are living a dream and will someday have to return to reality, however instead of dealing with the problem, Emily suggests leaving, showing once again, a running away from reality)

The other Shakespearian feature of the film is the direct quote from The Tempest, and, although it is one of the few Shakespeare plays I have not read/seen/heard the plot of, the quote itself seemingly sets us up for the story to come and also strengthens the point that deliberately, Hitchcock wanted to show the escapism and change that is desired by many average people. 

The cruise ship is the vehicle of transportation taking Emily and Fred away to their fantasy-world, almost presenting itself as somewhere in-between fantasy and reality. Both of the affairs start on the boat, with the railings of the ship visible in both, almost keeping them penned in to this fantasy world. The Arabian land in which the ship docks at shortly after Fred meets his 'Princess' is presented to us without a title card, which is interesting in the fact that the majority of the other lands are titled. The town they visit, and the people we see working there, present an almost contrast to London at the start of the film where Fred was working. His uncomfortable and undesirable commute on the underground and his strict, mundane job are both paralleled with a contrast of people of the 'fantasy' land walking around freely in the sunshine, and casually making sales in small stalls. The contrasts between the two places continue, with the weather and colour both also adding to the effect of a desired place in the latter.

A dark, rainy London factory is replaced by...

A bright, sunny, Mediterranean paradise. 

The boat provides a location for the first kisses of both of the affairs, and with features of a ship being prominent in both of the shots, such as portholes and railings, we can take that Hitchcock is portraying that the cinematic space is key in the romances. It is almost as if the boat, (as previously mentioned, the vehicle that is taking F & E towards their fantasy world), is almost involved in the relationships. The question is being presented to us that if normality continued and F & E remained in their mundane life, would they feel the distance between them that they felt on the ship? Do our routine and busy lives distract us from what we truly want in life? 

We can expand on this by looking at the metaphor in which F gives of his fantasy 'princess' and E. F compares his 'princess' to "champagne", while referring to E as "water", an interesting description which can tell us more than appears of the film. Water is a needed for our survival, whereas champagne is simply a luxury, one that not everyone can have but is nice when drunk. The effects of too much champagne can lead to sickness, a negativity, while water is sustainable and in any amount is a positive. The effects the two women have on F is similar to the two drinks described and therefore, we see that Hitchcock is saying that reality, in the metaphor, the water, is what is needed in order to live properly.

Continuing on from the champagne description of the 'princess', we can look at the portrayal of fantasy as a negative thing. Is Hitch telling us that there are limits to what is acceptable to fantasise about. Surely the 'princess', who we later find out to be nothing but a con artist, is representing the negatives of fantasising, and the lack of limitations in fantasy worlds is being shown to be a factor that can lead to bad things. 

The ship sinking at the end of the film is representing the end of the fantasy. Aside from the sinking of the vehicle transporting them to their fantasy, the fact that the camera and F & E never leave their cabin shows their lack of ability to access the fantasy world anymore. What once held their 'perfect' affairs is now literally crashing down around them signalling the devastation it has caused. 

The film ends with a Chinese ship coming and helping a distressed F & E, and their desire at the start of the film, to escape reality, is now turned on its head, with their only desire being to get safely back to normality. This flip on the recurring themes of the film presents us with a closed ending, which Hitchcock later took on board with his most famous films, giving the audience the desired closure in which they have been craving through the nail-biting suspense for the whole time.