THE CONSPIRACIES IN KUBRICK'S 'THE SHINING', AND 'ROOM 237':

Sorry for my lack of posts for the past few weeks, assignment deadlines at university were piling up, but now I'm on Easter break, meaning I have the time to write some posts on here.

Tonight I watched the documentary regarding Stanley Kubrick's masterpiece, The Shining, titled Room 237. Incase you're unaware of the documentary and the subject it explores, it deals with the numerous conspiracy theories and subjective interpretations of the 1980 film, giving close analysis of scenes in the film and using the social and historical context of Stanley Kubrick himself, and the time he grew up in, as reference for many of the points. The theories explored include the film being a portrayal of the rise of the white American and degrading/destruction of the Native Americans, a portrayal of the holocaust, a confession from Kubrick that he helped to create the 'fake' video of the 1969 moon landing and many more.

Through all 100 minutes of this documentary I was absolutely in awe. The detail that the critics speaking have gone into in their research of the theories is clear in their analysis of individual frames, set locations, and even the directors childhood, and gives a well-structured and interesting argument in trying to prove their case. The openness of the ending of the film is one of the things that makes all of the conspiracy theories key, with no clear message to guide the audience, the interpretation of the audience is something that Kubrick enjoyed, therefore I feel it is plausible that numerous hints of historical events and theories were put in the film in order to spark critic's interest, I believe that Kubrick would have been happy to watch this documentary, gaining an insight into just how effective his extremely detailed mise-en-scene and cinematography is in provoking thoughts.

The theory that has always interested me the most is the theory of Kubrick being involved in the faking of the 1969 moon landing footage. This footage has always intrigued me, as a child I thought it was incredible that I could witness, at my disposal, something that was recorded on a different planet (the moon isn't a planet, whatever, I was a kid.... OKAY?). As I grew older, started school and found ways to distract myself (watching documentary channels on repeat for days on end), I was interested in the faking of the footage because of numerous factors. Why is that flag blowing in the 'wind'? Why does the scenery look exactly like a part of Area 51? etc. etc.
This is going off on a most wonderful tangent, however, this is a film blog so I'll stick to Kubrick. I have explained one of the most solid theories of the faking of the moon-landing of '69 footage down below. The documentary explains it in much more detail, as you can expect, but anyway, enjoy.

THEORY: KUBRICK SUGGESTING HE WAS INVOLVED IN THE FORGING OF THE MOON-LANDING FOOTAGE.The pattern on the carpet that Danny rises from is shaped exactly like the launch pad for the space ships that sent astronauts to the moon. Danny steps up from this hexagon take off pad, wearing a jumper that has a picture of the Apollo 11 on it, physically showing the spaceship taking off from the launch pad.

Danny then walks to room number 237. Kubrick changed the number of the room from the original Stephen King novel from 231 to 237, claiming that the hotel they were filming in already had a room number 231, and the manager worried that nobody would want to stay in that room after the film was released, however it has been said that many people have rung up the hotel requesting said room, and it does not exist, suggesting Kubrick was covering this up. The relevance that the number 237 has to the moon-landing theory is that the moon is exactly 237,000 miles away from earth! Simple as that. Also, as said in the documentary, if you read the writing above the number 'ROOM No' the only capitalised letters are R O O M & N. The only two words you can make out of this are 'moon' and 'room', suggesting this is the 'moon room'. A confession from Stanley Kubrick of his involvement in the 'false' recording?

CLOUD ATLAS & THE POWER OF NUMEROUS DIRECTORS:

Cloud Atlas was a film I was highly anticipating since I first heard of the adaptation being made. The concept itself is enough to provoke intense interested from anyone interested in pushing the artistic boundaries of film, however the feature of this particular film that intrigued me the most was the use of three directors, two of whom being responsible for The Matrix Trilogy and V for Vendetta (both absolutely astonishing films, and some of my personal favourites), and the third director being responsible for some less-known films, but still some exceptionally good ones such as Run Lola Run and Paris, Je T'aime.
I was not disappointed by the film.

Although arguably perplexing and requiring constant concentration for 3 hours, I found the numerous stories moving and beautifully told. The excerpts from the original novel by David Mitchell were compelling and fitting, it didn't appear forced, simply streaming its way into the film in coalition with the great cinematography.
In basic terms, for those who aren't aware of the plot, the film follows numerous stories of numerous people through numerous periods of time, with links in the characters thoughts and situations linking them. From the 1800s to the 2300s, the film takes you on a journey of drama, sci-fi and comedy, to name a few. For those sceptical of the plot, as I know many people are, think of it as a number of different short films, all with a few similar themes, mix up the formal editing techniques and you have Cloud Atlas.

The connection with the characters is one thing I was sceptical about before watching the film. How the hell are they going to introduce so many characters (check the IMDB character listings, for the top 10 actors credited, they play a total of 56 characters between them) and expect the audience to, first of all, keep up with who is who, and also how do they expect us to relate and empathise with these characters, who come and go so quickly.
Although, yes, if the film was based on only one of the seven major stories it tells, there would be an extreme connection between audience and character, one of the beauties of this film is the quantity of characters going through the same issues in their heads. The introduction to all of these characters is not aimed at giving you a connection with just one of them, it wants you to understand the links, almost (getting a little bit deeper) question the process of human life. There was a quote from Halle Berry's detective character in the film which I think sums it up quite nicely.
I'm definitely paraphrasing here:

"I'm just wondering why we keep making the same mistakes over and over"

The situations involved in the film, although only one of them (and interestingly, the comedy storyline) is set in the modern day, are reflective of the struggles of the past, future and most obviously present.
The portrayal in the film of a man in the 1930s in a homosexual relationship, having to hide his desires (jumping out of a window at one point) and conform to the beliefs of society could reflect the current fight for global equality.
The futuristic story of a village of people haunted by the 'Kona' tribe could be representative of the constant civil wars in Africa and the uncertainty of the future for many people living under conditions similar.

This film is arguably one of the best I have seen for numerous years (although this is only an opinion, made clear by the man in the cinema who snored ever so loudly for two thirds of the film). It is a perfect blend of spectacular editing, a solid storyline (or seven), and cinematography that rivals that of many current directors.
This film is an event, prepare to sit back for three hours and be blown away by a combination of visual effects and good old fashioned cinema.

FLIGHT: A BATTLE BETWEEN PLOT AND THEME?:

I recently watched Robert Zemeckis' latest drama, Flight, featuring the wonderful Denzel Washington. I enjoyed the film a lot, I thought it had a really good plot, likeable characters and the lead role of Whip was played fantastically by Mr. Washington himself, however, I couldn't help but to be put off engaging with the story because of the constant use of religious phrases and terminology used throughout.

(possible spoilers to come, although I think everyone has a brief idea of what happens in the film due to trailers etc)

It was through the introduction of one of the flight crew that it started, an invitation given to Whip to join the cabin crew member at a church ceremony when the plane landed, however, we all knew that the plane, in fact, was not going to land and therefore this invitation was void to start with, I just wish that the preaching had crashed mid-air as well as the airplane.
It was all well and good (meaning I had accepted that religion was a part of the film) until Whip met his co-pilot in the hospital post-crash and his girlfriend/fiancé/wife blurted out "PRAISE JESUS" in the middle of a sentence..... twice. Being British, and seeing the film in a British cinema, the whole audience obviously burst out laughing. It was the most ridiculous thing ever. In what was an extremely crucial plot point, and a moment in defining the character of Whip, the religious outburst completely took away any attention the audience was paying to the sombre moment of the film, and made it comical.

Saying all of this, however, I did really, really enjoy the film. It was a lot better than I imagined, and although I think there are factors that could be improved (the ending being a key one, surely there's a better way to get his relationship with his son back on track that that), altogether I had a good two hours whilst watching it and would definitely recommend it!

STOKER: AND UNEXPECTEDLY AMAZING FILM:

Last night I went to the cinema on a whim with a university friend. We had no idea what we wanted to go and watch and came to the decision to go and watch Stoker, a film by Chan-wook Park (director of Oldboy). With reasonably low expectations mainly due to the (let's be honest) reasonably bad trailer and my feeling that all of the characters were going to be revealed as vampires (Stoker.. c'mon), as soon as the film ended, me and my friend looked at each other with exactly the same expressions "wow".

With the huge advertisements all over the London tubes making this film seem like a (as said previously) vampiric period drama, I can't help but feel that this film is going to be sold short, and not receive the recognition it deserves.

The film starts of immediately living up to its name of a psychological thriller. A mysterious man, later to be found out as India Stoker's uncle Charlie, turns up at her fathers wake. India has never heard of him, therefore instantly not trusting him, and as an audience, as we have seen through India's eyes for the most part at this time in the film, we put our faith in her, suspecting Charlie of something at once. This suspicion that the audience has of Charlie builds up constantly throughout the film, however his character is not a straightforward one. I could never put my finger on his motives, and I guess that is the point. The characters in this film, though only three major ones, make it what it is, constantly putting questions and doubts in the audiences head.

The film did seem a little 'Twilight-y' at some points, unfortunately, however I feel that may be the permanent scars which that unfortunate quintology left in my head. Charlie turning up at places constantly, and 'saving' India on occasion made for a slightly unrealistic characteristic, however, it was never too much and was all made clear at the end (don't worry, I won't give (m)any spoilers).

The part of the film that stands out most for me, however, was around the middle of the film when India and Charlie played a beautiful duet on the piano. This piano piece, starting as a solo from India represents the constant struggle that India has with Charlie. As Charlie joins in, we see both fighting for dominance in the tune of the piano, and eventually see Charlie succeed in playing the most dominant part.
This was a beautiful musical metaphor for the struggle going on in India's head. She doesn't want to let Charlie in, however she is intrigued by him, she doesn't let any infatuation with him show for a lot of the film, keeping it all inside, once again, playing with the audience's minds over characters and their motives, however she is intrigued and eventually inspired by him, showing this outwardly (especially the intrigued part.. awkward incestual kiss that nearly happened.. remember?).

The cinematography in this film was really, really good also. In the parts of the film where the plot was not as strong, the beautiful camera work mixed with wonderful editing and a lovely soundtrack made the viewing experience extremely pleasurable. One piece of camerawork in particular that was great was (possible spoiler alert!) when India had dragged the body out of her house and the camera followed the trail of blood, speeding up the footage and showing how little relevance the blood stains would be, almost that in India's world, she doesn't have to worry about the police, easily outsmarting them when they questioned her.

This blogpost was quick and easy (much like the film) as I'm writing it in between university classes, and I apologise for that, however expect posts more frequently as I've recently become a member of Cineworld Unlimited, a service that allows you to watch unlimited films in cinemas. I'm going to see Cloud Atlas tonight, so i'll possibly post on that sometime in the week if I find anything relevant to say about it (I've heard many good things).
I'll leave you with a tweet that sums up this post in seven words:

A POST ON CHARACTER REGARDING JEAN LUC GODARD'S 'DÉTECTIVE':

If there ever was an example given that proves the old saying "too many cooks spoil the broth", it must be given in the form of looking at Jean-Luc Godard's 1985 film Détective. It sounds good on paper, a simple detective story with an integrated plot through different groups of people, hence me purchasing the film a mere week after watching Au Bout De Souffle (an example of an amazingly unique piece of art from JLG).

The reality is, this film sucked.
I got to about half way through the film, paused to take a sip of my drink, and in that second of drink-sipping, had a moment of clarity. I was 40 minutes into the film and had no idea what was going on. Well, I lie, I knew the basics, could distinguish between the different time periods, flashbacks and so on, however it was the lack of affection and connection with the characters that made me feel an almost distance between me and the film, almost that I felt like I couldn't watch the film due to not having the slightest clue about the character of anyone in the film.

One of my main pleasures in watching films is connecting to the characters. I think it's such a vital part of any film, and in this genre particular, detective films, half of the fun is playing the guessing game throughout the film of who killed who. It was simply impossible in this film to get any enjoyment from the (many) scenes where two characters discuss their lives and thoughts and the problem, in my opinion, is the sheer quantity of dry characters.

When comparing this film to Pedro Almodovar's Women on The Verge of a Nervous Breakdown, a film with many characters surrounding the central plot, we see just how much the development of characters contrasts. WOTVOANB is an amazing film to look at in terms of character development and control, with the characters lives capturing yours for the 85 minutes of the film (10 mins shorter that Détective, can I just point out).

Nathalie Baye, Johnny Hallyday & Jean-Luc Godard

 This film was only just over an hour and a half long, and, although I state the character development is flawed, the film itself did not drag on at all. The framing of a lot of the shots were aesthetically pleasing, and let's be real, I have a weakness for the French language.. which counts as a legitimate reason, right?
All joking aside, the film paced itself decently, and I feel an extra ten, fifteen minutes at the start, introducing the audience to the characters in an engaging and natural way would have benefitted the film hugely, and changed my opinion on the film in general.

I'm not 100% sure whether JLG was given an embarrassingly bad script to work with, or if he made the decision for some obscure creative reason, but all in all, in my opinion the films big potential was definitely not achieved. I have a massive respect for JLG as a director, and in no way will this film be putting me off researching and watching more of his films, but hey, i'm just shooting the messenger auteur.

OSCAR 2013 RECAP:

Right, I've sat down at my desk and told myself I'm not leaving until I finish my blog post about the Oscars in hopes of actually finishing a post in under 3 hours for once, so here goes. This is just going to be some opinions on the awards (although not many are controversial as I think this year the academy picked nearly perfectly!), and general rambling about the films involved, it could be a long one, though, so grab yourself a cup of coffee and enjoy the post!

I'm assuming if you're reading this, you know the Oscar winners already, if not, a link to them is here. I don't want to spoil anybody's fun if you couldn't watch last night and are planning to catch up.

How could I start off talking about last night's events without mentioning Anne Hathaway. I think everybody secretly knew that she was going to get the Oscar for her destroyingly perfect portrayal of Fantine in Les Miserables, however when the nominations for best supporting actress were being called out, and the clips were playing, I realised how amazing every actress was and the nerves kicked in. I was obviously rooting for Anne and was overjoyed when my worries were put at rest. She accepted her

award as gracefully as ever, with a beautiful speech starting with a heartbreaking 'It came true...', alluding to her constant efforts finally being rewarded, fulfilling a dream she has had since starting her acting career.

Her acceptance speech went on beautifully for several minutes, with her thanking everybody under the moon it seemed. Concluding her speech with a reference to the struggles of her character, Anne Hathaway proved her class and appreciation of getting the chance to beautifully portray the persona of a broken person so truly, and showed that she is aware that although Les Miserables is set in the 19th century French Revolution, people much like Fantine are still struggling with everyday life.

"Here's hoping that some day in the not to distant future, the misfortunes of Fantine will only be found in stories and nevermore in real life"

Perhaps my happiest moment of the ceremony last night was seeing Christoph Waltz be honoured with an award for his hilariously flawless portrayal of Dr. Schultz in Tarantino's Django Unchained.  

As one of my all-time favourite actors, Christoph Waltz was obviously who I was cheering on to win, and as the first winner to be announced, the Oscar's were kick started into an epic night of emotion and pride of the industry and art form that I have dedicated my life to. This was second year of winning this award in a Tarantino film for Christoph Waltz and his first thank you was dedicated sincerely to the genius director himself.

Now, if there is a controversial point that shows my disagreement with the Academy, it is the fact that Quentin Tarantino was not up for the Best Director award. Django was my film of the year. Hands down. As a self-confessed huge Tarantino fan, there may be some unknown bias inside somewhere, but the film had no flaws at all in my eyes. The cinematography, the casting, the EVERYTHING. If there is one director who knows how to get everything right when making a film, it is most definitely Quentin Tarantino, and boy, did he get it right with Django. 

However, I'm open to accept that the Academy had some reason to pick the other (wonderful, don't get me wrong) directors over Tarantino this year, and his best original screenplay award was definitely something I was undoubtedly sure he would receive.   

Now, I'm afraid I'm going to get a little British on you for a moment. Previous to this year's 85th Academy Awards, the James Bond franchise (50 years of films) had only received 7 nominations and 2 awards. I was absolutely thrilled to find out that in one year alone the franchise doubled the amount of awards and picked up two more. Sound editing was a rather uneventful award, aside from the fact that it was a tie pick and there were two winners, and the real excitement was in Adele and Paul Epworth winning the award for best original song. It was not exactly unexpected, with the whole of the film world/music world/general world basically coming to the conclusion as soon as the nominations were announced that she would win it, however, from a British point of view, the pride of seeing her stood up there with her non-proper accent, representing the working class of Britain, was enough to make my night.

I've rambled enough, I feel, and I know I haven't even mentioned the big winners such as Argo & Life of Pi, however the films, directors and actors mentioned here are ones who I have been rooting for, my personal favourites, and the ones I am more than happy for. 

Well, I guess that's another Oscar year over, and by that I mean another year of staying up until 5am and watching the live stream, then having to get up three hours later for a 9am lecture at university.

Fun, fun, fun.

I LOVE CINEMA AND THIS IS WHY:

Since my last post, I've been to the cinema several other times, seeing Les Mis (again..), Gangster Squad, and Django Unchained (Review to come for both when my university work shifts!).

Now although the films may have been out for a while in the US, Django was only released here in the UK on friday, and Gangster Squad has not been out for too long either. However, the point I want to make, besides my constant disappointment that the release date gaps from the US to the UK still exist, is that the cinema is a beautiful, beautiful place, and I believe, contrary to a lot of people, that it will continue to thrive through this technological age we live in & will continue to live in.

I saw Gangster Squad with a friend less than a week after its UK release and we struggled for seats (2 hours before the showing, we went for pizza, it was awesome, okay.. tangent..). The cinema wasn't small and it was a late showing, and although our crappy seats weren't ideal, I was happy.

I couldn't help but realise this also, when I saw Les Mis for the second time around with my university friends. The film had been out over a week, and still, even when we booked tickets several hours in advance, we were stuck with bad seats in a packed cinema.

When choosing a degree, I knew I wanted to pursue film, but there was the ever-present career vs. passion debate with friends (surprisingly not my parents, they've always been 100% supportive of my decisions), and it was an essay, one which I've lost in the space of the internet, that persuaded me to follow my passion.
The main reason that people tried to knock my choice of study was one that went something like this:

"Media degree applications increased 300% in the last year, your chance of a job at the end of it all is 300% less than if you chose something practical that's needed."

Now, despite showing my frustration at these clearly misguided and unintelligent people trying to hold me back, I smiled and said

"Yeah, you're right"

Immediately going home and finalising my UCAS choices, all 5 to study film.
The last few paragraphs may have uttered confusion into your brain, but let me just explain. Surely a 300% rise in media related degrees is a good thing for industries such as cinema and television. The huge number of applicants means that there is a gigantic interest in such industries which can only be a positive. I know, when people were saying it they were thinking of my chances of getting a job, but the film industry has always been a brutal one. You make it, or you die trying. The rise in interest is going to increase the number of people trying to make it, meaning that the ones who actually succeed in making it are going to have to be 300x better, with an overall result in cinema and other forms of entertainment increasing in quality (and, most probably, quantity).

NOTE: I don't really know where I was going with this post. It started about a week ago, with the original intent being how much I love cinema, and I guess it carried on with the 'cinema is awesome and it going to get awesome-er' theme, but I do understand it kind of jumps in the middle somewhere, just deal with it, it's totally new wave.