A Room For Romeo Brass (1999)

The quality of British cinema has long been up for debate, with filmmakers such as Francois Truffaut and Satyajit Ray claiming that no such thing even existed. The truth is there have been several great films to have emerged from the UK but these have been overshadowed by a tradition of farcical Carry On... style comedies or oppressive social dramas. Whatever anyone's opinion it's easy to trace a definitive view of Britain through its cinema: in the South everyone worries has good jobs and worries about relationships (see Richard Curtis), whilst in the North everyone is working class and a victim of social-politics (see the British New Wave). Shane Meadows, however, is from the Midlands, and so he subscribes to neither school of filmmaking, instead creating distinctive, authentic and engaging films about people who are not defined by their social status and who have complicated relationships stemming from awkward friendships rather than romantic woes.

'A Room For Romeo Brass' follows two boys, Romeo and Gavin, whose friendship is upset by the introduction of an emotionally unstable man, Morrell (Paddy Considine in his first film role), whom they befriend and who has designs on Romeo's older sister, Ladine. Also present is Romeo's father, who has returned to form a relationship with his children, and Gavin's visits to the hospital for physiotherapy and an operation on his back.

Meadows began his filmmaking career shooting short films with his friends and this collaborative attitude has continued with a strong sense of improvisation and authenticity that embraces the charmingly natural performances of the younger cast members. There's also a pervading sense of playfulness and enjoyment, with Meadow's making a cameo in a ridiculous wig. This does not at all take away from the more serious aspects of the film, however, and the film reaches a distressing and powerful climax, just as much of the best in British film and television treads a fine line between comedy and drama.

Meadows' closest comparison would be with Mike Leigh, with his charming portrayal of simple English lives, but he never patronises his characters and brings a real inside view of these lives. At the heart of the film is the family, even if one is broken and the other seemingly unhappy. Most of the time is spent in the two, neighbouring homes, and we are party to the complexities of adult relationships: whilst Romeo's parents are separated his father is making a concerted effort to stay involved; in contrast, Gavin's father is detached and slightly pathetic, but when it really matters he makes a bold stand to protect the family. Meanwhile, Ladine is faced with the possibility of an adult realtionship with the socially immature Morrell.

The real brilliance of this film is in the character of Morrell, and Considine's excellent portrayal. A man who begins as slightly comic and unconventional gradually reveals his menacing and unstable side, which carefully shifts the film from a coming-of-age comedy to a social drama, and we discover the underlying threat of a figure from the peripheries of society to the relative comfort of a family-based community. He infiltrates the friendship and manipulates Romeo into helping his fight for Ladine's love, with neither he nor the boys appreciating how uncomfortable his presence is. Even we in the audience aren't prepared for quite how far the situation escalates.

The more recent 'This Is England' looks like it could be a breakthrough film for Meadows and is really excellent, but it's hard to imagine him ever straying far from the Midlands and the society in which he was raised and continues to find inspiration. He is without a doubt, however, one of the best directors working in England today and an exciting prospect for the future too. A filmmaker who can produce equally commercial and artisitc films on a modest budget with such consistency and frequency is an asset to any country's filmmaking community, just as Michael Winterbottom has done before (albeit with less engaging results) - what we really need now is for a community to build around this and a new wave of authentic, distinctively British filmmakers to emerge and prove Truffaut and Ray wrong.

Kramer vs Kramer (1979)

This sensitive and emotional film charts the break-up, divorce and fight for custody of Ted and Joanna Kramer (Duston Hoffman and Meryl Streep respectively). Focusing predominantly on Ted and his changing relationship with his six year old son, Billy (Justin Henry), after his wife suddenly leaves him, we witness a very intimate and honest story of the disintegration of a marriage and the strong bond a parent shares with their child.

Beginning slightly unconventionally with Joanna walking out on her husband and child, the film is essentially a two-hander between Ted and Billy as they grow closer and adapt to a life without a wife/mother figure. The film never judges Joanna for leaving, or Ted's own role in potentially alienating her and pushing her away. Instead it simply tries to understand the relationships and pressure brought about by new responsibilities, climaxing in Ted losing his job due to the distraction of his son, and the tense battle for custody.

Writer/Director Robert Benton took a very democratic approach to the film, inviting the actors to contribute with improvisations and rewrites. Keen to get Dustin Hoffman on board, Benton and producer Stanley Jaffe, agreed to work on rewrites with him, as Hoffman was going through a divorce of his own at that time. As a result we get a very honest insight into the strain that the end of a marriage can produce. It is often extremely emotive and distressing but the mood is never manipulated to become sentimental but instead feels very instinctive and real. Streep was also invited to re-write her climactic courtroom testimony, bringing a distinctive woman's voice to the film, and the result is very powerful. Although she didn't have the same personal experience as Hoffman to draw from she had recently lost her partner, actor John Cazale, to cancer, and was able to use this sense of loss and longing when fighting for her child.

Another key relationship in the film is that between Ted and Billy, or just as much between Hoffman and Justin Henry. They spent much time behind the camera forging a strong bond that translated on to the screen, and six year old Henry was encouraged to improvise just as much as Hoffman, employing real emotions or scenes from their everyday lives during their moments together on-screen. Many of the central scenes were improvised, such as the pivotal dinner scene where Billy refuses to eat the dinner prepared for him and instead fetches some icecream from the freezer. What came to represent the ultimate in parental frustration was in fact cooked up from a story Hoffman told Henry a few moments before they shot the scene. Hoffman spoke of how his real feelings for the woman he was actually divorcing, and his relationship with his children, invaded his acting, and there's a very real sense of anger and despair during his scenes with Streep.

The acting is uniformly brilliant. Although the film is mostly between Ted and Billy, Joanna appears in very intense scenes at the beginning and end, whilst the family friend Margaret (Jane Alexander), who is herself divorced, also features as emotional support for Ted. All four were nominated for Oscars although only Hoffman and Streep won, along with Benton twice for Adapted Screenplay and Direction and Jaffe for Best Picture. It was a surprise as it was considered a 'small' film, but the success owed itself to the fact that many people could relate to either being divorced themselves or the child of divorced parents. This also ensure that the film stays fresh today and has dated very little, with the fine performances standing out even today.

This film came at the end of the Seventies when ideas were changing a lot. More women working meant that children had to be looked after by hired help and therefore increasingly became a financial burden, and divorce increased with that. It was also on the cusp of the 1980s where the general mood was that everyone should look out for number one. But Joanna's decision to leave is more one of self discovery after too long being defined as a mother or wife. Within 18 months she is independent with a new lover and earning more than her ex-husband. Already there were differences with the beginning of the decade.

In terms of Seventies cinema, there are some excellent examples of improvisational acting and a director willing to give his actors the space to work with their instincts. The courtroom scenes where the couple are forced to confront their relationship problems and tiny betrayals emerge in order to undermine the other's case is tense and emotional. The brilliant perfomance of Justin Henry also demonstrates that children don't have to be cute and can be as perceptive as parents...I could keep going on about how brilliantly simple and effective this film is, but really it's best just to watch it. I can't think of a better film since to tackle this subject. And it kicks 'The Break-Up's ass!

Cloverfield (2008)

It's easy to see what sets this apart from most other alien/monster/disaster movies. Take the handheld amateur style of the $60,000 'Blair Witch Project' and add the special effects of the $130,000,000 'Godzilla' and you're left with a $30,000,000 (cheap by Hollywood standards) homevideo of an alien creature rampaging through New York destroying the Statue of Liberty and Brooklyn Bridge. The results are pretty stunning, and terrifying.

The very basic plot follows a group of young friends, throwing a goodbye party for one of their number, Rob, when loud noises and explosions suddenly appear on the horizon. Running onto the street they witness the head of the Statue of Liberty crashing into the road before them. They try to evacuate but the bridge is destroyed before they can really get onto it. Instead they go in search of Beth, Rob's love interest, and the suicide mission takes them back into the centre of Manhattan and face to face with the monster. The use of fairly unknown actors and amateurish camera work makes this feel that we are witnessing very real events, despite the unbelievable threat.

In fact it's quite surprising, given the film's emphasis on realism in the way the camera is used; always moving and juddering, often frustratingly away from the main action, and slowly revealing only what the characters witness; that the subject of the film - an angry monster the size of a skyscraper - should be so far from the truth. I suppose, given that it's New York, it would be tasteless to focus on a threat such as terrorism, but that's what the real issue is here. We witness, for the first time, American civilians in a war zone. The footage is not a million miles way from news reports of the fighting in Afghanistan and Iraq, especially when a tank wheels into view, and it's quite a statment to place Americans in the role of victims. Of course parallels are easily drawn with the attack on the World Trade Centre, with mass confusion reining in the streets, and mass destruction the apparent sole aim of the attacker.

The creature itself drops smaller spider-like animals who penetrate buildings and the subway, ensuring nowhere is entirely safe. The 'climate of fear' that results is exactly the situation that many Americans, particularly those in New York found themselves in following the WTC attack. But there's also no attempts here to explain the phenomenon, bar a theory about it coming from the sea, and you feel that there is a complete lack of responsibility on the part of the Americans, whilst in the case of the terrorist attacks this is clearly up for discussion.

The first twenty minutes of the film are spent at the party for Rob. We are introduced to various characters, as well as our cameraman, Hud. We learn that Hud likes Malena, and so tends to film her a lot. Also at the party are Rob's brother Jason and his girlfriend Lily, whilst Rob's own love interest, Beth, also arrives, although she and Rob argue before she makes an early exit with her boyfriend. This extended sequence is fairly repetetive and begins to get a little boring, but then suddenly everything is shaken up. Unlike most disaster movies there's no tension or slow build up to the climax. When this creature appears everything is thrown into disarray. The partygoers are separated but we stay with Hud, Rob, Malena and Lily as they struggle to find a way out. When they learn of Jason's death with the collapse of the bridge, Rob decides he has to rescue Beth from a similar fate as is determined to find her. Rob is clearly the most popular guy here and takes the lead, with the others agreeing to follow him to an almost certain death - although I won't give away the outcome.

The film is very short making it a brief but thrilling. The special effects are astounding and the regular footage of the alien is remarkable given the fact the camera is flying around all over the place. The camerawork is often a source of frustration and I was regularly confused as to exactly what was going on. All in all, however, it's very convincing, and it's good to see a blockbuster that raises some very serious thoughts about actual situations when under attack. Unfortunately I expect most of the audience will notice this connection but will fail to really attempt to imagine the truth of the Middle Eastern war zones, or even the fear of terrorism. The filmmakers in turn, although not explicitly being patriotic, are still clearly on the American's side, but there are an increasing number of films dealing with American accountablility for the conflicts in the Middle East, particularly the effects those wars have on normal Americans back home. You can add 'Cloverfield' to that bunch, or you can just enjoy getting scared.

Top Spot (2004)

As an artist, Tracey Emin's work have always focused on the autobiographical and her film 'Top Spot' is no different. Apparently based on her own childhood, the film follows a group of girls in Margate, discussing their sex lives and generally displaying a detachment from regular society. Unfortunately, like most srtists, Emin displays a distinct lack of understanding of filmmaking.

The film opens with a series of interviews with each of the schoolgirls giving frank information on their sex lives, openly talking about groping, snogging, being raped and a woman who invites one girl to her house and makes her do strange things. The interviewer seems to be Emin herself, and this is the first instance where we are confused between reality and fiction. The girls are all newcomers, and the film being shot on video also give it a very real, amateurish look, although this isn't necessarily a good thing and it does look rather cheap. The film goes on to follow these girls in a very elliptical narrative, cutting strangely to Luxor in Eygpt where one of the girls has quite obssesively gone to track down her Franch Foreign Legion boyfriend (yes, it really is that random).

Throughout the film there are isolated moments that seem to have little depth beyond camera trickery, and when we do join the narrative the dialogue is weak and poorly acted. The only thing we know for sure is that all of the girls are miserable, and almost certainly not virgins. It seems they all live alienatede and unsatisfied lives, focusing mainly on getting it off with boys. One by one we see them looking depressed, and although I knew at some point one of the girls would kill herself it really could have been any one of them. When she does, it looks poorly unrealistic and no one is upset.

The frequent use of music is always intrusive and the camerawork unimaginative. The overbearing sense of misery in the story and characters has no balance and the attempts at realism end up appearing more ridiculous. The scenes in Egypt are uncomfortably tacked on and the final sequence when Margate is bombed has no relevance at all. The film just isn't as meaningful as it would hope to be. Artists tend to think filmmaking is much easier than it is and even that they are more than capable, when the reality is they have simply mastered the basics.

I'll admit that perhaps this film would work better as an art project in a gallery, and that perhaps then I would view it in a different way and attach new meaning to its contents, but the truth remains that it is poorly made, uncommunicative and, frankly, boring.

One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest (1975)

Another day, another Seventies' classic...this time the excellent anti-institutionalist 'One Flew Over The Cuckoo's Nest', which saw Jack Nicholson win his first Oscar along with early appearances from Danny DeVito, Christopher Lloyd and Vincent Schiavelli. Adapted from the counter-culture novel by Ken Kesey, the story was first transformed into a play for Kirk Douglas, but it was his son Michael Douglas who took up the baton and transformed it into a multi-award winning film (sharing the Oscar for Best Picture with co-producer Saul Zaentz).

R. P. McMurphy (Nicholson, at peak of his powers) arrives at a mental institute after causing trouble in prison and raising some concern for his mental health, or at least doubts towards the legitimacy of his erratic behaviour. He sees his time in the hospital as a vacation and sets about rousing the heavily medicated inmates and challenging the strict regime of Nurse Ratched. Gradually order breaks down and the inmates awaken to their situation, and an alternative world outside the walls of their ward. Ultimately, however, the system wins, with the patients far too afraid of the real world to ever attempt to live the dreams that McMurphy promises them. Except the spirit of one man, the (literally) strong and silent Chief, a huge Red Indian always misunderstood and ignored, who breaks out and heads for freedom.

Milos Forman (who won the Best Director Oscar) had come from Czechoslovakia and an oppressive Soviet regime, and he considered the film a Czechoslovakian film about the fight for independent thought beneath an omnipotent dictator, who believes that they are providing the best framework to support their subjects. His efforts to achieve realism, with the actors plunged into intense method acting, undoubtable made a huge contribution to the success of this film, and the influence of Eastern European art cinema added an extra dimension. At the centre of the film is Nicholson's high energy performance and as the only star in the cast he commands the focus of each scene and the attention of his supporting actors, just as McMurphy did. Again, clever decisions on Forman's part.

The most subtle performance comes from Louise Fletcher as Nurse Ratched (she was also rewarded with an Oscar, for Best Suppoting Actress). Ratched is cast as the enemy, opposing McMurphy's combative demands, but much more importantly, she isn't an evil character - her fault is that she places much more faith in rules that any potential human response she might feel as a result of her time spent with the patients. McMurphy, alternatively, is increasingly awakened to the seriousness of his new friends' plight. What begins as indifference becomes excitement as he discovers an ally in Chief, but admirably he is never arrogant in his attitude to this motley crew. Ultimately, he ruins his own chances of escape because he can't bring himself to abandon the others. Instead, in one instance, he takes them fishing, and we see how his treatment of the patients, on the same level as himself and perfectly capable, produces much more encouraging results. McMurphy's gradual stirring of Chief, from frustrating games of basketball to playful camraderie is representative of his growing effect on all of the inmates, but also our growing awareness of a world, and a people, that we had previously given little consideration; them shut out of view.

The suppression of McMurphy's strong personality sees the use of electro-shock therapy, harrowing in its vivid portrayal, as well as more sympathetic discussions with Dr. Spivey, played by the real life head doctor of the institute where the film was shot. This balance is encouraging but its the iron fist of Ratched that rules on the ward. This is a world behind closed doors that only became known to the public thanks to Kesey's novel, after he worked as an orderly in an institute. Thankfully, I believe the film actually made an impact on the way such institutes were run, and this is a great example of Seventies cinema that intelligently portrayed a particular element of contemporary society, as well as producing a socially conscious effect.

It's a classic film, simple as that, with great performances throughout the cast, with the rare quality of being equally entertaining, emotionally powerful and socially effective. In the UK you can buy a 2-disc, special edition for £3. There's no excuse for not owning it.

The Break-Up (2006)

As the title suggests, this film focuses on the break-up of a couple, which arises when she feels underappreciated and he feels overly nagged. It's a comedy but realistically there isn't that much obvious humour, and it actually takes a pretty serious look at the rapid disintegration of good relations, albeit in a quite obvious way.

For me the film's first stumbling block was the unrealistic pairing of Gary (Vince Vaughn), a slobbish tourbus guide, and Brooke (Jennifer Aniston), a slightly sophisticated art dealer. We have asked to suspend our belief and imagine that these two actually have a common interest. It's not at all surprising when the relationship ends,a s a result or Gary's lack of willingness to take interest in Brooke's needs and Brooke's constant compromising to accomodate him. Unarguably, the reltionship ending is Gary's fault, even if the film tries to suggest they are equally to blame. What ensues is a battle to assert each's personality over the apartment they still share, and to convince the other that they have moved one. This means Gary parties and gets drunk, whilst Brooke goes on blind dates to make him jealous. Eventually, however, they mature and begin to look at the relationship and their own feelings far more seriously, and we wonder if the previous conflict was really neccesary - but that's probably the reality of many break-ups.

The film is entertaining if perhaps a little lacking in substance. Vince Vaughn provides comedy with his sharp, argumentative dialogue, but it's very difficult to be sympathetic with him; constantly playing computer games and refusing to accept his faults. Jennifer Aniston puts in a more serious performance and it's through her that we really see the stress of the change in their situation, although Brooke's attempts to cut down Gary are often more petty. Her idea being that she can break him down and make him feel utterly terrible enough for him to reform and fight to win her back. In truth they're both as bad as each other.

It's interesting to see a film that gives a new spin on a well worn genre, and examining that part of a relationship that most romantic comedies would like to imagine will never happen. The chemistry of the sparring couple is slightly reminiscient of Cary Grant and Katherine Hepburn but without the charm and confidence; perhaps a sign of the times more than anything else. In fact, I imagine the best use for this film will be to look back in the future and gain an understanding of how relationships were conducted in this time. Just think, if you look back fifty years there's no way an unmarried couple would be living together and fighting so openly, and it's also unlikely that Brooke would be so independent. Who knows how much more different things will be in another fifty years.

It's not the most entertaining film of recent years, nor the funniest, most emotionally effective or most probing, but it's ok - and that's coming from someone who doesn't normally like this kind of film.

The Last Of The Mohicans (1992)

I easily get excited about this film and I can't really always be sure why. I think it must be because at heart this film is really just an adventure story - the kind little boys like - and the ever-amazing Daniel Day-Lewis as Hawkeye is overly heroic and passionate. Michael Mann's main reason for adapting and filming this story comes from his own experience watching the 1932 version as a boy. In truth, however, this adaptation of James Fenimore Cooper's eponymous novel, often seen as the first American novel, is a tribute to an old way of life, in tune of nature, that is being destroyed by the evils of the European world, with no winners.

The film is set against the backdrop of the conflict for North America raging between British and French forces, aided by a colonial militia and native Indian tribes. In the midst of this is a English man raised as a Mohican, who, along with his adopted father and brother, pursues his own agenda and refuses to become involved. Inevitably they are pulled into the action, siding with the British after the brothers fall for two sisters, daughter of the British commander, Colonel Munro. The film continues as action film and love story in equal parts, with the Mohican's attempting to guard the girls against the vengeful Huron, led by the ambitious Maguar.

This is a world very much in a state of transition. These Indian's are armed with guns and their world has been dramatically enlarged by these outsiders and their mass trade. The film presents the Hurons led by Maguar as the bad guys, and by proxy the French, but the British are also shown as immensely arrogant, refusing to accept that anyone could live in British occupied territory without being aligned to the British. They also betray their own subjects by refusing to allow the voluntary militia leave to attend to their protect their homes on the frontier that have come under threat. The Mohicans are the only men who are sympathetically portrayed, their selfless heroism and passion for both the land and the Munro women setting them apart from the single-minded European armies and the Huron.

The film itself comes across as classic - often the framing is reminiscent of early silent films or classic painting. The superb soundtrack employs elements of traditional music and is incredibly atmospheric, often accompanying silent sequences for great dramatic effect. There are moments almost of melodrama, but within the context of the film these moments simply become exciting. There are several memorable set-pieces: the ambush in a field; the hideout behind the waterfall; the spectacular ending told almost in realtime building up tension to a dramatic finale. I have to confess that this finale is one of my favourite cinematic sequences ever, the perfect combination of action, music, suspense and drama, with a series of excellent shots taken place in a stunning location, all without dialogue. I won't try to explain what happens as it also gives away the ending but I strongly urge anyone to see this film purely for this scene (although I can't guarantee you'll be as excited by it as me).

The message within the film is quite clearly embedded within the action. The three Mohicans are the embodiment of old America, closely allied to the natural world; they apologise to a deer after they kill it, and travel around with the seasons; whilst Maguar and his Huron represent the corrupted America becoming obsessed with European ideals of capturing more land than any one man can possibly need, or bleeding the land dry to fulfill the requirements of a thriving trade industry. The colonists are typically ignorant of the traditions of the land they have come to occupy and suitably arrogant regarding the natives. Only the Munro girls come to respect that they can not understand and predict the actions of these men with their roots in a very different culture. Regardless of the outcome of the film, we are aware that this world is ultimately coming to an end, overcome by the invading powers. This is obvious in the fact that even Hawkeye's prowess on the battlefield largely comes from his ability to load his gun as he runs - certainly not the traditional weapon of choice. Obviously the tribes had always found conflict over territory but with the introduction of guns these small fights easily escalate and eventually we feel they will destroy one another and it won't only be the Mohicans coming to an end.

In my opinion, director Michael Mann is perhaps the greatest auteur working in Hollywood today. With films such as 'Manhunter' and 'Heat' he demonstrated his ability to deliver top class crime thrillers, whilst 'The Insider' tackles legal politics and 'Ali' verges on blockbuster territory. Even if the recent 'Miami Vice' film was disappointing, his previous film, 'Collateral', was an excelent example of digital cinematography. Definitely worth investigation, his work as a whole and 'The Last of the Mohicans' in particular, is enthralling and dramatic...although I can't help wondering what it would be like if Terrence M,alick had directed this.

All The President's Men (1976)

If 'Five Easy Pieces' indicated the uneasiness that was to come in American cinema of the 1970s, then 'All The President's Men' typified the political paranoia and social unrest that those films were to come to explore. One of the defining events of 1970s America was the Watergate scandal, in which it was revealed the White House had criminally used re-election funding for Nixon's campaign to support a burglary in the Democrat's head office. This shook the foundations of the country - the revelation that the most senior members of the nation were dishonest and had betrayed the American people. Alan Pakula's film was just as sensational in revealing how the truth was uncovered and how two ambitious Washington Post reporters, Carl Bernstein and Bob Woodward (Dustin Hoffman and Robert Redford respectively), refused to back down despite the difficulty in both finding information and convincing their own superiors that there was a story to be printed, leading to the resignation of President Nixon.

The film is a masterclass in hard-hitting reportage. Following a highly realistic, chronological narrative detailing every aspect of the investigaton and the struggle to pin down elusive information, we are treated to an angle on the news that we rarely get to see. Most films previously would focus on the subject of the news and cut to a spinning headline, but here we go behind the scenes and learn how a newspaper operates and exactly how highly secretive information can be leaked out and pieced together into the headline. Recalling Kurosawa's 'High and Low', which follows in detail a police investigation into a kidnapping plot, the excitement and suspense is conveyed through the reporters' ever decreasing circles towards the definite truth and the exposure of the criminals. In the very masculine world of the newspaper, the reporters and editors prowl around the office as the camera cuts to television news reports and the White House's attempted revenge on their speculative journalism. Even though we know the truth, we are still anxious to know if Woodward and Bernstein can get it out there, and hope they're not just buying into their own conspiracy theories. Even they begin to doubt themselves, and the harsh reality of their ongoing battle hits them when it's revealed that half the country hasn't even heard of the word 'Watergate'.

The film can sometimes be hard to follow - sharp talking; technical terms; intimate details of the American political hierarchy - and a previous knowledge of the Watergate scandal would no doubt be useful, but the reality is the story that's revealed is almost secondary to the audacious interviewing techniques employed by Bernstein and Woodward. From the incessant questioning of frightened employees to the secretive meetings with the infamous inside source, Deep Throat, and the persistant, presumptive phonecalls to trick those with the information into spilling the beans. Both Hoffman and Redford give great performances as intelligent, passionate and cunning men who become more and more fanatic about the truth the closer they get, despite the growing threat to their own safety. Their own paranoia about the conspiracy reflects the paranoia in the United States after Kennedy's assassination, trapped in the Cold War and losing in Vietnam. This easily gives the film a modern relevance, after films such as 'Farenheit 9/11' and the media have revealed that perhaps all was not legitimate about America's intervention in Iraq and Afghanistan, as well as the 'climate of fear' created by terrorism.

This film is the perfect example of how politically engaged the Hollywood studios were at this time, and it's unfortunate that cinema, post-Star Wars and Jaws, is struggling to return to this form against the money-making blockbuster. Recently, films like 'Syriana' and 'Michael Clayton' have returned to this trend and an upcoming spate of films on Iraq and Afghanistan are very promising. What we need now is a bolder selection of filmmakers prepared to put themselves on the line with controversial material and create a stronger movement of such investigative and inspirational films, and also for the media to be necessarily passionate enough to always seek the truth.

Five Easy Pieces (1970)

Surprisingly for the men behind 'Head', the light-hearted psychedelic trip of a movie staring the Monkees, Bob Rafelson and Jack Nicholson's 'Five Easy Pieces' was a serious and complex film that captured a particular moment in America. It is the deceptively simple tale of a drop-out from high society who can not overcome the frustrations of the simple life. Coming at the end of the loved-up Sixties and beginning the incredible run of intelligent, emotional and social films of Seventies Hollywood, as well as featuring Nicholson's breakthrough performance as the intriguing Bobby Dupea, this film marked a big shift from the rebellion to insecurity.

The three can be divided into three vague sections. The first part follows Nicholson working on oil fields, bowling with friends and having drunken parties with his friend and two women they've picked up, despite his relationship with the simple but devoted Rayette (Karen Black). This life clearly provides few concerns for him but offers no real challenges either and he is despondent. Upon discovering his father's illness he travel up country to his home. On the trip, he and Rayette pick up two lesbian hitch-hikers on their way to Alaska, one of whom expounds the lack of cleanliness in the real world, clearly shocking Rayette's basic understanding but amusing Bobby's more intellectual personality. The final part is when Bobby returns to his family home (having left Rayette in a motel) and we discover his true roots, from a well-to-do, creative group of musicians, and his own talents as a pianist. Here he is intrigued by his brother's partner and they sleep together, but when Rayette arrives he realises he will never be able to achieve the right balance in his life. After an outburst he leaves home, with Rayette in tow, but on a spontaneous instinct he leaves her at a petrol station and hitches a ride with a truck, to Alaska.

Nicholson's performance is fantastic and he received an Oscar nomination for this, his first significant role after his extended cameo in the seminal 'Easy Rider' the year before. He was clearly a man of the moment, very 'It' on the scene in LA, and he finally cemented this position with an intelligent and subtle performance, somehow conveying his character's inability to successfully convey his inner feelings. In the earlier parts of the film he is rather dislikeable, preying upon the insecure Rayette, apparently despising her but unable to leave her. When he suspects she has become pregnant he instinctively wishes to escape, his inherent belief that he is superior to both her and their friends repelling him away from the very basic life they live. Instead he seeks heads home, for a chance to rediscover himself and his potential.

His brother's partner, Catherine (Susan Anspach), both interests and is interested in him, encountering a man quite like no other she has known before. She in turn is attractive and cultured, a symbol of the life he could have if he didn't keep running away. Ultimately she won't leave with him, because of his character she says, and we realise he is lost and unfulfilled thanks to his own rebellious instinct. In a very touching scene, Bobby takes his father, who can no longer move or talk, out for a walk and confesses his inability to form strong relationships, stemming from their own uneasy experiences as he grew up. It is here we realise that this independent young man, who tries desperately to rebel against his origins, is in fact left with little hope for a future. Instead, he is unsatisfied and aimless.

The film itself is a little rough around the edges, typical of independent cinema in America at that time, but I persoanlly like this, with the film seeming much more real and spontaneous as a result. It also ensures more emphasis is placed on the great performances and carefully nuanced script. The timing of the film also makes it essential viewing for anyone interested in the films of the Seventies which reinvented American cinema and produced a group of great directors and actors. It's unfortunate, considering how much talent was involved at this time, that there are no longer such exciting roles available for actors like Nicholson and his colleagues, reducing De Niro to comedies, Pacino to shouting and Hoffman to family films. And aside from Scorcese and Spielberg, there are no longer the same directors working (even they have lost touch with the dynamic films they were making at that time).

Fortunately it appears current stars such as George Clooney and Matt Damon to ressurect such socially and politically engaged films. In the meantime, go back and enjoy this treat.

Scott Walker - 30 Century Man (2006)

Scott Walker is an incredible talent, both for his music and his approach to achieving his singular vision. This documentary succeeds in giving a great overview of his career, as well as illuminating his more recent, and extremely unconvential, explorations in soundscapes and composition.

I don't know many people who like Scott Walker, or who are even aware of his work (at least not since the seventies), but I personally am a big fan of his early work and extremly intrigued by the increasingly distinctive path his music is taking. This film will only really appeal to fans of Walker, or at least serious music enthusiasts interested in learning more about a reclusive musician that will doubtlessly have been namechecked by several of their favourite artists.

The film is split into two parts. The first covers his career as a mainstream pop-star with The Walker Brothers beginning in the 60s, and his early solo albums that betrayed his pop beginnings and became increasingly experimental in their arrangments. We are treated to several interviews with artists as diverse as David Bowie, Radiohead and Lulu, as well as a rare insight from the man himself. This first part focuses almost entirely on his professional career and his appeal to both teenage girls and later, serious musicians. It is a great introduction to his music for anyone unfamiliar with his work, and several songs are played extensively, often accompanied by footage of his celebrity fans listening and commenting on his genius.

The latter part tackles his more recent and more challenging albums: 1995's 'Tilt' and his latest, 'The Drift', as well as commissions for Leos Carax's film 'Pola X' and singer Ute Lemper. This second section is for more serious fans, as is the music, which has alienated and fascinated his fans and critics in equal measure. This is an exploration of a highly distinctive artist with a very personal vision and a strong idea of the music he wants to create. We receive a privileged viewpoint in the studio with Scott and his collaborators as they search for new sounds by banging boxes, scraping dustbins and punching meat. The results are certainly astounding, although I doubt anyone will find it particularly enjoyable, just incredible that there is someone out there making music like this.

There's doubt that Scott Walker has been an important artist, and it's great that a documentary has finally been made that brings him more attention - hopefully many people, perhaps from a younger generation unaware of his time in The Walker Brothers, will seek this out. The film itself includes a range of musicians, industry insiders and collaborators ensuring a wide range of opinions - although everyone is devoted to him and understanding of even his most difficult experiments. Only Marc Almond expresses a dislike for one of his records, and it would perhaps been interesting to hear from some detractors, possibly some negative press to give a broader idea of his career. The only negative aspect of the film itself is some use of CG visuals during the playing of tracks, which do seem a bit 'tacky', when photo montages or real, evocative visuals would be more suitable.

All in all, however, it's an illuminating film that shines a light on a great, sadly underground, artist, whose career has covered a wider spectrum than perhaps anything else, and is still 'pushing the envelope'. To paraphrase Brian Eno while he listens to The Walker Brother's 1978 comeback album, 'Nite Flights': "It's humiliating listening to this; we've got no further than this in all this time."

I Am Legend (2007)

Will Smith's latest, 'I Am Legend', balances carefully between 'serious sci-fi' film and blockbuster, though ultimately its the latter that wins out. The strong action sequences and horror elements stand alongside subtle references to ethics in science to create a gripping narrative with moments of intelligence.

The central premise is that in the near-future a new, absolute cure for cancer, which uses controlled viruses, takes a turn for the worse. Three years later 90% of the world's population dies, 1% is immune, and the remaining 9% have become infected: hideous vampire-like, rabid monsters, who have killed most of the survivors. In New York, however, where this all began, Will Smith's military virologist, Lieutenant Colonel Robert Neville, has forged out a life among the debris. Along with his dog, he drives around the abandoned city hunting deer, picking up DVDs from his local store, and trying to find other survivors. But when the darkness comes he must return to his home, a fortress, as the infected come out to feed.

Occasionally, he kidnaps a 'dark seeker' and takes them to his home laboratory, where he tries to find a cure made from his own blood. It is hear that interesting questions of medical testing of humans, andthe idea of playing God, arise.

The film is incredibly successful at sustaining tension and almost the whole time is spent on the edge of your seat. The shots of an empty, overgrown New York are utterly astounding, and Neville's immense isolation is wonderfully portrayed by Will Smith. In comparison to a film like 'Castaway', where we share a desert island with Tom Hanks, 'I Am Legend's sense of loneliness is far more intense and harrowing. Will Smith is undeniably a very talented actor; although it's hard to imagine him being stretched far beyond the cool hero type; and his ability to maintain our interest, and also strongly empathise with his situation, is well handled. The emotional scenes certainly pack a punch and at one point, when he desperately asks a mannekin to talk to him, I was close to tears.

The suspenseful horror was equally powerful. The infected are unknown to us for quite a while, although their presence is constantly at the back of our mind. The fact that they only live in darkness ensures that any encounters will be terrifying. The first time we see them it is suitably disorientating but again, the majority of the fear we feel is conveyed by Smith's own performance. Like a lot of the best monsters, what makes these most scary is their closeness to real humans. Persoanlly I feel it was taken a little too far (and like most sci-fi, horror films htere are plenty of questions raised as to how realistic this transformation really is), and feel that had the been closer to who we really are it could have been far more disconcerting. We do discover, however, that they retain a level of intelligence that enables them to launch planned attacks, as well as form emotional relationships. Neville learns throughout the film, that the creatures he's had relatively little contact with, are not just monsters but humans in an altered state. By the end of the film, at his most helpless, we find him attempting to negotiate with them, asking them to let him save them.

It's this revelation that they are still humans that raises the question of human testing. We see that Neville has made several tests on the creatures, with little success. Perhaps a hundred of them have died at his hands and he shows no remorse, his attitudes changed by his intense situation. Through dialogue with another survivor, however, the conflict between religion and science is introduced. In answer to her claims that God has brought them together, to survive together, Neville answers that "it wasn't God who did this, it was us." Inevitably, though, Neville himself is playing God by trying to alter things again and cure the infected. Through use of the music of Bob Marley, used throughout the film, the idea is established that it is humans alone that must step out of the darkness and into the light to bring good to the world, now matter how powerful the evil forces may be.

Through the use of flashbacks the narrative is broken up rather than keeping us with Smith the entire time, although he is entertaining and it's very reassuring that the fate of the human race is left in his very capable hands. The story of how the virus spreads is very believable and unsettling, though the film always retains an element of escapism.

All in all it's an entertaining film that never lets itself get bogged down by it's heavier themes, which are more suited to films like 'Contact' that an action-blockbuster. The presence of screenwriter Akiva Goldsman, with credits such as 'Batman Forever' and 'A Beautiful Mind' to his name, ensures we get a healthy dose of both excitement and heart without too much intelligence to distract us from what is ultimately a fun scary film. But one that perhaps we should be more afraid of, and think about similar implications in our real lives.

No Country For Old Men (2007)

The Coen brothers haven't been on top form lately, with the misfiring light comedies 'Intolerable Cruelty' and 'The Ladykillers', but their latest thriller, 'No Country For Old Men', sees them make a comeback with one of the finest films of the year. The Coens have the great fortune of being talented 'art' directors whilst never taking themselves too seriously. This film is no exception, with moments of dark brutality alongside subtle humour of their distinctive style.

Adapted from a Cormac McCarthy novel the film retains several hallmarks of the Coen brothers' films, whilst also suggesting a new direction for them. Ordinarily we would expect to see regular players such as John Turturro or John Goodman, but here we have Tommy Lee Jones; on a recent run of success after his Best Actor award at Cannes for 'The Three Burials of Melquiades Estrada' and new film 'In the Valley of Elah'; alongside Spanish star Javier Bardem; most familiar to English-speaking audiences for his recent 'The Sea Inside'; and Josh Brolin, who is also on a good run with 'Planet Terror', 'American Gangster' and, again, 'In the Valley of Elah'. With these three actors currently at the top of their games, one of the finest cinematographers around in Roger Deakins (a regular Coen collaborator), and great reviews, I had very high expectations for this film.

I wasn't disappointed. The Coens have made a career from breathing new life into genre films, whether the gangster movie or film noir. 'No Country For Old Men' is a crime thriller perhaps closest to their breakthrough hit, 'Fargo', in itself an excellent film. Like 'Fargo', we have a smalltime sheriff who in their own distinctively laidback way manages their job with effortless skill. This is contrasted with the brutality of the killer(s) at the core of each film. In the latest, Javier Bardem is a terrifyingly creepy murderer with no conscience, pursuing the tough Josh Brolin, who has stumbled across a drug deal gone wrong and walked away with $2 million.

There follows a fairly straightforward pursuit, as Bardem doggedly tracks down Brolin, who refuses to give in and consistently fights back. Meanwhile, Jones' sheriff can do little more than observe, discovering the entire plot but feeling powerless to stop it, without enough information to protect Brolin, who he can't find. The film transcends its genre with idiosyncratic performances from the three leading men, ensuring that their characters never become cliches, or even predictable. Brolin's Llewelyn Moss is perhaps the most straightforward, but also the most surprising as he competently resists several attacks. Jones' Sheriff Bell is the most surprising, as the representative of the law who almost refuses to play his part. The greatest revelation, however, is Bardem's Anton Chigurh: incredibly menacing but distinctively human. Where we would normally expect a faceless killer in the darkness, this film is even more disconcerting in its representation of a man with no remorse, who plays with people's lives and focuses solely on his goal, allowing nothing (not even significant personal injury) to deter him. It's not a million miles from your traditional villain, but we see much more of Chigurh, watching him dress his wounds, and tease other characters away from the central plot. He is also extremely scary sometimes, much more than a more fantastical villain could be. He is incredibly engrossing and should expect more awards to follow his Golden Globes victory.

The film's lack of singlemindedness regarding it's central narrative is also highly distinctive. Normally, a genre film such as this would be extremely caught up with its plot, but it almost seems secondary to the characters and how they deal with various crises in an extreme situation. Most noticeably, we do not have a single viewpoint, but spread ourselves evenly between the three main characters. Even towards the end, the central plot is suddenly over, yet the film keeps moving along, and we now follow Sheriff Bell as he enters retirement and settles for a world and a pace of life more suited to his age - hence the title.

The supporting performances are also of note, with Woody Harrelson, Kelly MacDonald and Garret Dillahunt all turning in solid characterisations. Again this demonstrates the openess of the story and its distractions from the main thrust. The Coen's never show too much of themselves, in order not to distract from the characters, but somehow we know it's their film. Brief moments of humour, the sardonic attitude of Sheriff Bell, the unexplained eerieness of Chigurh, and the loving references to the classic Hollywood of films noir, detective stories and criminals, are all recognisable from their previous work. This film, though, is perhaps one of their most absorbing, complex and yet accessible.

Within Hollywood, the Coens are certainly among the most respected filmmakers and 'No Country For Old Men' should certainly cement this reputation. Personally I'd also recommend 'Barton Fink', 'Fargo' and 'The Big Lebowski'. In terms of other recent and similarly genre-busting, exciting and brilliant films (which this certainly is, taking our expectations in a new direction and giving great optimism for the future of American cinema) I'd also recommend 'The Assasination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford', which was excellent but deserves mention on this blog. The general atmosphere of the film was incredible, the story original and Casey Affleck's performance was stunning (perhaps the only other actor who could contend Javier Bardem for the Supporting Actor Oscar). The two films also share a cinematographer and actor in Garret Dillahunt. I urge you to see them both.

Edipo Re (Oedipus Rex, 1967)

The main problem faced by historic films, which tell a well known story, is that most people will already know how it turns out. Pasolini must have encountered this difficulty several times, as the latter stages of his career focused almost entirely on myths and early literature. The riches in his films, therefore, come from seeing exactly how he tells these stories, and the new meanings he tries to bring to them.

Unfortunately, as in my earlier review of 'The Canterbury Tales', I found that 'Oedipus Rex' had no contemporary relevance, despite a more explicit effort to equate it with a modern comparison. The film begins in pre-war Italy, in an army barracks, where is a new born baby is regarded with jealousy by his father. Suddenly we cut to ancient North Africa, where an abandoned baby is discovered and adopted by a king. He grows to become Oedipus (Franco Citti), who visits an oracle and learns that his fate is to kill his father and sleep with his mother. Apalled by this prophecy he blindly walks away from home, to escape his fate, but simultaneously abandoning himself to the Fates. There follows a series of abstract encounters and the random murder of a king and his guards. Eventually he comes upon the kingdom of Thebes, which is suffering at the hands of a strange beast, seemingly constructed of pure evil. Oedipus defeats it and is crowned king, marrying the Queen. Gradually, it unravels that the Queen was his true mother, and the King he killed, his father. When he discovers his mother, hanged by her own hand, he stabs out his eyes and wonders away with a messanger friend guiding him away. Then we jump back to contemporary times, where apparently the baby has grown up to become a man resembling Oedipus, who is blind and led around by a friend. I'm not entirely sure what the comparison was supposed to suggest, however, as there was no explicit statement made.

I struggled with this film. The abstract encounters were very abstract and without knowing too much about the actual Oedipus legend, I couldn't understand too much of these. Similarly his arbitrary murder of the king and his men. The ultimate frustration, however, comes when we know that he has married his mother and killed his father, HE knows the same, and most of his subjects also suspect. Instead we have to wait until everyone is entirely sure and he sufferes a little torment. For me, however, it simply dragged along and I almost dropped off.

The film was striking for the costumes and general set design, but I would doubt the historical accuracy of these. The camerawork was interesting too, with the low desert sun casting an interesting light on the scenes. In general, though, I was disappointed. I do still believe Pasolini is a worthy director to explore, but he was often abstract and impenetrable. His more philosophical films, such as 'Pigsty' or 'Sparrows and Hawks' are very difficult, and he's one of the only directors I have trouble staying awake for - and I pride myself on being able to watch any kind of film at any time of day!

I would say check out his early work, but only look at his later career if you're a real fan.

Gone With The Wind (1939)

Amazingly, this is the first time I have watched this epic cinematic event. Widely regarded as the most successful films of all time , and one of the most loved, it is a classic of melodrama, and of the golden age of Hollywood. The brain child of super-producer, David O. Selznick, 'Gone With The Wind' exhausted the talents of three directors before becoming the biggest movie of all time and that goal of all producers - a legend.

Due to the scale of the film, and its immense running time, it can be difficult to judge how good the film is, and far easier to be taken in by the grandiose splendour of it all. The story begins on the cusp of the American Civil War, set in Georgia, and end a few years after. Throughout we chart the effects of war on ordinary civilian life, the attempts to rebuild, and all the personal dramas inbetween. At its heart is the heroine, Scarlett O'Hara (Vivien Leigh), a spoilt, self-obsessed, ambitious and manipulative women whom, against the context of the Civil War, when every family was effected and every individual did their part, appears even more selfish and unlikeable. Her main concern is her love for the wrong man, Ashley Wilkes (Leslie Howard), and her misguided attempts to survive despite this, twice marrying the wrong man (both of whom are killed) before finally settling with the suave and confident Rhett Butler (Clark Gable), her true love even if she doesn't know it until the end. At her side throughout is Ashley's wife, Melanie (Olivia de Havilland), her exact opposite in her selflessness, kindness and gentility.

The most interesting way to look at the film on a personal way is to examine how a woman's love for a man can take two forms. Whilst Scarlett is frustrated with the war for keeping Ashley away from her, and refuses to help others, Melanie uses this love to aid other soldiers, nursing them as though nursing Ashley himself. Frustrastingly for the audience, Scarlett never really develops, and despite living through the horrors and hardships of war on the losing side, her outlook never changes, and she is unable to empathise with any others. This makes her extremely unlikeable, especially when she breaks so many hearts along the way, but Melanie is an etremely pleasant character. Ashley, for his part, is a little pathetic. He never remains entirely faithful, occasionally kissing Scarlett and declaring his feelings for her, but technically never going to far and totally betraying Melanie.

In contrast, Rhett Butler is a character in control, and very knowing of Scarlett's true character. Gable gives a great performance, ensuring the audience love the character, despite his disrepute and association with prostitutes. He is a character of conflict; the ever-present hero only because he doesn't volunteer to fight like all the other men; a fine father but a defeated husband. In the end though he retains his dignity, with his infamous "Frankly my dear, I don't give a damn", whilst Scarlett as latently discovered her true passion for him.

Vivien Leigh also gives a good performance, although a fairly unlikeable one. At the films opening the subject matter is light-hearted, as she plays various suitor off of one another, but her immense jealousy and drive ensure she is a far more fascinating figure. As the film progresses and the mood darkens, the drama grows and the complexity of her character is revealed further. The performance grows with it, as do all the performances, and by the end the emotion and melodrama is inescapably affecting. Olivia de Havilland gives a fine, subtle performance, the only rock among all the other characters' manoeuverings. The only weak spot is possibly Leslie Howard as Ashley Wilkes, although his is also the weakest role.

Famously, Hattie McDaniel became the first black person to win an Oscar for her portrayal as the ever-present maid, Mammie. Despite this, and due largely to the subject matter, the black characters in the film are not shown in a particularly favourable light, often used for comedic moments, portrayed as simple-minded, or treated emotionlessly by the superior white characters. At least, however, they play a large part in the film,as they would have done in real life, and we see how they were also affected by the war, as well as how relationships developed with their masters.

The film is certainly a huge event, with several famous scenes, particularly when Scarlett walks among the wounded in the centre of town. It's a film that sticks in the mind, and stands alone as a great epic that no other film could touch. As with a lot of films from this period, it can seem a little trite with modern audiences, and the strong elements of melodrama can sometimes be difficult to really empathise with, but the film is very much a product of its times and it's easy to get sucked in by the grandiosity of it all. I personally found the constant emotional music underscoring every scene a little annoying, particularly as I prefer music to be employed more sparingly and subtley, but then this film is created more like an opera, with an opening overture, and the same grand scale of history and emotion that many operas aimed to achieve.

It is undeniably one of those films that just has to be watched - and I can guarantee that even if you start watching it determined not to be taking in and enjoy it, by the end you won't be able to have helped yourself. Like many engaging, lengthy films, rather than struggling to stay with it, you somehow feel a little incomplete when you are no longer watching it.

Wittgenstein (1993)

Derek Jarman is easily one of the most original and unique directors in British cinema, if not in the world, and since his death from AIDs in 1994 no one has come close to replacing him. His last film proper (not including the experimental 'Blue') was 'Wittgenstein', an outline of the life and philosphy of Ludwig Wittgenstein, one of the most prominent philosophers of the 20th century.

Jarman cleverly matches the philosophy of his subject with his own filmic techniques, employing the sparse resources of his tiny budget to fantastic effect. Perhaps Jarman's greatest skill was making the best use of what little money he could obtain for his projects, in a creative and constantly surprising way. 'Wittgenstein' is filmed entirely against a black background with little in the way of set furniture and exaggerated costumes, but very quickly this becomes unnoticeable as we begin to accept the film on Jarman's terms. Just as Wittgenstein tried to overcome and solve the problems of philosophy, Jarman attempts to transcend the restrictions of cinematic language to create something entirely new.

The film is narrated by Wittgenstein as a boy, rather arrogant and outgoing. This is in stark contrast to the troubled and introverted adult Wittgenstein, who we see struggling to come to terms with his own philosophy, as well as his own life choices and privileges. Despite being born into an extremely wealthy family in Vienna, and being a highly respected teacher at Cambridge University, Wittgenstein constantly seeks to undermine himself by teaching in a rural school, giving away his fortune or trying to become a labourer in Soviet Russia. Meanwhile, people around him, including the equally great philosophers Bertrand Russell and Maynard Keynes (his teachers, colleagues and friends), constantly look to him for answers and advances, as "the greatest philosopher of our times". In response, Wittgenstein almost renounces philosophy, believing that true logic can not be found in the world and that simple acts can constantly undermine great thoughts. He also refuses to read the philosophy of his forbears, such as Aristotle or Hegel, trying instead to forge a stubbornly independent path for himself.

Similarly, Jarman was largely uninterested in recognition for his films, being far more concerned with creating the art he wanted to, than seeking critical or commercial success. His staging of the film is staunchly independent of other filmmakers, especially his more lavish contemporaries such as Peter Greenaway and Sally Potter. This is partly due to financial restraints, but also tribute to Jarman's ability to see beyond these difficulties and improvise. His task is made easy thanks to his use of regular collaborators like Tilda Swinton and Karl Johnson, in the lead role, or costume designer Sally Powell (perhaps the most successful costume designer working today). His trust in these friends and colleagues enabled him to shoot in a short space of time and in an instinctive way - extremely useful considering he was going blind at this stage.

The film focuses on Wittgenstein's preoccupation with the limitations of language and respective understanding. This is reflected in Jarman's challenging of traditional film narrative. As well as the theatrical staging and heavy use of narration, the plot, developed by Jarman from a script by Terry Eagleton, jumps from location to location with inserts featuring the young Wittgenstein being challenged by a green Martian. This non-sequituur has the effect of forcing us to constantly reassess our expectations of this film. Just as Wittgenstein tried to teach his students to re-examine minor details of day-to-day life and language, Jarman doesn't let us settle into a typical biopic without touches of his usual subversion and characteristic quirkiness. We can not simply accept reality, but are challenged to find the reality within the artificiality of the film, trapped between the engaging narrative and the revelation from the Martian that we are in a studio in Waterloo. Wittgenstein revealed the artificiality of linguistic understanding; Jarman revealed the limitation of escapist cinema.

In his other work, Jarman was extremely varied and versatile. He embraced Queer culture, the punk movement and high art. He was able to work with both 35mm and 8mm, on a public artistic level, and on a personal, introspective level. From his homoerotic debut in Latin - 'Sebastian' - to his cultured 'Caravaggio' and his experimental 'Last of England'. He is sorely missed in British cinema, and it's perhaps most disappointing that no one has taken up the baton from him to be so unique and independent of both the mainstream and art cinemas. He found a kindred spirit in Wittgenstein, a great mind who wanted to see the world in his own way, and not force that on anyone else. I strongly recommend you see this if you have any interest in either film or philosophy, as I can't do justice - partly due to my own limited understanding.

If I look out of my window now, I can see the hospital where both Jarman and Wittgenstein received treatment in their final days.

Walk Hard: The Dewey Cox Story (2008)

There's a very obvious trend going on in Hollywood, under the watchful eye of Judd Apatow. The successful writer/producer has followed on the success of comedies such as 'The 40-Year Old Virgin' and 'Knocked-Up' with a send up of recent music biopics, in particular the huge hit based on the life of Johnny Cash - 'Walk The Line'.

This particular brand of humour is predominantly masculine, slightly childish and utterly unrestrained in where it is prepared to go. They are definitely comedies for adults, focusing mostly on sexual relationships and the latent childishness of men. 'Walk Hard', however, follows more along the lines of 'Talladega Nights' and 'Anchorman' with the creation of a modern legend, his self-destruction thanks to his own idiocy, and his ultimate redemption. The fault at the heart of 'Walk Hard' is that while it attempts to send up musical biopics, with their hard-hitting stories of drug abuse, adultery, and the quest for self-understanding, it also succeeds in becoming a cliche of the genre to which it belongs, in which this character path is well established.

'Walk Hard' tells the story of Dewey Cox (John C. Reilly), a Johnny Cash-style country singer with a troubled paradise and an addictive personality. He quickly rises to fame when his music connects with the youth of the late forties (the dating of this whole movement is rather off, as it didn't really kick off until the fifties), but his marriage falls apart and he sinks into drug addiction. He finds solace in the arms of back-up singer Darlene (Jenna Fischer) but destroys that too when he becomes too involved in his drug-fuelled quest for ground-breaking music. Ultimately, by reconnecting with his distant father, he understands his true role as a father to his own children (about 37 I think), before making a comeback on TV. Along the way, he sings enigmatic protest songs like Bob Dylan, takes acid in India with the battling Beatles and alienates his bandmates like Brian Wilson of the Beach Boys.

It's all very familiar, with recognisable elements of many great rock legends; the comedy, however, is never so sophisticated. John C. Reilly is a fine actor, of both comic and serious material, but he fails to handle this character with such aplomb as perhaps Will Ferrell would (whom he often resembles in his insanity), and can't tackle a leading role as well as other character actors such as William H. Macy, Steve Buscemi and Philip Seymour Hoffman have achieved recently. Dewey Cox is often loveable, and often amusingly stupid, but never entirely endearing and I found it hard to really be taken in by his misfortunes. The story and comedy were rather designed to be more superficially entertaining, which the film certainly was. There were moments of laugh out loud humour, or simply parts of off-the-wall randomness. My favourite moment was perhaps when Dewey finally resists the temptations of drugs, only to turn the corner and find the Temptations singing 'My Girl'. It's stupid and hilarious!

I struggle to tackle this film in the way I have others on this blog as it is designed purely for superficial entertainment, not to be read into. The moral of the story is evident from the beginning because we know exactly what kind of story this intends to be. There is also no subtlety involved, with explicit humour, occassionally deliberately set-up jokes and gratuitous nudity. There's no need to try and tackle this intellectually. It's harmless fun, with out really tackling any real issues.

Maybe it's appropriate to mention, therefore, that I think it's a bit of a shame that the latest crop of comedies to find success aren't a little more sophisticated. The best and most endearing comedies are those that work on several levels and often have a serious message contained within. It would be a pleasant surprise if a new generation of comedies could reach out with a message conveying something of our times, rather than just providing escapist fun. Still, I shan't complain too much. It's always fun to have fun.

Johnny Guitar (1954)

The key to this film is ambiguity and subtlety, due in no small part to the distinctive direction of Nicholas Ray, a favourite auteur of the Cahiers du Cinema critics who later spearheaded the Nouvelle Vague, and who celebrated him as an independent voice in Hollywood, along with directors such as Douglas Sirk and Alfred Hitchcock.

The ambiguity of 'Johnny Guitar' is first apparent in the genre, or mix thereof. On the surface it's a western, but not like any other. The snappy dialogue sometimes verges on film noir territory, whilst the drama is played out like melodrama. This is largely down to the large female presence here, which ordinarily would be absent from Westerns. Inevitably for a women's film of this period, there is a melodramatic love story woven in, whilst the strong female characters come across almost as femmes fatale.

The story is not really Johnny Guitar's, but Vienna's, a woman sitting on some valuable land along the planned route for a new railway. Tension arises between her and another woman, Emma, who loves the local outlaw, Dancing Kid, who himself has designs on Vienna (Joan Crawford). Johnny Guitar (Sterling Hayden), meanwhile, is a figure from Vienna's past. The central conflict of the film is between these two women, specifically Emma, the driving force of the narrative with her resentment and anger towards Vienna. Her bitterness towards Vienna and the Kid makes her quick to blame them both after her brother's murder and a bank robbery (which Kid and his gang did actually commit), easily gathering a mob, which burns down Vienna's saloon and lynches the youngest member of Kid's gang, Turkey.

We're thrown into the thick of the action with all of the key characters appearing in the opening scene, and little context of who they are and their respective relationships. All is revealed over the next hour and a half before an exciting finale. Almost every scene is filled with tension, between women, women and men or men and men. The film has often been considered a classic feminist film but this isn't really the case. Although the women often control the action, Vienna quickly reverts back to submissive domesticity when she rekindles her love for Johnny, whilst Emma's strength sits uncomfortably beside her femininity, hence her violent reaction to her emotions. In one scene, in fact, whilst Kid and Johnny square up with testosterone-fuelled competitiveness, Vienna fries eggs.

Ray instead seeks to subvert the western in several ways. Most notable is the use of bright colours, in contrast to the more common black-and-white western of the period, and more familiar from Sirkian melodramas. Next is his clever use of costume, traditionally employed in westerns to distinguish the good from the bad, dressed in white and black respectively. In the case of 'Johnny Guitar', the morality of all characters is never so clear cut, and whilst the criminals of Kid's gang are brightly dressed, the supposedly law-abiding, ordinary citizens of the town are dressed in funereal black. Vienna herself becomes increasingly brighter and more feminine throughout, graduating from black shirt and trousers at the open to a flowing white dress at the apex.

The further ambiguity is present in the mob, entirely consisting of men aside from Emma, who lose heart when it comes to hanging Vienna for a crime that none of them really believe she committed. Their motivation comes from a desire to preserve their town, fearing that the railroad will bring immigrants and prosperity to Vienna's new town, a hidden narrative below the central plot. Various members are responsible for hanging Turkey, shooting and killing Tom (Vienna's loyal companion), and allowing Vienna's saloon to burn to the ground. It isn't until they infiltrate the Kid's hideout that they admit that, rather than growing angrier and angrier, they are now tired and hungry and want no more killing. Seemingly they can't keep up with the women.

There are fantastic moments in this film, such as when Kid's gang are trying to make their escape while the mountains explode around them, blown up by the railway engineers; or when Emma leads the mob into Kid's hideout, all black in their funeral suits, soaking wet from the waterfall that covers the entrance, her voice echoing in the ravine. Unfortunately, the film is a little dated and the slightly melodramatic acting can sometimes distract from the atmospheric direction. I can't help feeling that this film made today would be far more moody and absorbing, like the recent and brilliant 'The Assassination of Jesse James by the Coward Robert Ford', a character that Ray also explored in his later film, 'The True Story of Jesse James'.

'Johnny Guitar', however, sees Ray at the mid-point in his career and at his most distinctive. He was always a very independent and controversial director within the studio system, and was able to make some innovative and personal films that are widely remembered today. 'Rebel Without a Cause' is perhaps his most famous and most accessible, but his entire ouevre is worth investigating, not just for himself but also to see the influence he exerted over filmmakers such as Wim Wenders and Jim Jarmusch.

El Espiritu de la Colmena (Spirit of the Beehive, 1973)

This remarkable and touching film is seen as a highlight of Spanish cinema under Franco's dictatorship. Directed by the excellent, but largely unseen Victor Erice, this is a sensitive exploration of a child's discovery of death, and the relationship affected by the trauma of this discovery.

This film is, I believe, almost perfect. Erice's direction makes intelligent use of editing, with stunning cinematography and framing. The landscape is occasionally breath-taking and the performances universally brilliant - especially the incredible Ana Torrent in the lead role at the age of seven. Most remarkably for such a young performer is the sparsity of dialogue, resulting in the majority of emotions and meaning being conveyed through body language and sometimes simply expressed in her large, absorbing eyes.

The film moves at a gentle pace, following the various members of the family (mother, father Ana and big sister Isabel) as they go about their daily business in 1940s Spain. Father tends his bees and writes poetry. Mother writes letters to an unknown absentee and fingers the piano in a despondent way, frustrated and bored. Ana and Isabel run about and play, but after they see 'Frankenstein' at the travelling cinema, Ana becomes fascinated by the lonely creature and his death. They all live within a beautiful large country house, with little furniture, and honeycomb windows through which honey coloured light pours, resembling a beehive, whilst the family unit is presented as an intimate community, independent of the wider politics of the country.

Isabel teases Ana that she knows where Frankenstein lives, in an isolated house, where he seeks refuge. They travel out there but can not find him. Meanwhile, their father teaches them about poisonous mushrooms. When Isabel tricks Ana into believing she is dead, Ana rebels with anger and walks back to the house in the middle of the night. This time she discovers a runaway soldier lying low after he injured his ankle jumping from a train. Ana cares for him, bringing him food and tying his shoelace. She also brings her father's jacket, with his watch in one pocket, which later incriminates him after the authorities find the soldier and kill him.

There follows a superbly simple scene where the father opens his watch at the dinner table and it plays a tune. The look that passes between Ana and her father at this moment communicates the entire plot, even if she herself doesn't realise how much she's given away. The next day he follows her to the house, where she discovers the soldier's blood. The trauma of this discovery drives her to run away into the night and a massive search party is launched. During the night she encounters Frankenstein (resembling her father) beside a lake, in an intensely spiritual moment that does not feel out of place in the film. Then the next morning she is found and returns home completely changed, perhaps with a deeper spiritual understanding and unable to communicate with the rest of her family. In the final scene of the film she opens her bedroom window and says to the night that she can recall 'him' to her whenever she wants, then we hear the distant whistle of the train. Maybe tomorrow another soldier will be in hiding for her to go and visit, an allegory perhaps, for the persistant rebellion against fascism on a personal level. Her final defiant words of "I am Ana" would certainly suggest this.

I feel it's hard to do justice to this film. It's a magical piece that revels in the mystery of the world during childhood, and the strange draw that death can hold over humans; when Ana discovers a poisonous mushroom in the forest, she can't help but touch it; and when she believes Isabel to be dead, she plays with her loose limbs before running for help. It's an incredibly beuatiful film, shot by Luis Cuadrado. The script is so understated and affecting. Ana Torrent is incredibly endearing, yet puts in such a wise, intelligent performance. The first time I saw this film it was without subtitles but really that didn't matter, as the message within the film was easily conveyed by the superbly understood handling of cinematic language.

I strongly recommend you just see this for yourself and experience it's delights. It's definitely an art film and has a slightly slow start, but it really pays off. For me, this would have to be considered among the best films ever made (although there's quite a lot of films that could fit into that category)!

Alive (1993)

The incredible true story of a Uruguayan rugby team whose aeroplane crashed into the Andes on their way to Chile, forcing them to survive by eating the flesh of the dead before mounting a incredible expedition over the mountains, was always crying out for the Hollywood treatment, and it was mainly for the story that I was interested in watching this film. Unfortunately, 'Alive' appears so concerned with telling the story that we are never treated to a more personal experience, and never really feel involved in the struggles of the survivors.

The cannibalistic nature of the story was widely reported, and viewed as controversial at the time, and as a result director Frank Marshall (extremely successful as a producer, including the Indiana Jones films) tries hard not to let this detail take over the entire narrative. We begin with very little context, simply joining the team and a few other unlucky passengers on the plane, shortly before the malfunction caused by poor weather. Suddenly the plane falls apart, with startling simplicity, chairs peeling off one by one and disappearing towards the snow below. From that point onwards we follow the team's continuous highs and lows living inside the fusillage, from sunbathing and finishing off the last of their chocolate whilst they believe a rescue is imminent, to listing the dead as they drop off, one by one, exaggerated further by an avalanche that destroys their hopes.

Due to the large group, we are left with a fairly general perspective on events, meaning that potentially traumatic events, such as watching a close friend die or eating the remains of a fellow passenger, are glossed over somewhat as a necessary element of survival, rather than a life-changing moment of emotion. If, however, they had not made the difficult decision to resort to cannibalism they would surely have been doomed, and therefore we can only assume it had to be a quick and easy decision. Personally, I would have preferred an insight into the pysche of these young men (the youngest was 17!), perhaps focusing on one or two individuals, to truly understand the horror and ultimate triumph of their experience. This lack of indentification on an indivdual level means we are often unsure of who has just died and their relationship to the others, making it harder to empathise with their emotional pain. God plays avery large part in teh film, with almost all of the survivors being Roman Catholic, and this presents an interesting theme, and the idea that cannibalism be viewed as a form of Holy Communion, but unfortunately, even this isn't dwelled on for too long.

Eventually we move to the most remarkable element of this story - when two men (played by Ethan Hawke and Vincent Spano) breach the Andes on foot to reach civilization and find help. Unfortunately the film fast-forwards over this period to the emotional rescue, leaving the audience without the true moent of heroism. This is giving nothing away, as the story is already known, and this perhaps steals away from the tension. In fact, the film can never seem as incredible as the real story. Just as the epic climb of the two heroes is cut short, the cannibalism is made easy to watch as the younsters eat the flesh with only a little discomfort - whereas in reality they vomited. Also, Hollywood's need for action and momentum within the film ensures we can not truly understand the obvious boredom and triviality of their day-to-day lives. A much slower and meditative film would have been far more absorbing and involving.

On my video, the subsequent documentary is far more interesting, examining the rehabilitation of the survivors into society and their uncomfortable celebrity. Whilst some have become successful businessmen, others have struggled with drink and drugs problems. They have stayed intact, however, living within the same community, and on the periphery of the Uruguayan people's conscience. Interestingly, all of them, with the exception of one, seem to be quite at ease with their experiences and perhaps maintain their image as heroes (one has a beauty queen wife, another is running for the presidency of Uruguay!) . Also, the fact that we are presented with the real people is far more powerful than the group of young American actors from teh film, who needless to say make fairly unconvincing rugby players and Uruguayans.

It's very hard to judge this film, as we can never really no how the men felt on top of that freezing mountain. There never seems quite enough drama and tragedy, but perhaps they did not have time for this, focusing only on what had to be done. Several suvivors acted as technical consultants, so I can only assume that the facts of the film were close to reality. One area where the film fails, however, is to convey the scale of this ordeal. By focusing only on the more active elements of the story it's hard to realise that the group were living on the mountain for 72 days! We are never witness to the obvious boredom and triviality of their day-to-day lives, whilst a much slower and meditative film may have been far more absorbing and involving, as well as making the story seem even more incredible.

All in all, I was left feeling that this film was not entirely about the human instinct for survival, nor the relationships between those trying to survive. Instead it was simply a remarkable story, and nothing much more. If you're searching for a good Andes/mountain/climbing survival story, look to Kevin MacDonald's dramatised documentary, 'Touching the Void', which is far more absorbing and tense.

The Reckless Moment (1949)

This intriguing film sees a devoted mother covering up the death of her daughter's forbidden lover, believing her daughter responsible for his murder. Her best attempts are useless, however, as the body is immediately discovered at the bottom of a lake and a mysterious stranger arrives to blackmail her, having her daughter's love letters in his possession.

Many elements combine to make this a thrilling film, not least the ever-brilliant Max Ophuls' direction. After the classic 'Letter From an Unknown Woman' and my personal favourite, 'Caught', Ophuls plays this film noir as an emotional drama where crime plays a relatively small part. The ever-on-form James Mason is the stranger intent on blackmailing, but rather than a simple henchman, his Donnelly is a very human character who is quickly drawn under the spell of Lucia's (Joan Bennett) simple, middle-class family life, and in fact, of Lucia herself.

This unusual denouement sees him rebel against his shady employer and sacrifice himself to preserve Lucia's dignity. But the main focus is Lucia herself, and the brief torment she goes through trying to raise the $5000 to pay off Donnelly. Her reaction of hiding the body is a natural, maternal instinct, but the role she subsequently takes on, as protector of her family, is a result of her absent husband (working in L.A.) that provides an original spin on the genre. Her morals are further shaken when an innocent man is arrested and she is torn between saving her daughter and doing the right thing.

In the end the matter is taken out of her hands as Donnelly makes the ultimate sacrifice and the Harper family is left to celebrate Christmas together.

What makes this film especially interesting, beyond the unique plot and great performances, are the several flourishes of Ophuls: his usual, sweeping camera never stealing focus but creating a stunning look to the film that ensures it doesn't date; the brilliant use of extras, constantly barging into and through the couple as they try to discover the best course of action, refusing to let things settle for long enough for matters to become clear. This keeps the plot moving along very efficiently and the movie is over in no time at all. Also, the mise-en-scene of the Harper home, with its comfortable, protected feeling and various family members coming and going, reminding us that this is not the sort of place that these kind of events happen. Donnelly can't blackmail Lucia without being interrupted by Grandpa who would like to share a drink with the guest, or the son who needs help fixing a car. Even the police investigation is hampered by curious boys climbing onto their boat.

Like 'A History of Violence', this is film noir in the family home - more disturbing than criminal underworlds but ultimately out of place and ineffective. A good introduction to a director of a classic style, well worth exploring.