If you know the history....

How much responsibility does a director have to the audience in terms of its awareness about the story he is telling? I only ask after a week of watching films and TV shows that are based on true stories but whose impact would undoubtedly be altered by what the audience already knew. Coincidentally two of the pieces, which I watched on consecutive nights, both starred Michael Fassbender.

The first was the finale to Peter Flannerys' excellent The Devil's Whore which turns on the central character (John Simm) deciding to assassinate Oliver Cromwell (Dominic West) because he has betrayed the values of the revolution to which they had all signed on. The final scenes are an obvious homage to Dallas in 1963 with Simm as Lee Harvey Oswald and they are undoubtedly tense. However that tension is mitigated by the fact that I knew that Cromwell had not been assassinated therefore I knew broadly how the scene must turn out. Did it affect my enjoyment? Possibly, although altered may be a better word in that rather than wondering
if the plot would succeed I wondered instead how they would finish the scene. But what of those who don't know the story of the British Civil War? How different must it be for them and how does Flannery take that into account in his structure of the scene?

For someone of my age it is almost unthinkable that there would be people who did not know what happened to Cromwell but we must accept the reality of the modern world and its increasing self-centredness. I was told, for example, by more than one cinema manager that there were audience members during the run of Titanic who were devastated that the boat sank; they were unaware that this was a true story and were shocked that Kate and Leo were not saved as Hollywood convention would dictate.

Moving on, the following night I watched Hunger, again with Fassbender this time in the key role of IRA hunger striker Bobby Sands. As an aside the YBA crowd e.g. Sam Taylor-Wood, Tracey Emin have all been dabbling in film to limited success but only Steve McQueen has genuinely made the transition from visual art to cinema with this haunting film.

Unlike The Devil's Whore, Hunger makes no concession to the audience's understanding of events. We open up in The Maze Prison and the appalling conditions and we are completely immersed in the experience of the H Block prisoners. Even the voice over of Margaret Thatcher is not identified so if you don't know what she sounded like - a slim possibility I grant you - then you have no idea who it is. Surprisingly this works very well because the lack of context focuses the mind on the central argument which is the morality of the hunger strike. This is a huge issue and frankly you don't want to be distracted by wondering if the chronology is right or that Fassbender doesn't look much like Sands.

This is an issue that also affects Ron Howard's Frost/Nixon where the dramatic fulcrum of the story is an invented conversation. Peter Morgan admits he invented the scene simply for dramatic effect which is permissible because this is drama not documentary. However there are those who have accused the film of other, less evident, alterations as in this article from The Huffington Post

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/elizabeth-drew/ifrostnixoni-a-dishonorab_b_150948.html

To go back to my original question I think the answer is 'none'. The director's responsibility, it seems to me, is first and foremost to the film he wants to make; how the audience wants to respond to it is their own business.

And the winner is....

Actually it's way too early for that but the first awards of the awards season have been announced and both - National Board of Review and Washington Critics Circle - have gone to Slumdog Millionaire. Having seen it at the weekend, I can understand why - this is a terrific piece of film making.

The dramatic device is deceptively simple, on the brink of winning the Indian version of Who Wants to be a Millionaire the contestant, a young man from the slums, looks back on the life that has brought him to this point. It's a clever device because Celador, which created Millionaire and produced the film, controls the game to the point where every international version is identical. That means the film is accessible to audiences all over the world.

It is powerful, harrowing, entrancing and ultimately uplifting and Danny Boyle does a terrific job technically. This film will doubtless win many more awards between now and Oscar night.

One of its main contenders will be Frost/Nixon which is equally riveting. Far and away Ron Howard's best work it presents the epic interview between David Frost and disgraced US president Richard Nixon as an interlocutorial (look it up!) version of Rocky. I remember seeing the interviews when I was a younger man but had no idea of the drama involved in setting them up; as it turns out these conversations would be the defining moment in the career of each man.

Michael Sheen is excellent as Frost but Frank Langella's Nixon steals the film. Wisely deciding against pure impersonation he gives a performance that manages to extract some sympathy for this particular devil.

This week I'm hoping to catch up with Benjamin Button, W, Hunger and a couple of others.

Unfortunately this week sees the final episodes of two excellent TV offerings - Spooks and The Devil's Whore. I miss them both already, however Spooks at least will be back.

Finally....

What can I say - I've been busy organising Richard Attenborough events, trips to the Panopticon, and finishing off my post grad. Anyway here we are so let's catch up - first things first, Choke.

Choke symbolises a lot of what is wrong with indie movies these days. It tries to tick too many boxes - casting Sam Rockwell, playing with narrative structure, daring themes, graphic sexual content - and ends up not actually making a lot of sense.

The film takes its title from a sub plot in which Rockwell scams people by pretending to choke, allowing them to save him, and then leech off them for the rest of his life. But of course he's not a real scam artist, he's only doing it to raise the cash he needs to keep his mother in an institution where she can be cared for in the advanced stages of dementia.

There's also a bizarre sub plot about Rockwell's real dad, an affair with the increasingly engaging Kelly Macdonald, and some nonsense about Rockwell's pal and his stripper girlfriend. There's altogether too much going on to be completely satisfying and as a result the ending seems arbitrary and unearned.

On the plus side it features one of the only two Rockwell performances I've enjoyed and Kelly Maconald is always good value.

Speaking of unearned and aribitrary endings, I also saw Body of Lies which squanders a lot of talent in a story that doesn't so much end as stop in its tracks. I've recommended it to Richard so he can use it as an example of how not to write a film; there's no third act and none of the characters has a dramatic arc.

Also this week I caught up with Gomorrah, an Italian film which invokes the neo-realist tradition in its story of the Mafia in modern Naples. The action is brutal and arbitrary - rapidly becoming the word of the day - but as in all neo-realist films it is neither glamourised or dwelt one. A terrific piece of work and definitely one to recommend to DFTV3 given that we have just started on Italian cinema.

And speaking of terrific work, Mickey Rourke is just marvelous in The Wrestler. Being old enough to remember Rourke at the start of his career I always thought he was the one among all his contemporaries who would have a lasting career. As it happened he didn't, largely through surrendering to a variety of demons. The character he plays in this film has done much the same thing and some of Rourke's longer speeches are surely meditations on his own life and career. Whatever the reason it's a hugely satisfying film which should get at least an Oscar nomination for Rourke.

Speaking of Oscars, Frost/Nixon is on the radar this week so in that apples vs. oranges way it will be interesting to see if Frank Langella is a better bet than Mickey Rourke.

Catching up

After more than 25 years in the private sector I still can't quite get used to public holidays but loving the experience. So, long weekends leave lots of time for catching up on viewing including Quantum of Solace.

It was good but not great; there was no narrative to speak of, just a long and increasingly incoherent collection of set pieces. The Tosca scene in particular was where you could audibly hear the audience lose interest - it felt more like tying up loose ends and setting the groundwork for the rest of the Craig franchise than a film in its own right. Was however fortunate enough to see a digital projection and the clarity of image is very impressive.

Much better was The Brave One which I caught on Sky; a perfect example of how a genre movie can rise above the confines of its class with intelligence and talent. This could have been a Death Wish remake but Neil Jordan's examination of the nature of grief and the part of us which we do not admit to made it constantly absorbing. Jodie Foster was remarkable in the lead with a performance which played like an exposed nerve. The title sucked - obviously decided by a focus group.

Also caught the first two episodes of the new series of Spooks. Goobye Rupert Penry Jones, hello Richard Armitage who is bound to make an impression before his inevitable dramatic farewell. I love the style and look of this show which manages to out-American the Americans. A perfect example of how not to do that came with Flood which I also caught up with. Mesmerically bad and with a cast that includes Bobby Carlyle and Tom Courtenay a salutary reminder that even the best actors have mortgages.

The perfect end to a weekend

I've just watched my recording of the Burt Bacharach concert as part of the BBC Electric Proms season. (Either ask your parents or check out the red interactive button for highlights if you need to know who he is) The man is a genius and I couldn't help reflecting (see what I did there?) as I was watching that he defined the cinematic sound of the sixties and seventies. A guilty pleasure but a treat nonetheless.

Be careful what you wish for...

...because you might get it, as the old saying goes. 

I have always wanted students who were engaged, articulate and involved with their own learning (of course it goes without saying that if any former students are reading this, you are still my favourites). Who knew that I would have to read so many blogs!!! Actually it is a real pleasure I think, without being patronising, that for some students this is the first time they have had to engage critically with a film and think about why they feel the way they do. It is a joy to watch them express themselves and to take that huge leap and do it on a public (ish) forum.

As for me, personal business has curtailed my viewing lately but I have become fascinated in a horrified kind of way with the Ross/Brand farago. I look forward to taking the temperature of the student opinion; I suspect my view may be tainted by my age so it will be interesting to see how other, younger minds think.

And, if I get the time, I have three episodes of Spooks to catch up on. Perhaps I'll save them for tomorrow, it being Halloween.

Thwarted by the weather

I know I told the class last week that cinema managers love bad weather but there is some weather that is just too bad to venture out in, so my plan to go see a movie turned into a plan to watch a movie on telly. I caught up with Michael Clayton for a second time and it was even more interesting to see how much it has caught the flavour of the 'paranoia thrillers' of the Seventies such as Parallax View - the bleakest movie ever made - or Three Days of the Condor. It was interesting too to see George Clooney take himself seriously and give a performance that didn't consist of demented grimacing or coy glances.

Also caught part one of Little Dorrit which looks like being appointment viewing. The timing is perfect for a story about financial bubbles bursting and the effects this can have on ordinary people. Parts of it looked a bit like theme park Dickens but generally the interiors were superb; productions like this thrive on the grace notes and Sue Johnston in particular, along with Tom Courtenay, were marvelous.

Good for the goose

Having asked my students to blog about what they watch and see it seems only fair that I should do the same. It's a cold, wet, miserable day so I have been catching up on some Sky+ material, specifically the first couple of episodes of Breaking Bad. So far I am very impressed at the way it takes a conventional formula and spins it, not radically but just enough to give things a fresh perspective. 

Other than that I saw an interesting article in the Guardian magazine today about Waltz with Bashir, the controversial animated film. I will need to add it to my del.icio.us page so that I can share it with the students.

Generally I'm pleased with the way they are responding to the directed reading etc. They seem not unwilling to set up blogs which is good. The proof of the pudding however will be how they maintain their entries but since they are assessable that should be an incentive.

If the weather stays foul tomorrow I may catch a movie - either Burn After Reading or Ghost Town since Gomorrah doesn't appear to be on anywhere handy.