Film Fly

Are the studios ruining the cinema?

2007-12-18T18:06:00.000Z

Today has seen the announcement that The Hobbit has the green light to begin production. It is yet another example of the studios cashing in on what is seen as a potential 'cash cow', but what affect are these decisions having on the cinema?

As soon as the Lord of the Rings trilogy finished back in 2003 there was talk of The Hobbit being filmed, so today's news isn't a surprise.

The fact that they have planned a sequel isn't that surprising either.

But the fact that it isn't surprising is worrying for the cinema.

Money talks

The studios have always dictated the industry. Afterall film making is fundamentally a business designed to make money.
But in the past decade or so the quality of the films has suffered, and the number of poor blockbusters, countless sequels and re-makes has risen so high that the market has become saturated.

The audience has become increasingly sceptical since every trailer says that the film 'is the adventure of the year' and filled with so much CGI that you might as well play a video game instead.

And yet the studios are continuing to make so much money that they are churning out even more of these weakly written CGI fests.

Short-term gains are always popular

It is not going to be long before people grow wary of the constant sales pitch. Promises that this is 'the greatest action film of your life' or 'that it will blow you away' will start to fall on deaf ears.

Sadly, the studios only seem to care about next year's profits.

The advent of high definition televisions and surround sound may mean that home entertainment systems will take over, but the cinema will still have its place.

If people are to be drawn back to the cinema then the studios need to start creating original and exciting ideas that will feel like a breath of fresh air to the audience.

Regurgitating the films people have seen a hundred times may make a few million now but it will do far more damage in the long term.

A few millions will count for nothing by then.

Batman: The Dark Knight - Trailer online

2007-12-17T09:20:00.000Z

The eagerly anticipated trailer to Batman: The Dark Knight has just been released online, but doesn't the Joker look similar to Beetlejuice?

To judge for yourself watch the trailer here.

From first impressions Heath Ledger, the unlikeliest of choices for the role as Joker, has created a possibly iconic villain. In the brief glimpses of him in this trailer there is no doubt that, if the film lives up to the hype, Ledger will steal the show.

But one thing I have noticed is that Heath Ledger's Joker bares a striking resemblance to Beetlejuice. The way he acts, especially when leaning out of the car window, reminded me of the similarly psycho Michael Keaton in Bettlejuice.

Its a funny coincidence that Michael Keaton used to be Batman as well.

Let's just hope, as is so often the case in recent years, that the trailer doesn't turn out to be better than the actual film.

An interview with retired commercial producer Ray Barker

2007-12-11T19:06:00.000Z

Ray Barker, a retired commercial producer, has worked through some of the most significant changes to affect the industry in his 40 year career.

‘Colour changed everything. We had seminars telling you that blonde hair would go green and that chocolate was really difficult to photograph.’

The British film industry is continuing to struggle to bring in new projects. In November Pinewood Studios announced a £200million expansion in an attempt to attract investors and filmmakers back to the UK.

But the industry fails to receive the adequate support it should from the government.

A poor excuse for a tax-break

A recent tax-break has been announced by the current chancellor, Alastair Darling, but to Ray Barker this is old news: “There have been successive chancellors who have given tax-breaks to film makers. They always get exploited by the worst fringe mafia of the film business who just like the producers hope to make a film so after 3 years it disappears.”

This combined with the high cost of staff in the UK has led to Eastern Europe being a far more attractive proposition for filmmakers. As Barker explains: ‘‘They are fed of paying British rates for technicians” and consequently have been “voting with their feet for a very long time”.

Movie moguls vs budding filmmakers

The rise of huge movie moguls has no doubt had a negative effect on budget filmmakers. Funding a film as an unknown is these days a tougher proposition than it once was, but the advent of the digital age has “polarised the industry.”

Barker uses the example of Daniel Craig, who will work on CGI blockbusters like The Golden Compass and then will be seen in smaller independent films a few months later. “These days it is entirely possibly to make a decent low budget film for £100,000, as long as you’re prepared to do everything yourself.”

Equipment is cheaper, smaller and more mobile. Filmmakers are springing up everywhere and since films like The Blair Witch Project everyone is hoping to make their share of the profits.

3D or not 3D?

Our conversation moves on to the future of cinema and in particular 3D cinema. “3D cinema has been called the saviour of cinema at least three times in my lifetime” he says. “Most major art forms have about 100 years at their height and cinema has been around for a long time”.

The recent release of Beowulf has had mixed reviews and the full impact of 3D is still doubtful. “At the end of the day whatever the cinema can do the television can as well.”

It is Ray Barker’s opinion that “a major technological revolution” is coming and that will signify the next stage of cinema, albeit in a slightly different form. 3D cinema may help preserve cinema for a while but the world, it would seem, is ready for the next stage of entertainment.

The reinvention of franchises

2007-12-11T14:57:00.000Z

As 2007 comes to a close we again are confronted by a series of reinvented film franchises attempting to breathing new life into films that are past their best.

A trend that has taken hold of the industry for several years now, it coincideds with the rapid increase in fan-based film sites across the internet.

As the opinions of the fans have become increasingly heard via blogs, podcasts and forums, the studios have been busy rebranding and repackaging their most successful franchises.

James Bond suffered at the hands of the fans after the poor Die Another Day and a change was demanded. The latest offering, Casino Royale, offered the fans a far grittier, more realistic Bond that was being celebrated across the online forums.

There is no doubt that the fans are being heard more and more but is their influence really felt in the big Hollywood studios?

Power to the fans

No film has been more heavily influenced by the fans than 2006's Snakes On A Plane. The film generated a huge online following before even a single frame of the picture had been seen.

Such was the excitement surrounding the film that New Line, the studio behind the sensation, freed up more money to allow the director David R. Ellis extra days shooting, including a line from Samuel L. Jackson that had been demanded by the fans.

The hype was unique but it did highlight the growing impact of the online fan-based websites. Back in 1999 after the release of Star Wars Episode I: The Phantom Menace, George Lucas spoke with fans of the Star Wars series as to why the fans were so disappointed.

Their comments saw Jar Jar Binks relegated to a background character for the remaining to films and demonstrated the influence fans were beginning to have on such big franchises.

The Studio's power

But those two examples are not typical of Hollywood. The Studio’s are still more concerned with the need to make profit than to satisfy a small group of fans that feel they deserve to be rewarded for their loyalty.

Casino Royale offers a far more pleasing Bond to fans of the series but the reinvention of the film also reflects the public’s desire for a more realistic spy thriller, like The Bourne Identity, than the inconceivable plots for which Bond has become so well known.

The studios want to ensure the longevity of their money-making franchises and so they tend to follow the trends of other films from that genre. A year after Batman Begins we were given Superman Returns.

Both films provided a new beginning for the two superheroes and Batman in particular was given a far darker side that fans had been crying out for ever since Tim Burton’s original Batman.

But the success of Batman Begins has shown that a darker and new direction for such a well known character is not the dangerous ground it once was. Lets hope that the studios continue to show more faith in its audience for 2008.

New Indiana Jones poster online

2007-12-11T10:16:00.000Z

The first poster for the upcoming film Indiana Jones and the Kingdom of the Crystal Skull was released yesterday.

Published on the official Indiana Jones website, my first impressions are mixed.

It makes me think of the Temple of Doom and the giant skull in the background seems more appropriate in a computer game than a film.

The Indiana Jones trilogy are, as I am sure it will be for many, some of my favourite films but I have concerns over this forth installment.

It is old news to discuss whether Harrison Ford too old, as some of the pictures so far released have shown he is in pretty good shape.

But what does worry me is the use of CGI in the film.

A CGI fest?

Its simply that giant skull that I don't like.

The original three all have their fair share of mysticism and myth but manage to not let it become to fantastical.

The advent of CGI has meant that sequences never before possible are now found in TV dramas.

CGI has been used as selling point rather than as a way of complimenting a story.

Spielberg has indeed shown he is more than adept at creating some of the most spectacular CGI sequences (the entrance of the T-Rex in Jurassic Park still looks better than some effects today and that was back in 1993), but Indiana Jones is about old school sets on giant sound stages.

Part of the charm

The giant skull just suggests to me a massive CGI section of the film, set deep in some mountain.

Again I think of The Temple of Doom and it is widely agreed that was the weakest of the three, but Spielberg knows a thing or two about making excellent films so we should have faith.

I just hope he hasn't forgotten what is was that we all loved about those films, Harrison Ford dressed up as the Dr. Jones is not enough.

Project Pinewood

2007-12-10T22:22:00.000Z

Pinewood has announced plans for a £200 million expansion to its film studios, in an attempt to lure filmmakers back to the U.K.

The proposal, which is known as ‘Project Pinewood’, will see the construction of permanent working sets that replicate locations across the U.K., Europe and the U.S.

The new development is intended to spark a resurgence in the British film industry which has struggled to compete with the cheaper facilities in Eastern Europe.

Ivan Dunleavy, Chief Executive of Pinewood, said ‘Pinewood has been home to Film and Television for the last 70 years and this development will help secure growth for the creative industries for the 70 years and beyond.’

A 'live-work community'

The project also includes plans for a residential development of around 2000 homes to be integrated into the film locations, in what is being called a ‘live-work community’.

It is hoped that the expansion will help alleviate some of the housing shortage in the South East.

Sir Ridley Scott, the director of Gladiator, has shown his support for the project saying that the ‘project is a unique opportunity for the film makers and designers to have input into the strategic and architectural development of the UK’s creative hub.’

Pinewood Studios has been the centre of the British film industry since the 1960’s when it enjoyed huge success through the James Bond and Carry-On films.

Whilst it is still considered the premiere studio in the country it has recently struggled to attract filmmakers due to the strength of the pound and cheaper labour in Eastern Europe.

The 'Saviour of Cinema'

2007-11-27T15:51:00.000Z

The recent release of Beowulf has seen the return of 3D Cinema and this time it intends to stay.

Hailed as a possible ‘saviour of cinema’ by Titanic director James Cameron, it seems this time round 3D technology is to be taken seriously.

However is 3D cinema really the answer or is there a more fundamental problem with the film industry.

There is no doubt that cinema is struggling.

High definition television, surround sound and DVD have all contributed to its decline but the audience’s apathy is more to do with the studios failure to deliver a quality product.

The market is bloated with poor remakes, sequels and blockbusters regularly failing to live up to its hype.

Millions and millions of dollars are being thrown at the industry making it feel like a factory house rather than an art form.

The heady days of the sixties and seventies, when boundaries were being pushed by exciting new directors, has been replaced by movie moguls dictating artistic licence in order to achieve that ‘money shot’ that will put more bums on seats.

Temptation is our curse

So 3D cinema is the studios’ next attempt to bring us back to their bosom, but if they are not careful they will make us feel like the doomed Beowulf. Temptation is our curse.

It may be dressed up in new clothes yet underneath there is still no substance.

The studios know we will keep coming back if they promise us more riches but we can only take so much.

The recent Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy have shown the studios at their worst.

A successful first film made Weinstein and Co. a significant amount of money and our reward: two distinctly average films.

Yet we were still sucked in by the great PR machine that spun us a tale of epic proportions. We were deceived and our trust is beginning to waver.

It will not be long before our trust is entirely broken and the cinema will be a thing of the past.

A bleak future?

There are still talented artists mulling round the corridors of the giant studios.

Some are old legends who still wield some power over their own work; while others have shown such promise that they are being rewarded with bigger budgets and bigger sets.

The key is to allow them to express themselves as the ‘legends of film’ were able to do in the seventies.

The studios will no doubt be scared by such freedom of artistic expression; there is too much risk of commercial failure and that dreaded minus sign against the profits.

But if 3D is truly to be the ‘saviour of cinema’ there needs to be some good old-fashioned story-telling behind this new technology.

Otherwise the new 3D era is going to feel very flat indeed.

Unnecessary criticism

2007-11-12T10:04:00.000Z

I was recently reading a film review on the Guardian website when I came across a blog discussing the directors Ridley and Tony Scott.

Written by Ryan Gilbey, recent winner of the Press Gazette's Reviewer of the Year, it discuses which of the Scott brothers are worse as a director. A puzzling blog to say the least!

Looking at the list of comments (there are over 300 already!) it would seem that Mr. Gilbey is in the distinct minority with most appreciating what the Scott brothers have done for the British film industry.

If you're interested in debating how talented the Scott brothers are then I would suggest taking a look through those comments but that is not what interested me the most.

The blog seems ill-informed and unbalanced but Ryan Gilbey is neither of these and in fact usually writes some of the more insightful articles in the film industry.

However he has successfully alienated himself in one blog from a huge section of the film community.

Not only has he criticised and undermined two of our more successful artists but he also showed no respect for Alan Parker - widely considered one of Britain's most influential directors.

Understandably the online community has shown outrage at such disrespect, but why has he made such unnecessary criticism of such talented people?

Having taken a step back, I think Ryan Gilbey has made a bold stand and one that should be embraced.

When I first read the blog I was angry to say the least. I was thinking ' How can this guy say that the people who directed Alien, Blade Runner and True Romance are poor directors?'.

Yet isn't that what critics should be doing?

Fair enough the reviews need to be balanced and honest but lets have more articles that question the status quo. I have not seen a magazine lately that has he even come close to taking such a stand against the majority opinion.

Ridley Scott is one of my favourite directors. Blade Runner is a fantastic film and I respect any man who can produce such a concept.

However, Ryan's blog made me think about Scott's career again.

I still maintain my opinion at his worth as a director but it was interesting to think about something that I had taken for granted for so long.

To the people who wrote such venomous responses to Ryan's blog I say let him be. He expressed an opinion that is controversial yet it has sparked debate and that is surely more healthy for the industry than just following the trend.

So good for you Ryan, lets see what else we can spark a debate about. How about Martin Scorsese did not deserve to win an Oscar. Anyone agree?!

Its all in the name

2007-10-23T14:56:00.001+01:00

NOTE: This blog started out life as Chesney's Musings.com which is what this post is in reference too.

The first thought that must come to mind when first viewing this blog is why the name Chesney's musings?

Well quite simply for the past six years I have been haunted by the fact that I bear a striking resemblance to the one and only Chesny Hawkes.

It began whilst working as a barmen at my local. My nickname soon became Chezzer, a most vile name if ever I had to choose one, and sadly whilst the name has died a death some time ago, the comments have not.

A sad day in Covent Garden

The darkest moment for myself came when I was walking through Covent Garden not long ago and actually walked past the man. We exchanged a look and to my horror I even saw the likeness.

No doubt he was equally concerned since it would mean his one and only hit may no longer be valid and put the final nail in the coffin of his music career. But fear not Mr. Hawkes I will try to avoid such a crime being commited to the British music industry.

So when confronted by the prospect of my own blog I thought, 'why not embrace the name?' His career has dwindled into obscurity (I believe he can be found at the Clapham nightclub Infernos every few months) so maybe I can put the name to better use.

One unfortunate side-effect of choosing such a name for the blog is that it could have a knock on effect of revitalising his career (as you can see great things are planned for this blog). But I doubt that even a successful blog could help save Chesney.

After all only one of us can be the one and only!