I went to see We Are Together last week, a film about a children's choir in an orphanage in a South African township. It's an inspiring story, and very moving; the children are mostly AIDS orphans, and the film follows their progress as they overcome all sorts of difficulties, most of which would be unimaginable to Western children.
In the course of the film, Slindile, who turns out to be a wonderful singer, suffers the death of her older brother from AIDS whhich has already carried off her parents. You get to see her sorrow, resignation, but also incredible powers of endurance, as she eventually gets to New York, along with the others from the orphanage, to perform with Paul Simon and Alysha Keys.
It's a feel-good film and has been criticised for it, but I can't see that it's anything but inspirational. We are far too complacent about the little frustrations and hardships that come our way, and although there's not a lot we can do about global poverty and AIDS, its instructive to be reminded of out good fortune, and to know that we can, and must live more frugally and humbly.
Anyway, sermon over - it's an entertaining film, well put together. It was only on for a week in Bristol but the cinema was packed for the late-afternoon showing. Perhaps if the cinema chain had had a bit more faith more people would have seen it - it's the sort of word-of-mouth film that builds an audience a bit more slowly than distributers like, but can pack people in for weeks if they get the chance.
Tuesday 20 May 2008
Tuesday 6 May 2008
The Forsyte Saga
A friend has just lent me the boxed set of videos of the original 1967 BBC serialisation of the Forsyte Saga, and I've found myself completely hooked. Why? It's ancient telly, black and white, videotaped in cramped BBC studios. The hairstyles and costumes are antideluvian; a lot of work's gone into the costumes and set dressing, and I know that at the time it was considered an expensive production, but, by today's standards, the whole thing looks rickety and a bit makeshift. And then, there's the mid-60s hair and make-up, with the women looking like Chelsea dolly-birds in Victorian costume. Nearly everyone is clearly wearing an alarming wig - hairsprayed to death.
The concept of period authenticity was in its infancy in the mid-60s, but the Edwardian period was still a living memory to many, and there was an authenticity about the tone which seems remarkable these days. The actors knew how to speak Galsworthy's dialogue convincingly, which they don't today, so we now get lumbered with Edwardians speaking Estuary English in too may production. So the production may look pretty flakey, but it sounds brilliant, like a window on a lost world.
Anyway, I have to declare an interest - a few years ago I researched the serial as part of an academic thesis, so I know an awful lot about it, though I could only manage to get a video with the first 4 episodes so this is the first time I've been able to watch all 26 episodes.
I do remember watching it when it was first broadcast, as I was still a young teenager who was usually in on Sunday nights. I invariably had homework, which I always left until the last minute, and ended up doing it late on Sunday night, so watching The Forsyte Saga, in those long-ago pre-video days, was probably a good excuse for putting it off.
In spite of the clunkiness, then, it's compulsive viewing. The whole thing is basically a high-class soap opera, and in those days there wasn't any such thing so the novelty value was enormous. Each episode ended on a cliffhanger and the serial introduced compulsive viewing to the bulk of TV viewers. Soaps barely existed - Coronation Street and Z Cars had begun but this was different. Of course the original novel was a major blockbuster when it was published and there must have been many people still alive in 1967 who could remember its publication and knew the book well.
It was an astonishing world-wide success. I've seen documentation stored in the wonderful BBC Written Archive Centre which tell of it's extraordinary impact in, for example, both the US and Soviet Russia. Public events were postponed all over the world so that people could watch it, and audiences all over the world were enthralled.
It resurrected Kenneth More's career, which had slid downhill badly after his affair with Angela Douglas, many years younger, became public. His experience and charisma reminded audiences why he had been so popular and his presence was crucial to the success of the production. But it was Eric Porter's performance as Soames and Susan Hampshire as Fleur which captivated audiences.
Anyway, it still stands up, whereas the recent lavish ITV production a few years ago has sunk without trace. The 1967 production is now available on DVD and the reviews from punters on Amazon testify to its enduring quality. Old telly has become a cottage industry and I found a leaflet insert in my latest Radio Times which advertised tons of old series which can now be acquired in box sets. The old Forsyte Saga was listed, but not the new one - says it all....
The concept of period authenticity was in its infancy in the mid-60s, but the Edwardian period was still a living memory to many, and there was an authenticity about the tone which seems remarkable these days. The actors knew how to speak Galsworthy's dialogue convincingly, which they don't today, so we now get lumbered with Edwardians speaking Estuary English in too may production. So the production may look pretty flakey, but it sounds brilliant, like a window on a lost world.
Anyway, I have to declare an interest - a few years ago I researched the serial as part of an academic thesis, so I know an awful lot about it, though I could only manage to get a video with the first 4 episodes so this is the first time I've been able to watch all 26 episodes.
I do remember watching it when it was first broadcast, as I was still a young teenager who was usually in on Sunday nights. I invariably had homework, which I always left until the last minute, and ended up doing it late on Sunday night, so watching The Forsyte Saga, in those long-ago pre-video days, was probably a good excuse for putting it off.
In spite of the clunkiness, then, it's compulsive viewing. The whole thing is basically a high-class soap opera, and in those days there wasn't any such thing so the novelty value was enormous. Each episode ended on a cliffhanger and the serial introduced compulsive viewing to the bulk of TV viewers. Soaps barely existed - Coronation Street and Z Cars had begun but this was different. Of course the original novel was a major blockbuster when it was published and there must have been many people still alive in 1967 who could remember its publication and knew the book well.
It was an astonishing world-wide success. I've seen documentation stored in the wonderful BBC Written Archive Centre which tell of it's extraordinary impact in, for example, both the US and Soviet Russia. Public events were postponed all over the world so that people could watch it, and audiences all over the world were enthralled.
It resurrected Kenneth More's career, which had slid downhill badly after his affair with Angela Douglas, many years younger, became public. His experience and charisma reminded audiences why he had been so popular and his presence was crucial to the success of the production. But it was Eric Porter's performance as Soames and Susan Hampshire as Fleur which captivated audiences.
Anyway, it still stands up, whereas the recent lavish ITV production a few years ago has sunk without trace. The 1967 production is now available on DVD and the reviews from punters on Amazon testify to its enduring quality. Old telly has become a cottage industry and I found a leaflet insert in my latest Radio Times which advertised tons of old series which can now be acquired in box sets. The old Forsyte Saga was listed, but not the new one - says it all....
Thursday 1 May 2008
Ken Loach
Ken Loach is another British director (see Mike Leigh) who stimulates ambivalent feelings in me. Why? He's a national treasure, a living legend etc.etc., but I've sometimes found myself hating his films, for their schematic politics, predictability and unsympathetic characters. No doubt he would argue that this is because he sets out to challenge preconceptions and that this is uncomfortable for people, but the problem is that I don't find his films challenging, but predictable.
But we're talking about ambivalence, and there's a lot to appreciate in Loach's films. His methods - using untried actors, some of whom have gone on to greater things, as well as household names, and his resolute independence are admirable. And this is the trouble - one admires Loach's films, but finds it hard to love them. I'm sure he would say he doesn't want to be loved, that's not what he does, but I'm thinking of films you want to see over and over again, because they're just so damn good, endlessly stimulating, leaving you wanting more. Loach's films, however, interesting and politically challenging, don't do this. Again, I'm sure that's not his intention, but it means I don't automatically rush out to go and see his films at the cinema, as I would, say, a Scorsese film.
I did go and see The Wind That Shakes the Barley; that was good, and certainly Loach's films have become more nuanced in recent years. There's always an overriding theme, though, that ordinary people are endlessly betrayed by those in power and always will be. I find there's a deep pessimism at the heart of Loach's films, even when there's an ostensible message of hope. Betrayal is inevitable.
This was most strongly expressed in Land and Freedom. It was my most recent rental from Amazon - I'd never seen it, and had always wanted to, so decided that it was about time I caught up with it. It was the first (I think) of Loach's ventures into history, as he decided to address the Spanish Civil War. This is pretty much virgin territory for filmmakers, scandalously, really, as it's a fascinating subject, full of possibilities. Perhaps it's because it's not a straightforwardly simple situation, the various factions, and, of course, there are large helpings of betrayal.
George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is the only book I can think of by someone who was actually there, and, Loach's film has prompted me to revisit it, so I'll be catching up on it soon, digging out my old, faded, Penguin copy. Orwell joined the POUM, the anarchist grouping who were shafted by the Communists, and Land and Freedom focuses on a band of POUM members. They're a feisty bunch, and there's an American fighting with them, and guess what? He's the one who argues that they need to join up with the Communists, that they're finished, and he does just that. You can see it all coming, and it's inevitable that it's an American who does it, not the noble working-class Liverpudlian, played by Ian Harte, whose story is at the heart of the film. The POUM members are passionate, and are a mixed bag of firebrands and more sober souls, but their hearts are in the right place. Of course, the Communist s, funded by Stalinist Russia, overwhelmed any outbursts of individuality in the Civil War, and they're a doomed little band of brothers. All is lost, but they go down nobly. I enjoyed it, but a Loach film is essentially a cerebral experience.
It's left me feeling that I must revisit his earlier stuff, but what I really want to see is his famous Days of Hope TV serial, firat broadcast in the late 1970s. I missed it when it was on, and, although it was celebrated at the time, it was extremely controversial, and has since sunk without trace. A DVD special edition is long overdue - come on BFI!
But we're talking about ambivalence, and there's a lot to appreciate in Loach's films. His methods - using untried actors, some of whom have gone on to greater things, as well as household names, and his resolute independence are admirable. And this is the trouble - one admires Loach's films, but finds it hard to love them. I'm sure he would say he doesn't want to be loved, that's not what he does, but I'm thinking of films you want to see over and over again, because they're just so damn good, endlessly stimulating, leaving you wanting more. Loach's films, however, interesting and politically challenging, don't do this. Again, I'm sure that's not his intention, but it means I don't automatically rush out to go and see his films at the cinema, as I would, say, a Scorsese film.
I did go and see The Wind That Shakes the Barley; that was good, and certainly Loach's films have become more nuanced in recent years. There's always an overriding theme, though, that ordinary people are endlessly betrayed by those in power and always will be. I find there's a deep pessimism at the heart of Loach's films, even when there's an ostensible message of hope. Betrayal is inevitable.
This was most strongly expressed in Land and Freedom. It was my most recent rental from Amazon - I'd never seen it, and had always wanted to, so decided that it was about time I caught up with it. It was the first (I think) of Loach's ventures into history, as he decided to address the Spanish Civil War. This is pretty much virgin territory for filmmakers, scandalously, really, as it's a fascinating subject, full of possibilities. Perhaps it's because it's not a straightforwardly simple situation, the various factions, and, of course, there are large helpings of betrayal.
George Orwell's Homage to Catalonia is the only book I can think of by someone who was actually there, and, Loach's film has prompted me to revisit it, so I'll be catching up on it soon, digging out my old, faded, Penguin copy. Orwell joined the POUM, the anarchist grouping who were shafted by the Communists, and Land and Freedom focuses on a band of POUM members. They're a feisty bunch, and there's an American fighting with them, and guess what? He's the one who argues that they need to join up with the Communists, that they're finished, and he does just that. You can see it all coming, and it's inevitable that it's an American who does it, not the noble working-class Liverpudlian, played by Ian Harte, whose story is at the heart of the film. The POUM members are passionate, and are a mixed bag of firebrands and more sober souls, but their hearts are in the right place. Of course, the Communist s, funded by Stalinist Russia, overwhelmed any outbursts of individuality in the Civil War, and they're a doomed little band of brothers. All is lost, but they go down nobly. I enjoyed it, but a Loach film is essentially a cerebral experience.
It's left me feeling that I must revisit his earlier stuff, but what I really want to see is his famous Days of Hope TV serial, firat broadcast in the late 1970s. I missed it when it was on, and, although it was celebrated at the time, it was extremely controversial, and has since sunk without trace. A DVD special edition is long overdue - come on BFI!
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)