Paradise Now

On Monday in between our tutorials and the Mahara induction in the afternoon, Sam and I were browsing through the DVDs in the library. Sam picked up the film Paradise Now and suggested I should take it out so I did. Later on I got a text from Sam saying I had left the DVD in his bag then a few hours later got another text saying he enjoyed the film. So on Tuesday night I decided I would sit down and watch it before I ran out of time.

I found that I really enjoyed it for the most part. The story centres around two Palestinian friends, Said and Khaled, who are recruited to go on a suicide bombing mission in Tel Aviv. It is made clear throughout that they are committed to the cause of freeing Palestine from Israeli occupation and they believe they have been chosen by God for this mission. A lot of very important and poignant themes were addressed in the film I think and it was a very interesting, engaging and often sad story.

One of the most important messages conveyed in the film I felt was the age old moral that two wrongs don't make a right. Or as Ghandi said "An eye for an eye makes the whole world blind." The film does reasonably well I think in portraying what motivates seemingly ordinary young men to want to commit such radical actions. At the start of the story I think the writers have been very deliberate to include scenes like Said (the main character) playing with his young brother or engaging in what we would view as a very similar lifestyle to our own. The major difference of course is their home is situated in the middle of a war zone and many of the luxuries that we take for granted are not there - other than that, it is very easy to relate to the family. This in turn helps to make the characters much more engaging. We don't specifically view anyone as "goodies" or "baddies" which helps the audience to understand that those involved are people from backgrounds not dissimilar to our own. There are no real references to why the men feel so strongly for their cause in the film and the ordinary viewer has no reason to have any feelings of antipathy towards the Israeli occupation. The men discuss it often, however, and the scene near the start where they are recording the propaganda video shows clearly why they are prepared to commit these actions and the cause they are prepared to sacrifice their own lives to advance.

There is also a love interest with Said and a woman, Suha, he met while working as a mechanic. This turns out to be one of the most pivotal factors in the film, I think, that ultimately influences the decisions of both men. One of the mantras that is repeated a couple of times by Said's friend, Khaled, is that living in inferiority and occupation is far worse than death. This further helps us to understand the motivations of the men. One of the most powerful scenes in the film for me is when Khaled is remonstrating with Suha in the car and, although we don't realise it at the time, this forms a major turning point in the film. Suha, who is aware of what Said and Khaled are planning to do, is desperately trying to dissuade Khaled but of course, like many like-minded young men he is resolute in his belief that this suicide mission will somehow help their cause of freedom. Suha responds passionately to this in what is one of my favourite lines in the film, which I managed to find on the IMDb site:

"And what about us? The ones who remain? Will we win that way? Don't you see that what you're doing is destroying us? And that you give Israel an excuse to carry on?"

Although she is clearly in support of freedom for the Palestinian people, she completely renounces suicide bombing as a means of achieving that. I think this is one of the most important messages in the whole film that by committing these actions, they are only giving Israel an excuse to continue their occupation and are in actual fact pushing their cause for freedom further out of reach.

All in all I found the film an enjoyable watch. It has great drama and the plot and characters are very engaging. The story is often very gripping and there are a number of plot twists. At times it could be very sad and there were many poignant moments throughout as well. The final shot of the scene literally had me on the edge of my seat but I won't spoil it because I would recommend the film to anyone.

Friday 11 December

First of all today, we had to attend a short meeting in the Athaneum Theatre about the new project that we will be doing with TPA when we come back after the new year. This basically involved having a quick read of the project briefing paper type thing that John Wilkie handed out so we could see what we would be involved in. We also learned who from the TPA course we will be pairing up with on Monday to share their expertise about Mahara. After a quick wave to our respective partners, we were free to go.

At 12:30, though, instead of having our standard two film Friday screenings, we had the opportunity to watch 8 short films that had been made by the 4th years and 2nd years over their time on the course. This turned out to be a great experience, it was really enjoyable to watch all the different films and compare how good they were in terms of writing and composition as well as the technical aspects. It was strange to think that a few of the films that had been made by the current 2nd years were actually made in the February of this year, which meant they had only just started their term 2 of first year. That also means that the premises for short films that we will be submitting to Richard in the next few days could potentially be short film material to be used later in the year, how exciting! I genuinely enjoyed the experience of watching these films collectively. It gave us an opportunity to see that type of thing that we will be working to, and it also made me just want to go out and start getting ideas together to make projects. My favourite film would have to be the 4th year production, Slag, which was about a young girl who finds herself unwillingly transported into a life of tabloid fame. It was very well conceived overall and the amount of hearty laughs that it got from all of us in the lecture theatre indicated how truly funny and well made it was.

After all this furoure that the short films created within the three year groups we all departed for a break, some people lucky enough to be going to the academy panto. For us first years, however, it was time for us to come back to the Fyfe Lecture Theatre at half 2 to watch The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari, a silent German film from 1920. It was an interesting watch. Not necessarily an enjoyable watch and probably not something that I would watch for sheer entertainment. However, it was quite interesting to see that, although I don't know a great deal about the context in which it was released, it was surely one of the first and most influential films to contain such dark and horror type themes. As we discussed afterwards, the film was very gothic in style which helped to portray its dark plot and characters. It wasn't always the easiest of plots to follow at times, I felt, but when we talked about it afterwards and how the narrator was actually insane things became clearer. This also helped to explain the crazy set design.

As for my favourite Christmas film, I would have to go for Home Alone 2. It's one of the few films I know where I think the sequel is better than the original. Maybe it's just because I saw the second one first but I've just always like it better and found it much more exciting. It's a great Christmas movie without being outwardly about Christmas itself. Although you always find it on at this type of year and I'm not complaining because it's one of those films you can watch pretty much every year at the same time and it will evoke the same great feelings from you every time.

Coronation Street

Coronation Street. Where to start?

I was quite surprised in class the other day to find out that quite a few people had never even seen an episode of the soap. Expectedly most people are not avid viewers of Coronation Street but it's one of those shows that it's pretty difficult not to have seen. I've seen a fair few episodes in my day, mainly due to the fact that my mum used to watch it quite regularly. I haven't seen it for quite a while now though, probably due to the advent of programmes like CSI and NCIS which have knocked Corrie from my living room TV screen.

So I sat down tonight and watched the first episode of Monday night's double bill. All in all when you actually look at the 22 minute episode, nothing in particular happened. A small confrontation with Peter Barlow and Ken, a little meeting between Kevin and Molly who are having an affair and a bit of planning for the Christmas panto in the Rovers Return. Not much happened at all when you examine it like that but nevertheless it gradually progressed the storyline piece by piece.

I think, however, that people enjoy shows like this for a number of different reasons. Firstly, it's entertaining in the fact that it is a comfort to people. People enjoy watching other people's lives and Coronation Street allows the audience to temporarily forget the stresses of their own lives and immerse themselves in other people's. It's also great to watch because it shows in quite a realistic way that there are other people out there just like ourselves who have the same problems etc. in life. Further to that, it can also remind us how good our lives are or how normal we are compared to all these people who have, on average, about three illicit affairs every few months. It's great for gossip. There's always something happening to hook the viewer to watch the next episode and keep watching on a regular basis to see how the story pans out. Another reason I think many watch it is due to tradition. It's a generation thing quite often I think. People watch it if their mums watch it and it gets passed down through the ages. Clearly though, people enjoyed watching the trials and tribulations of life for the characters on the street in December 1960 and they still enjoy watching in December 2009.

In the episode I watched, I know we discussed it in class the other day, but I was quite surprised that the main storyline was still Kevin's affair with Molly. The last time I watched the show I now remember was during the summer when this affair was just kicking off. And it's still the main hook for the viewers apparently! Throughout the episode as I said not a great deal happened but all the scenes I noticed contained very realistic situations and confrontations which could easily arise in real life and that many can relate to. For example, the small plot of some new guy who must have just come out of prison who is going to join the army. Obviously, the majority of the audience won't have sons who are ex-prisoners but many people are affected by young men joining the army and the appeal for this is shown when the mother(?) who works in Roy's café says she will be very worried and unhappy when he goes to Afghanistan. I also noticed in the episode they gave a couple of lines to Sophie Webster and some other young guy, possibly just to appeal to the younger audience. There is also a noticeable part for the male audience when Dev is in the bar talking to Steve about his new mistress who is beautiful and loves golf and what could be a better relationship. One thing I did notice was that at the end of the first episode on a Monday night there is usually a strong hook or cliffhanger type situation that entices the audience to come back at half past eight and watch the second part. This wasn't very strong in the episode I watched and only consisted of a domestic between Deidre and Ken about the opening of the new bar and Ken's interference in it - nothing that really made me want to rush and watch the next episode.

Anyway, overall I actually don't mind Coronation Street at all. Is the acting perfect? Not at all. Are all the plots and characters 100% believable? No they're not. But Coronation Street will have a place for years to come I think because it is human nature to like watching such programmes. I'm not a regular viewer but if I'm being completely honest if I was sitting watching telly myself and there was nothing else I wanted to watch, I would unashamedly settle for an episode on the famous street - as the picture says: REAL MEN WATCH CORONATION STREET!

Week 10

Okay I suppose I had better do a reflective blog. I've still not done one and I know a big part of the whole blogging assessment thingy is reflection on what has been learned. So tonight after Kelsey put the fear in me by reminding me we have a blog tutorial with Andy coming up, I have decided to do a reflective blog on this week.

Monday morning started off with Richard's screenwriting class. We had all been anxiously/eagerly/nervously/excitedly waiting for this class since last week Richard announced that the homework was that we had to come up with 2 of our deepest secrets and write them on postcards to be read out anonymously in class. We also had to come up with three beliefs we hold about the world. So, at 9:30 we all arrived good and sharp to get this scary process underway. I found it a very strange process listening to everyone's different secrets. It was quite strange and even nerve racking at points when the post-secrets were being read.

Once it was over, it was quite a relief. It felt really strange and open - it was a really enlightening experience but not a comfortable one at all. After this, we went round the room to allow everyone a chance to express one of their beliefs one at a time and if anyone disagreed with a point they were to say so right away. This obviously led to a lot of strong and interesting debate from a lot of the diverse beliefs in the group. I found this to be really interesting a quite an engaging and worthwhile experience. It allowed everyone to kind of lay some of their strong beliefs down on the table for all to see and the debates that followed some of the more controversial ones were also very interesting.

Tuesday morning started bright and early for me - but nobody else, sadly. When I got Gav's e mail about the formative assessment that was taking place it said the assessment would be from 9:30 till 16:30 however me being an eejit I didn't realise we could basically pick and choose when we wanted to come in because it was an open assessment. So at half nine I walked in to an empty, pitch black DTU and it was then that I realised...

Undeterred by this I thought I may as well start the assessment and try to get it done as quickly as I could. Michael Maxwell then came in for ages trying to edit some short film but his computer kept crashing. After ages of trying to complete the assessment, I eventually got it done and Sam, Murray and I went to see Nativity the new Christmas film.

On Wednesday we had no classes so I took the chance to have a nice long lie. It was a good day though, as I went ice skating with the girlfriend at George Square then a few of us had a DFTV cajun chicken dinner at the halls. After that, we all went back up to George Square to watch the Christmas movie Elf on the big screen outside in the freezing cold.

On Thursday we had two classes with Andy: the history of cinema class in the morning and TV in the afternoon. The cinema one turned out to be more of a history lesson than anything else which I quite enjoyed for some reason, hearing about old Glasgow and the like. The TV class was also pretty cool as we learned about gameshows and then had the opportunity to come up with our own ideas, our one being Jeremy Kyle meets Get Your Own Back.

We only had one screening this Friday: a Buster Keaton movie called Sherlock, Jr. This turned out to be quite entertaining and funny I found, even though it was only 45 minutes long. It was also interesting to compare this with the films of Charlie Chaplin from the previous two weeks' screenings. Technically speaking, I think Keaton's films were definitely more skilled and a lot of the effects in this movie I genuinely found myself asking how he managed to do it, especially as Keaton performed the majorirty of his own stunts. I still really like the Chaplin films as well, though, and feel that he is probably a more engaging actor who seems to have a better grip of the emotions of the audience. But I'm not going to decide who I like better between the two, I think it's perfectly acceptable to like them both and appreciate each in their own way.

The Godfather

"I'll make him an offer he can't refuse."

Probably one of the most recognisable lines in the history of cinema and even if you don't know much about The Godfather films at all, everyone knows what film this is from.

When we were told that we would be watching The Godfather as one of our Friday screenings I was fairly excited about it: I hadn't heard a great deal about the actual storyline of the film but knew it was one of the all-time classics that everyone must see at some point in their lives. And by the end of the three hours I understood why it was such a revered film classic.

Although I think quite a few of the girls in the class enjoyed the film, it could probably be described without being sexist as a "guy film". And although the prospect of killing people for "purely business" purposes is completely alien and sinister to us, there is without a doubt something extremely cool about the Corleone family business.

The story gripped me throughout and there was never really a dull moment as they say. One of the finest scenes in the whole movie for me is the sequence towards the end when Michael Corleone is acting as the godfather for his nephew's baptism. The sequence is split between the scene of Corleone in the church and the separate scenes where Corleone gangsters are assassinating the heads of the other Mafia families across the city. The scenes are skillfully juxtaposed with the audio for the baptism kept throughout with the priest reciting prayers in Latin and the ominous organ music whilst simultaneously we see the Corleone mob men assembling their murder weapons. The priest then turns to Michael in order for him to renew his vows. All the while the camera is going between the church ceremony and the images of the assassins. Then, at what I think is the most powerful moment in the sequence the priest asks Michael "Do you renounce Satan" and the camera then switches to the gangsters opening fire on the rival gang leaders.

There are many more great scenes of skillful filming and classic cinema within the film but since we were asked to keep this blog fairly short I'll save them for another time. In fact, after watching The Godfather: Part 1 that Friday I was forced to go and borrow the trilogy from the library but only had time to watch the Part 2. I've put the boxset on my Santa list, however, so if you're lucky you'll get some more Corleone blogs after Christmas time so... I'll be back...no that's another film altogether.

The Men Who Stare At Goats

After an eventful Monday of screenwriting in the morning and Andy's new cinema class in the afternoon, not to mention being mugged for two bits of Chinese chicken during the lunch break, some people decided to round off the day by going to the cinema. The popular choice was the new feature 2012 that everyone is desperate to see "just for the effects" or "to see what it's all about" or perhaps in case there is some truth in the notion that apocalypse is due in the next three years.

However, having already seen this film the previous day, I along with Samuel Ferguson decided to go and see another movie. We decided that the new Michael Caine film, Harry Brown, would be our preferred choice but when we looked at the film times in the Renfrew Street Cineworld it was not on for a while so, not wishing to be defeated, headed for the other Cineworld in Parkhead. Here, we eventually made the decision to see The Men Who Stare At Goats, a new "comedy" starring Ewan McGregor, George Clooney and Kevin Spacey.

Given the fact that we'd had quite an analytical screenwriting class this very morning it probably helped me to think more critically about this film. Firstly, all films are meant to have a story - obvious, I suppose. Second, all comedy films are supposed to be funny, amusing, laughable etc. So for a movie that exhibits itself as a comedy film I expected it to have both a good story and a lot of funny parts. Sadly, however, I found it didn't really fulfill either of those roles particularly well.

In screenwriting today, we watched a couple of short films and had to then answer a series of questions about the storyline and other things. These included questions about the "inciting incident", the part in the exposition of a film that triggers the audience's interest and acts as a kind of "hook" for them to watch the rest of the film. Other questions included what the main character's goal is in the story, their motives, themes and morals present and general strengths and weaknesses of the films. So throughout The Men Who Stare At Goats I think I was subconsciously trying to answer some of these questions until I got bored of the movie and began to consciously answer them.

So back to the thing about films having a story. It's pretty much a requirement, and it's something the audience definitely want. Did The Men Who Stare At Goats have one? Not that I can think of. The film more or less just went on and on without any particular point or character journey. It wasn't clear at all what the two central characters' goal was or what they were trying to achieve. And on top of all that it just wasn't funny. It's quite painful when watching a film or TV programme where you know what the funny bits are meant to be but when they are executed on screen - even if it is by the likes of George Clooney et al - they are simply not funny. Throughout the entire movie I think I "laughed" about twice - and even then it was only one of those tiny wee laughs where the most noise you make is a short exhale through the nose. Then, at probably about three quarters of the way through, I found myself doing what we discussed today with Andy in class, in fact, I think I could relate to his own way of telling if he was bored with a film: I found myself looking at the fire escape and realised my mind had completely wandered away, I had effectively "dropped out" of the story and stopped believing in it. Once you hit that stage it's almost impossible for the movie makers to get your interest back and that's what happened to me.

Relating back to the questions posed by Richard in screenwriting class, I would say that I found it difficult to see where the inciting incident was. He left his wife, then decided to go to Iraq to prove himself, that's the only part I can really think of. After that it just seemed like a whole array of unconnected ideas with vague comical references in each of these scenes. As for the main character's motives and goals, as I've already said it was pretty unclear to me, throughout, what their overall objective was. And overall strengths and weaknesses well...it didn't have much of a story in my opinion, it wasn't funny and it was supposed to be a comedy. Strengths include the fact that out of the six people who were in the cinema, only one person left before the film had finished.

Zombieland

I never thought I would be blogging about this. In fact, I never thought I would even be going to see it at all at the cinema, however, one day when myself and some others from the course decided to go and watch a movie the only option that appeared most convenient, that we hadn't seen before or didn't think looked rubbish was Zombieland.

The very title reeks to me of a really badly made movie, full of pointless gore, bereft of any real plot and designed largely for 19-year-old weirdos and zombie lovers. However, after watching this movie I was in fact quite surprised by how I felt about it. If I'm being completely honest I actually quite enjoyed it.

At the start, it was very gory and zombie-ish and I found myself thinking "this really isn't my type of film, it's just going to be zombies jumping out and eating people the whole time without any specific point or story." However, after the initial half hour or so, when it was clear that the USA had been taken over by living corpses and the amount of zombies jumping out and eating people was toned down a bit, I found the story to be quite funny and engaging. Films like this are obviously not meant to have a serious nature and aren't designed to be particularly thought provoking but I still found it entertaining.

Although zombies aren't exactly my idea of great entertainment, when they decided to calm down on the blood and gore scenes the story was quite entertaining. There were a lot of funny parts as well and it was quite an enjoyable journey to follow the two very different characters of the protagonist Columbus and crazy cowboy type guy, Tallahassee. The diverse characters and the amusing situations that seem to arise from a zombie apocalypse did make for an enjoyable movie with many funny scenes.

Zombies, lots and lots of guns, the love interest of a geeky guy and a hot girl and plenty of gore: clearly aimed at the specific demographic of predominantly male, American youths but overall, for what it was, I quite enjoyed Zombieland, however much I expected not to like it.

TV on Friday

Since moving to halls, I have hardly watched any TV at all - probably not the best idea when studying Digital Film and Televsision. However when I came home on Friday night I did watch a fair bit of telly to compensate. With Andy's homework from during the week lingering in mind, I duly made a quick note of the programmes I watched that night so I could later blog.

Normally I don't actually watch a great amount of TV even when I am home, it's normally on but a lot of the time it's not under my control. However on Friday, after The One Show finished, I caught a glimpse of the schedule for the rest of the night on BBC One and identified two back to back programmes that I wanted to watch: Have I got news for you and The Armstrong and Miller Show.

So I successfully booked my slot right away with the higher authorities and at 9 o'clock, made sure that the TV was switched to BBC One so we could watch the satirical panel show. The presenter that night was Miranda Hart with special guests Andrew Neil and Mark Steel. The show basically followed the same formula as it has for years but of course still made me laugh because it has the ability to be original and funny every week due to ever changing current affairs. I watched the show because it is usually dependable for a good laugh and it fulfilled that role for me on Friday night. Witty humour from the likes of Ian Hislop and Paul Merton who are pretty amusing yet very clever characters, neither afraid to rip the mince out of any political situation is always guaranteed to make a laugh.

After Have I Got News For You the new series of the sketch show, The Armstrong and Miller Show came on. For some reason, I always like to watch sketch shows like this. The Mitchell and Webb shows, for example, I often find myself watching. A lot of the time they aren't even particularly funny in my opinion and although you often get some laughs from their shows, some sketches leave you wondering how they were allowed to even broadcast it. Even the likes of Chewin' the fat and The Karen Dunbar Show had a certain appeal when they were out. I enjoyed Chewin' the fat because it seemed funnier because of its originality and Scottishness. Fair enough, I may be stretching it to say that The Karen Dunbar Show was quality television but you get the idea.

However, back to The Armstrong and Miller Show: I found that this followed much the same formula as the other sketch shows. They had some really funny clips, some the sort of "fan favourites" that they kind of know will get the audience laughing. At the same time other clips seemed to go on for a while and were just plainly not very funny. There is something about a sketch show however, that makes you not want to stop watching. I think it is the knowledge that if you changed the channel there could be a really funny clip about to come on so you hold on right till the end of the show in anticipation for this sketch which often never even comes. I still enjoy sketch shows, though, and feel many of them do have great comedy value and potential and are often very well written, so long as they are not totally off the wall.

The final programme I watched on Friday night was a chance encounter on Channel 4 of Bill Bailey's standup comedy act, Tinseltown. I had previously seen brief clips of Bailey doing standup on YouTube but never actually taken time to watch a whole show so thought I would give it a try and just go to bed if it wasn't up to much. His Wembley performance turned out to be very funny and original, I thought. He didn't simply tell jokes or stories but made music a large part of his act. I found the way he incorporated playing songs on the keyboard and guitar whilst also making it funny for the audience to be very original. His whole act was very unique and clever and I ended up watching the whole thing and enjoying it all.

Overall, it turned out to be a pretty good night of television which is often quite unusual for me to find. Usually, I drift in and out of programmes but found myself pretty much rooted to the TV for much of Friday night.

The Shawshank Redemption

Although I don't have particularly much to say about it, I strongly feel that I should blog about The Shawshank Redemption. I didn't really know what to expect from this film. Before I watched it, I knew very little about it other than it's set in a prison and it is largely acclaimed to be one of the best movies ever made. At a couple of different stages throughout the film, I did a little test on myself that I've started to do to gauge how much I'm enjoying a film. That is, if someone came in and just switched off the movie and told us to leave, how much would this bother me.

So at a few points during The Shawshank Redemption, I imagined Andy coming back into the room, turning off the screen and telling us just to go home and realised I wouldn't have been too chuffed. Mainly down to the fact that the story was so riveting. 

Throughout the entire film there really wasn't a moment where I was bored watching. The story had so many different strands going on which all linked perfectly with each other. Furthermore, I think the film was made more engaging and entertaining by the skillful characterisation of all the main characters. All the people in the story I found were very believable and this made it easy to relate to the central characters of Dufresne and Red. The adverse treatment that the prisoners were subjected to from the warders and others further helped the audience to sympathise with the prisoners and feel antipathy towards the prison establishment. The clear conflict between the authorities and the inmates changed to a different dynamic, however, when Dufresne realised the potential benefit of helping the warders et al with their financial issues in return for better treatment and privileges.

In The Shawshank Redemption there are many important themes that come through at different points but for me, none are as prominent as the theme of Justice. Through a combination of the contrasting characters in the film and the use of plot, I think this theme is conveyed excellently. Throughout, Dufresne insists his innocence but is brushed away by Red because "every man in Shawshank is innocent." However, the audience is aware of Dufresne's innocence throughout which makes the feeling of injustice so strong throughout the whole film. One of the factors, therefore, that I think makes the film so fantastic and triumphant is that all the different strands of sadness and injustice that occur throughout are eventually put right. 

The final half hour or so of the film I found particularly moving. When the audience learns of Dufresne's escape the mood becomes one of great triumph for the first time in the film. I felt a sense of elation that someone in the film had at last achieved a victory over the prison authorities. The remainder of the final half hour consists of very fitting and appropriate denouement which is very sad I think but also joyful at the same time as Red is finally given his parole and is reunited once again with Dufresne. Although the film can feel very hopeless and isolated for much of the time, it is a "happy ending" in which justice is finally allowed to prevail. I enjoyed this film greatly and it was one of those films where you don't want to leave the people in the story to go up and have lunch in the RSAMD café. It is very easy to see why The Shawshank Redemption is consistently in the top ten list of best movies and is largely considered to be one of the best pieces of cinema ever made. 

The Soloist

On Monday night a group of us went to see the film The Soloist at Cineworld. It was fairly busy when we arrived and, completely caught up in the excitement of using my new Unlimited Card for the first time, I didn't even bother to ask what film we were seeing as I followed the rest into the screen.

The Soloist turned out to be a very moving film, I found. Although I can't comment in great detail about the technical aspects at the moment, I did find the cinematography to be very skillful. Some of the camera shots used were very effective in portraying the intense emotions of certain scenes, for example, when the central character of Nathaniel Ayers plays his cello for the first time again after so many years of living on the street.

There were many key themes present in the film which I also found to be very powerful. Most importantly I think, the film's main purpose was to expose the gross injustices that exist in modern society. It was quite apt, therefore, to have the setting for the film in a city that is renowned world-over for glamour, fame, wealth and prosperity - Los Angeles. This made the contrast between the wealthy and the destitute much more prominent. Furthermore, certain scenes placed together helps to highlight this: for example, a particular scene contains images of a high-flying LA Times conference with people in tuxedos and the like which is immediately followed by a scene depicting the poor in one of the city's massive homeless slum areas. 

However, in addition to simply exposing the many injustices in modern society, I think The Soloist also attempts to challenge the core values of that society. Looking beyond the obvious contrast between the homeless people and the wealthy, I feel there is also a more subtle message trying to be conveyed. The largely faceless wealthy people in the film to me represent the materialistic values of society while the homeless seem to represent the basic values of human beings. The wealthy allow their lives to be dominated by flashy technology and the prospect of riches and material possessions. The poor and homeless people, however, have much lower expectations of life and therefore their perceptions of life and their values are entirely different I think. For example, there are many instances when the audience witness brief displays of what life is like for various minor characters in the homeless shelter. Although many are handicapped, many appear to have mental and physical deformities, most have very little possessions it is clear that they are not downcast; they have not given up hope and are not bitter or resentful about their lives or their grim surroundings.

Another point I feel needs to be mentioned is the presence of music throughout the film. Obviously the music of Beethoven features heavily as it is strongly linked to the plot. This worked well I feel because it could be used as effectively as any other screen music to create moments of tension or illustrate joyous or angry moments with the characters. Moreover, I think the use of music within the story was also an important factor which contributed to the theme of materialist values versus basic human values. I may be talking mince here but just go with it: the music is clearly a symbol for the arts and creativity which represents the values held by homeless people. In contrast to this, however, the people whose main interest in life is to earn money and lead a materialistic lifestyle do not care about the beauty of music or the arts or creativity. They may of course listen to music, go to the theatre and art galleries or whatever else but the point is that they do not appreciate the true beauty of the creative world as they are their lives revolve around the prospect of material possessions and making money.

One final point I would like to mention is the stage in the film that really hit the message home to me and made me think "wow". The final shot of The Soloist depicts the people in the homeless village in slow motion with beautiful and, in a way, triumphant and joyous music in the background. Between this the screen goes black and words appear telling that there are over 90,000 homeless people in Los Angeles and that the film was based on a true story. I truly found this a very powerful scene and probably the most poignant and engaging for me in the whole film. 

Clearly then, I feel The Soloist is a very interesting and moving film that helps to address many important issues in life and expose the harsh realities of homelessness and such things while also digging deeper into the human psyche to question the audience and their values in life.

The Invention of Lying

After seeing adverts for the film plastered over double decker buses and billboards all over the country, I decided to go and see the Ricky Gervais film, "The Invention of Lying". First and foremost, I expected it to be an amusing watch because of course Ricky Gervais is a funny guy and I've recently been enjoying the first series of his television sitcom "Extras" on DVD. 

However, I was largley quite disappointed with the movie as a whole. Although there were clearly funny parts, they seemed to be concentrated to the start and were not consistent throughout. If I had to count the number of times that I laughed properly during the film it would be a lot less than I was expecting. I feel that Gervais seemed to think that the whole idea of a world where people can only tell the truth was enough to sustain the comedy element throughout when in fact the concept got old within the first ten minutes. 

The plot seemed somewhat disjointed also, and it wasn't clear of the direction that the story was taking on many occasions. There seemed to be different blocks of plot that didn't always fit together smoothly. Clearly, however, there was an important message contained, that people should not judge others by their appearance and instead judge them for their personality and actions. In fact there were some quite emotional moments in the film, which proved that whilst wanting to make a comedy, Gervais was also interested in conveying a deeper message to the audience. Unfortunately, I feel that he got lost somewhere in between and should have concentrated harder on one or the other instead of trying to do both. Overall, I didn't dislike the film but felt it could have been much more engaging, should have been much funnier and generally was not as enjoyable as I was expecting. Sorry Ricky.