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.