Get Low

On the Friday night, a few of us went to see Get Low at Cineworld. The place was packed as this was a special screening where the director, Aaron Schneider was doing a question and answer session afterwards.

Set in 1930s Tennessee, the film tells the story of a village hermit, Felix Bush, and his struggle with his past. The people of the town have concocted many stories about Bush and vicious rumours have circulated the town for years. However one day Bush learns about how everyone in the town seems to know a different story about him and he is eager to hear them. So he decides to arrange his own funeral and invite everyone from the town who knows a story to come along and tell it. The town's fast sinking funeral parlour business is only too happy to oblige when Bush comes in with a large wad of money demanding his own funeral party.

If I'm honest I really enjoyed the film from start to finish. I think you actually know after a few minutes of watching a film if it's any good or not and how much you're going to invest yourself in the story and its characters. Well right from the start of Get Low I was hooked. The cinematography and style of the shots were really crisp and beautiful right from the start. The story unfolds gradually and we begin to learn more about the hermit character and what he is apparently hiding. There is also a great cast which helps to really bring the film alive with Bill Murray and Robert Duvall playing leading roles.

The film was also funny as well as it was moving. And although it deals with deep themes of love and guilt it never got too heavy with moments of comic relief made easy with Billy Murray's performance. Overall, I found the story greatly moving especially at the climax which is more about learning about what happened years ago than it is a new event. It felt like a proper cinema experience with everyone sitting going through the emotions of the film at the same time. And when it was over it was a really good experience as well to hear the director talk about the making of the film from what it was like directing big stars to how he had to edit the whole thing himself in a couple of months using Final Cut Pro because they had literally run out of money. I really hope a company in Britain buys the film so that it can be released over here because, in my opinion, it was a lot better than most of the junk released every month at Cineworld and it deserves to be shown worldwide.

Discomfort Zone - International Shorts

Another highlight of the film festival was getting to see four international short films in the compilation, Discomfort Zone.

Birthday

This was an interesting short film. Birthday was excellently shot and I think the cinematography was the most notable thing about it. The film consisted largely of close-ups of children eating pieces of chicken at a dinner table while a man watches over them. They then all get presents given to them which appear to be old and dirty. It is only in the final very shocking shot that we realise the whole film has been taking place in a huge dump with rubbish flying everywhere and large trucks surrounding them. This was deliberately shocking as the rest of the film is quite light and cheerful due to the music. There were different interpretations of what this ending meant. Sam thought that the massive landfill site was symbolic of how much waste there is today in the world, as they are still able to eat and receive presents of items which are supposed to now be useless.

Incident By A Bank

I liked this short film. It tells the story of a true incident which happened in a European city when men attempt to rob a bank. The most interesting part of this film for me was that the entire film was shot from one camera position in one take. This made the film quite different as we are always used to the camera cutting away to close ups or different angles and you were always waiting on this. Instead, the camera simply zoomed into different bits of the action and panned with different characters. This must have taken a lot of work to get the timing and coordination of every part right. The film was also quite funny at parts when it wasn't even meant to be explicitly funny I don't think. Overall, I thought this was a good short film with a clear narrative and it challenged the conventions of cinematography.

Out In That Deep Blue Sea

This film was one of the least popular among the class I think, but I'm one of the only people I think who quite liked it. The film focuses on a middle-aged American man who seems to be losing control in his life. His daughter is at the age where she wants to leave home and he is doing his best to dissuade her as she has nowhere to go but this only increases her will to rebel. In his work life, things seem to be piling up and causing a great deal of stress. His health is not as is should be and he is having to work on a fitness regime to lose weight. Then at a dinner party in his house, everything seems to be getting too much and he has to go upstairs to lie down while his guests and family are worried. The final shot of the film shows the protagonist trying to put a piece of thread through a sewing needle which symbolised to me the strengh of his willpower and his determination not to give up and try to get his life back on track. At the end he succeeds in getting the thread through, which is like him starting a fresh chapter in his life.

Teleglobal Dreamin'

This was quite an odd short film when I look back on it and I don't really know what to make of it. The story is set in the Philippines and follows an American man who is some sort of boss and comes to visit a call centre. There are a couple of funny moments when he is mistaken for the actor Brandon Frasier. Most of the film tells a simple of story of the man being shown around the local attractions, he is taken to a cockfight for example. But then on their way out of town their vehicle is ambushed by masked gunmen who think he is the famous American actor. The film then takes an extremely different route and ends quite bizarrely. All in all I don't really know what to think about it. The story seemed simple and bland then suddenly veered down a totally different route in the last couple of minutes and ended quite strangely and in a way unsatisfactorily.

La Pantera Negra

The first film I saw at the Edinburgh International Film Festival was La Pantera Negra, a 1950s Mexican film noir style picture. And out of all the films I saw at the festival, I think this is definitely the one that has been discussed the most with the four other people who watched it with me.

The film begins in a very interesting style. It initially has a dream-like sequence of the woman and two dogs in the picture above which turns out to be symbolic later on. The story then turns to the central protagonist, an alcoholic Mexican detective, apparently the best in the country. He receives a phone call from a man claiming to be God and is told if he accepts the case and goes on the hunt for La Pantera Negra, or The Black Panther, he will receive a large sum of money every day for the rest of his life. So far, I was really enjoying this film. It had some excellent cinematography and some of the shots were really great. The film noir style also seemed to suit it well and it reminded me of the style of Double Indemnity in a way. The story was appealing to me as well. A foreign detective case, mysterious phone calls and elusive names such as Black Panther, it seemed right up my street to be honest. And I was enjoying the film a lot, until this little beauty came along:

Probably in an instant a large number of people had been sucked out of the film. The appearance of a large plastic looking space ship in La Pantera Negra seemed to change the genre instantly from mystery film noir to low budget sci-fi. The story then proceeded down this line with the introduction of a lesbian martian. So as the plot became increasingly wacky and seemingly random, it became clear that the events were some kind of dream. I began to think it was the alcohol that was bringing these crazy events to the protagonist and that this was becoming the key message of the film.

But towards the end I started to enjoy it again more. All the different characters and events were starting to make slightly more sense and the symbolism became clearer. Themes of death and God and afterlife were very prominent towards the end and the imagery used throughout the film was gradually being explained. Kind of. And then the film ended and left us all very, very confused. I don't think there's one person who could come out after seeing La Pantera Negra for the first time and say they understood every single aspect of the symbolism. It was a very confusing film but there was something about it that I did enjoy and I had a strange desire to watch it again to see what I would take from it a second time round. It certainly had us all talking a lot about our own different interpretations of the symbolism and metaphors. Overall, I can't help feeling I enjoyed La Pantera Negra although I would like to have a word with the writer to find out what half the stuff actually means because it left us very confused people and there's only a certain amount of unexplained symbolism that films can get away with before they simply lose the audience completely.

End of Year Films - The Root of Love

So our end of year films have been completed, we've been to the film festival and it feels like the year is winding to a close now.

I was assigned the role of Lighting/DOP on Meg's film, The Root of Love. So for the first week or so I didn't have a great amount of work to do on the pre-production side and most of the work at this stage was done by our three producers in getting locations and actors etc. Auditions were set up with RSAMD students and Glasgow Acting Academy actors and at the end of the casting process, Meg decided on two actors for the lead roles. In the second week of pre-production, Meg and I then had a number of meetings to start constructing a shot list and storyboard for the film. This turned out to be a lot longer a process than we first expected as we tried to write down and draw different options for shots of every action in the script.

We had some production setbacks as well not long before we were due to film which made things quite difficult. Firstly, Silverburn shopping centre decided to wait over a week to inform us that they didn't want us to film there, despite Murray contacting them regularly about it. So we had to find another location only three or four days before we were due to film. Glasgow Fort was one of the locations that had responded very positively to us so when Silverburn gave us the knock back we decided to go on a visit to the Fort shopping centre that evening. After a walk around we discovered a hot dog vender directly across from a fruit market stall in a very spacious area - it appeared to be the perfect location for our film. So, thinking fate had given us a helping hand, we informed Glasgow Fort management that we would be filming on Sunday and Monday and they couldn't have been more helpful to us.

The next setback came on the morning before filming when we had a full crew meeting in Flick's flat. The lead male actor decided to cancel on us less than 24 hours before filming which turns out to be a bit of a production nightmare. So for the rest of the day, with 2 out of 3 of our producers at work, Meg and Kelsey spent their time frantically e mailing and phoning every actor they could get their hands on. Eventually, they managed to get their hands on someone for the role, an actor who had previously worked with some people in the class who were helping with Being Victor.

So on the Sunday morning we all woke up bright and early and met at the academy at 8:30. Murray's dad had kindly agreed to help taxi different crew members and kit to the location. When we arrived there, some of us started setting up the props and posters along with the smoothie table. Meg and I then started walking around the location discussing where each of our different shots would be. On set with us that day was a DFTV4 student, Gillian, who was there as a kind of directing mentor to Meg. This turned out to be a good help for myself and Meg who had probably gone a bit trigger happy with the whole shot list idea. Julie helped us decide that you don't really need about 4 different angles for every single action of the script and this is only necessary for the more important sequences. Overall, the first day was a great success and we were surprisingly good at keeping on schedule. In fact, the day wrapped at around 5 o'clock which is quite crazy. I can't think of any significant setbacks at all. In the morning just as we were setting up Amarillo starting blaring out of the shopping centre speakers which we realised would be a major problem for sound but after a jedi wave of Murray's hand they were more than happy to turn it off for the day. At the end of the day, Glasgow Fort even allowed us to store all the kit we wanted in different rooms over at the management centre.

The second day followed much of the same pattern as the first. The most noticeable difference was that we didn't have nearly as many people on set as all the extras and Gillian were not present. So that meant more pizza for all at lunchtime! We worked very efficiently today again and I feel we probably got better shots as well as we didn't feel under too much pressure from the time and we were more used to everything by this point. Just before lunch we had a small difficulty with putting a specific part of a scene into practice and we had to break for lunch to rethink what to do. We managed to pull our creative brains together and find a solution to the problem though, the only problem about this was it required me to stand in as an extra and pretend to fall into our actress with a hotdog and smear tomato sauce over her face. After about 12 takes I kind of felt like the guy out of Chewin' the Fat who can't act to save himself.

Overall, I think the two days' filming went very well and it was a great experience. Everyone worked really well together on and off set. I've had a look at Flick's rough cut off the footage and it all looks really good, can't wait to see the finished product now.

Star Suckers

Last week for our final Television and Society class of the year we got the treat of watching the movie documentary, Star Suckers. I thought this was a fantastic film. It was very cleverly written and meticulously researched. I don't think one of us came out of the class without having the "Oh my God" kind of reaction to it.

The film's main focus is the media and how society today is becoming increasingly obsessed with fame and celebrity lifestyles. One of the more shocking parts of the film showed a young 6-year-old boy from Los Angeles who had no other goal in life than to be a superstar. He had obviously been influenced from a very young age by his surroundings and he was pretty well developed for his age. In fact he was almost like a young extremely shrewd businessman as he knew exactly what was expected of him and what he would have to do to gain "success". Anyway, he went through many auditions and sold his image and became really popular and wealthy by doing different work for companies until one show he did that was a flop which resulted in him crying backstage as the production companies now had no interest in him. It was a really sad case because all through the show we had seen different points of his journey and experienced it from the start to probably the end. We saw in the middle the 10 hour car journeys he had to make with his supportive parents to other parts of the country for a five minute audition where he was asked if he was doing his homework on the journey. He replied he wasn't because it was boring and what he was doing was much more important. So we got a good look at how the "celebrity" industry used the image of the boy until he had passed his sell by date and became useless to them and as a result they presumably dropped him like a ton of bricks.

Another aspect of fame that the programme investigated was the cases of Wesley Autrey and John Smeaton. Wesley Autrey was a man who became instantly famous as a result of him rescuing a man who had fallen onto a subway track by jumping on top of him to prevent the train from hitting them. Obviously a very brave man but the film goes on to show how the immense power of the media was what made him so instantly famous.

The same kind of story happened with John Smeaton who, after the terrorist attack at Glasgow Airport, was given a regular column in The Sun and even stood for election as an independent candidate in Glasgow North-East. Using examples like this, Star Suckers shows how people have a strong and natural attraction to fame. Even if we don't realise it or don't particularly want it, we are all inadvertently influenced by celebrities and the media in our daily lives.

Another part of the film investigated newspaper journalism and how they will do almost anything to get a story. And in most cases they have little need for any sort of facts to substantiate their stories. Now you may think reading this that you know this already, of course the Daily Star and the like aren't renowned for their journalistic integrity. But at the same time as a society we still lap the stories up. We have become obsessed by gossip and celebrity lifestyle to the point where it doesn't matter if we know that Jordan hasn't decided to join NASA in a bid to forget Pete, we just feel a natural attraction to it and want to know more.

Furthermore, there is a widely held belief in our society today that the route to fame and success comes through reality television shows. Star Suckers showed that there are actually courses and classes on how to be successful on reality shows such as Big Brother. In other words they actually teach people how to act in a certain controversial way, in order to be as "successful" on this type of show as possible. Another good example of this is how in British society today, a great number of people feel that shows such as Britain's Got Talent and The X Factor are the answer to quick and easy fame. "It can happen to anyone" is the kind of attitude that many people have. And going to the same school as the now world famous Subo did and living 5 minutes up the road from X Factor winner Leon Jackson, I realise that perhaps it can happen to anyone. But at the end of the day you're just selling your soul to the Simon Cowells of this world who will suck all the life out of you for their own profit then discard you when your talent is no longer worth anything to them. Quite a depressing thought, I know, but it's a clever business model nonetheless.

Candid Cabaret

A few weeks ago we were involved in the musical theatre Candid Cabaret productions at the Oran Mór. This involved filming the different cabaret performances by the postgraduate students from the academy.

I found it a really enjoyable and worthwhile experience. We were divided into different crews of five people for each night of filming. The first night I filmed was the first Sunday night. Although the performances didn't start till 7 o'clock we were at the location from about 2 o'clock to sort out the logistics of our filming. This allowed us to check the venue and see where we would place each of the five cameras. We had three Sony 570s which we decided would stay on the sticks and cover a wide shot, mid shot and close up from the wings. The other two cameras would be handheld, one for shots of the audience and their reactions and the other a kind of guerilla cam to go around and get various shots of the action on the stage.

The musical theatre students were also in the building from the afternoon to do sound checks and the like. And within minutes of them being there one student came over and introduced himself and had a chat with us which I thought was very nice. The acts themselves were also great. There was a lot of variety in them as well. Some were really funny and clever, some had slightly more serious themes but were still very entertaining.

Overall, I think filming the Candid Cabaret was a really good experience. It gave us all the chance to think on our feet and get used to rigging and de-rigging kit in and working in a professional environment. It also gave us a glimpse of what it would be like working on real projects like this in the industry in the future whilst also giving us the opportunity to see some brilliant performances.

Live And Let Die

I used to be a big James Bond fan when I was younger. I still have the whole video collection from Dr No right up to Tomorrow Never Dies and I used to be quite the wee James Bond geek when I think about it. However I kind of fell out of the loop after Pierce Brosnan's Die Another Day and I must admit I've not seen any of the more recent Daniel Craig films.

Recently though, I've had a bit of a craving to return to the films and see how I would react to them nowadays. So the other day when I had nothing better to do I went to the video cupboard and had a look to see what I wanted to watch. And for whatever reason I chose Roger Moore's debut Bond movie, Live And Let Die, made in 1973.

It was never one of my favourites really but it was quite good to watch it again with some of the knowledge I have now. One of the main things that struck me about the film that I wouldn't have noticed too much when I was younger was the amount of racism contained. The story takes place in New Orleans, Harlem and a fictional Caribbean island and as such there are a lot of black characters. The film was almost ridiculously stereotypical at some points I noticed though, with almost every black character being involved in the undercover ring of drugs smuggling. Obviously there's nothing wrong with having black villains in films but when it gets to the point that you don't doubt every single black person of being involved with the baddies you know there's something wrong. I did a bit of research into it, well I googled "Live and let die racism" and read a few of the different sites and articles about it and sure enough, Time Magazine blasted the film when it was released even calling Bond's new character a "racist pig".

I also read quite a bit about how the film was released at the time when blaxploitation films were very popular. And it seems that Live And Let Die was a kind of reversal of that genre where the white man had to come and save the world from the black gangsters and drug dealers. Some critics have even questioned whether the film was a direct reaction to the blaxploitation genre.

However, although there were clearly some issues with Live And Let Die I don't think you can extend this to the rest of the James Bond films as this seemed quite an exceptional case. It was quite coincidental though that I would choose to watch this particular film even though it had never been one of my favourites because it does relate to a lot that we have been learning in class about how different people are portrayed on screen.

The Last Picture Show

After watching The Last Picture Show I was left with mixed feelings. I think it was a good and very well made film but it had quite a melancholy ending. It wasn't really depressing it just left you feeling a bit flat with life and the feeling that it's all really been done before.

The film is set in a small town in Texas where everyone knows each other. The story follows several different characters, mainly a group of teenagers who are graduating from high school. Although made in 1971, the film is set in the early 1950s. And even though society in the 70s was a lot more liberal than in the 50s I think the content of the film would still have been quite edgy and potentially shocking for the audience of the time. The film deals a lot with themes of sex and promiscuity, and there is quite a lot of nudity.

The film is very character driven, I think. There is a good mix of different characters which helps to drive the plot as well as exploring the different aspects of the central themes. There is the usual mixture of kids in their late teens: Duane, the popular hot-headed male, his quieter friend Sonny and the popular, well-off and pretty girl, Jacy. When they graduate from high school, these characters fan out and in a way, we follow their individual stories in the film even though their paths still cross. And through each of them, different issues about coming of age are dealt with. For the young man Duane, he has to battle with losing Jacy as she is fed up with him and intent on experimenting sexually with other, more fashionable youths in the surrounding towns. Duane's friend Sonny is all the while engaged in a relationship with a middle-aged woman in the town, whose husband is their former basketball coach.

Although the film was probably quite liberal and challenging for its day, I think the key themes and ideas still stand up now. That was one feeling I got when I watched it, that although this was made about 40 years ago, very little has changed really in terms of how people live their lives nowadays to what is shown in the film. For example, near the start of the film there is a scene in the classroom and shortly after, scenes of the Christmas party and it was not unlike watching an episode of The Inbetweeners. The key ideas were the same with the awkwardness of the young men around women, the jealousy of peers, the newness of alcohol, conformity of youths, the list goes on. And it just got me thinking that very little has actually changed in the present day apart from perception and a bit of technology.

Finally, I liked the soundtrack of the film. Well-known country songs can be heard throughout being played on the radios and a couple of times I thought the words in the songs were almost telling the story of the film.

Cathy Come Home

Before we watched Cathy Come Home, I had heard of it but didn't really know much about it. Andy gave us a bit of background knowledge before the programme started about how it was originally aired in 1966 and at the time, the content was extremely ground-breaking and revealing. It is easy to see why.

I thought Cathy Come Home was brilliantly made. It wouldn't be right to say that you enjoyed the programme but it was certainly a very powerful watch. The story revolves around the characters of Cathy and Reg who are fictional representations of real people and real stories of the time. The programme begins on the happy note of Cathy and Reg starting their new life together, buying a house and having their first child. However everything goes downhill from this point as Reg loses his job and they cannot afford to pay their rent. They are evicted from their home and are forced to try and find other places to live while Cathy continues to have children.

From a story point of view, if you've never seen Cathy Come Home, you might wonder how this story could be so interesting. And when you think of the story in terms of screenwriting and three-act structure etc. it might not be particularly conventional, but it never stops being completely gripping. You find yourself caring for the characters a great deal and it's the sort of material that can actual evoke a bit of anger just by watching it.

The style of filmmaking is also important to its success as well I think. It is filmed in a documentary style and most of the people in the film are not actors apart from the main characters. It was all shot in real locations as well which made the story seem a lot more realistic. In the final scene of Cathy Come Home when Cathy has her children taken from her by the authorities in a train station, the camera was placed so that members of the public didn't know it was being filmed so they thought the event was actually taking place.

All in all I think Cathy Come Home was a great piece of filmmaking which helped to highlight one of the greatest social problems in Britain at the time. And although things have changed and systems are obviously different now, the message of Cathy Come Home is still sadly very relevant today.

The Election and The Television

So in the run up to this year's general election I think it would be fair to say that we've had more than our fair share of television coverage. In fact, most people will probably be glad when it's over and not have to constantly hear about Brown, Clegg and Cameron and all their elusive promises of change.

But saying that we have had a great deal of coverage isn't necessarily a good thing. This year has seen the first ever election debates in which the three "main" parties' leaders had the chance to discuss and debate different issues in front of a live studio audience. Three debates were held in total and ran continuously for 90 minutes each, broadcast one week by ITV then Sky then BBC. As a result of the first debate, polls showed that support for the Liberal Democrats increased dramatically. Clearly this indicates that television has an extreme influence on shaping people's opinions. In fact, I would argue that out of all the branches of the media, television is by far the most influential. The first debate on ITV received 9.4 million viewers, a very respectable amount in today's world. It even overtook the ratings for Coronation Street and Eastenders.

So if we assume that the main function of all this election coverage is to aid the democratic process by providing accurate and unbiased information to the country's viewers, how successful has it been? Well I think there obviously has been a lot of coverage and this is a good thing as far as informing people goes, however as far as representing all the options available to people, the coverage has been extremely poor. For example, I remember seeing a Labour election leaflet that was sent to my house that was peddling the notion that the election is a two-horse race between Labour and the Conservatives therefore if you don't want a Tory government you have to vote Labour. And just recently after the final debate on April 29, Clegg of the Lib Dems in now claiming that the election is a two-horse race between his party and the Conservatives because of Brown's performance in the debates and due to his recent scandal in Rochdale. Basically, the coverage of any alternative to the three "main parties" for me has been almost non-existent. I've seen little coverage for the nationalist parties apart from some side articles such as the SNP and Plaid Cymru teaming up in opposition to nuclear weapons.

All in all I think there has been a lot of coverage. But in terms of a fair representation of everything that's out there, I think there is room for improvement. And I'm not suggesting giving the Monster Raving Loony Party a regular slot on BBC1 at tea time, I just think there should be more in the way of alternative views represented on the mainstream channels to give people a more informed picture of who they can vote for and not just the option of three unionist capitalists parties.

Stagecoach

After watching Stagecoach the other day I was left quite pleasantly surprised. I've not had a great deal of experience with Westerns in my life other than the odd bits and pieces I have caught whenever my grandad is left in charge of the telly although I always felt as if I knew what to expect: they're all pretty much the same with the cowboy hats, the saloons in the one horse town, sheriffs and Red Indians with bow and arrows etc etc. The only Western I can remember sitting enjoying actually turned out to be a carry on film. But after watching Stagecoach the whole way through I did quite enjoy it and, although I didn't feel strongly either way about Westerns beforehand, I realise they can actually be quite good.

First of all the music. I love the music in Westerns, everyone knows the Magnificent Seven theme even if you didn't realise you do. And after about ten minutes of watching Stagecoach I had familiarised myself with the triumphant strings melody that kept recurring every few minutes when we saw the stagecoach in the journey through the desert.

The film has a really good story and was interesting from a writing point of view. As opposed to what we have said about a lot of Hollywood films being very plot driven, I think Stagecoach is largely character driven. All the characters are very carefully chosen so there is the right combination of different characteristics needed to make drama, conflict, and comedy. I liked that the film had a good comedy value to it. The drunken doctor had quite a few funny moments as did the stagecoach driver, Buck. At the same time there is also conflict between the doctor and Hatfield, Lucy and Dallas and the banker with pretty much all the other characters.

Since we've been talking about it a bit recently I'll say a little about the representation of women in the film. Obviously there are two central female characters, Lucy the well respected wife of a soldier and the prostitute, Dallas. Dallas is looked down upon instantly by Lucy for her poor social status and there is friction between them at different points in the film. However by the end, it is obvious that Dallas is a very caring and considerate character. The men in the film treat the women with great respect most of the time except when Hatfield, who has assigned himself as Lucy's guardian, decides that Lucy is too good to be dining at the same table as Dallas. At one point in the film Dallas is also instructed to make go and make coffee however this is more of an indication of social related injustice than gender related.

The film also made me realise how far the phrase "riding shotgun" goes back. It predates the days of cop shows and cop cars right back to the days of stagecoaches. So remember that next time you shout "Shotgun!" and try to claim the front seat Mr Alford.

Crying With Laughter

On Wednesday after class a group of us decided to go to Cineworld since we were all having withdrawal symptoms from being back in Glasgow and not setting foot in the great building. So some people went to see some Rieper Man film but since we had planned this earlier, Sam and I went to see the Scottish film Crying With Laughter which was made in 2009. I was told it was only in the cinema for a couple of days so it was a good opportunity to go and see it now and blog about it if it was any good.

The film follows the story of a Scottish comedian, Joey Frisk who has had a fairly troublesome life, getting sent to borstal at a young age where he was forced to learn to be funny. The film begins with the news that a comedy scout is interested in seeing Joey's act and if successful, he could make a good career out of it. However, events take a turn for the worse when he is arrested for seriously injuring his landlord after one of his shows.

I really enjoyed the film. It gripped me throughout and I always think films like this are very cleverly written and must take a lot of work. Every eventuality needs to be worked out so that people don't watch it and ask "well why did he not just do X in that situation." I liked the way the plot continues and unravels at a relatively fast pace. There is not a great deal of lingering around unnecessarily in scenes as the story progresses seamlessly. The story is never boring and is also very "edge of your seat" type content which I really enjoy. The fact that Crying With Laughter is a Scottish film made me like it even more: there was a very noticeable difference in the style to this film in comparison with big Hollywood blockbusters which would undoubtedly have turned this script into a completely different and, in my opinion, much less enjoyable film. The fact that it's set in Scotland with Scottish actors also makes it a much more realistic watch for me. There were some very nice shots in the film from a technical point of view and the style and tone of the film to me was great.

So no matter what Sam says I think Crying With Laughter was excellent and it's probably one of the best films I think I've seen this year. That and A Prophet I think, which maybe says something about what I think of a lot of the American films coming out these days.

The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde

One night over the Easter holidays I decided I would have to read a book before I started back at the academy. I don't really read much at all when I'm through in Glasgow so I decided the holidays would be a wasted opportunity if I didn't read something. So one night I decided to start the Robert Louis Stevenson classic The Strange Case of Dr Jekyll and Mr Hyde. I chose this for two reasons: it's fairly short so I would have to be quite rubbish if I didn't manage to get through it and two, I had read it before in school and had a weird craving to read it again.

It's a really good story I think and I enjoyed it a lot more this time. In fact when you read things in school I think you always miss loads of stuff. Most people know the basic plot of the story, even if you're not familliar with the book, the phrase Jekyll and Hyde is well known. Stevenson wrote the book in the late 19th century so at the time it would have caused a great deal of shock and controversy as the Victorian people of the time were very interested in the supernatural.

The story follows the well respected London lawyer, Mr Utterson who one day hears a nasty story from his friend about a man named Edward Hyde. This begins to trouble Utterson because he knows that one of his clients and also best friend Henry Jekyll has in his will a donation of all his money and possessions to Hyde. He sets about on a mission to uncover the secret to all the mysterious circumstances and events going on as he suspects there is some form of foul play going on with his friend and the murderous Mr Hyde.

Many critics of the book have tried to outline the many possible meanings that it could have. One of the main aspects of the narrative is obviously the dual nature of humans. However some people think it could represent alcoholism, sexual repression, lust, or the presence of evil within all people's lives. There are many more possibilities that the story could have been trying to sybmbolise. But that's the beauty of storytelling in that it is up to the reader alone to decide what the themes of the narrative are. You can also just enjoy it for the Victorian thriller it is, regardless of all its possible meanings. It's really not that long at all so go and read it, shouldn't take you too long.

Week 10 - Term 2

On Monday morning we had a guest star appearance from Gavin Blyth, the current producer of the soap, Emmerdale. At the start he asked the room filled with first and second year DFTV students how many of us watched soaps. And even though I know for a fact some of us do watch soaps no one raised their hands. Mr. Blyth then proceeded on a tirade about how we would never make it in the television industry if we did not watch soaps and if any of us managed to ever get a job on working on a soap we should count ourselves blessed. But despite everyone else's serious indignation about the producer's words, I thought the guy was actually alright. After he got his soap rant out the way he was quite interesting and I enjoyed learning about the different ins and outs of how a show like Emmerdale is actually produced. He showed us a promotional video for the "new style" Emmerdale of 2010 which was a bit weird and looked more like a spoof with the usual sweeping country music replaced by some dodgy Rihanna remix.

Not a great deal happened on Tuesday as we didn't have any formal classes so my group had another meeting to try and finalise all our preparations for the Home project by devising shot lists, looking into what props to buy and what locations we would be filming in and who we needed permission from etc.

Wednesday began with a programme meeting at 1 o'clock. This was a joint meeting with DFTV and TPA to bring forward the proposals for the upcoming collaborative project. There was only one pitch which was the LipDub pitch by Ada and Ian Jolly from TPA. After this we had our last television class with Andy this term. For this we had a brief discussion on representation and how different members of society are portrayed on TV. We then watched a BBC4 documentary about the representation of men in TV adverts throughout history. Although the programme focused on how men were represented, it also said a lot about how women were represented in the process.

The programme turned out to be quite amusing as it was mainly driven by examples of different advertisements all through the decades starting off in the 50s right up to the 90s. It was interesting to see how the representation and the perception of how men should be evolved and changed through those decades. From the very sexist and patriarchal commercials in the 50s, to the 70s where it was seen as cool for every man to be wearing Old Spice aftershave and smoking the same brand of cigarette right up to the 80s and 90s where individualism and the successful office worker style image of a man was commonplace.

On Thursday I woke up bright as a button after the previous night's St Patrick's day celebrations at 7 o'clock in preparation for a day's filming. Today was the day we would be filming our Home projects. Murray picked Harry and I up from halls and took us up to the academy to collect the kit. The first location of the day was Glasgow's Botanic Gardens in the west end. We had arranged to meet our actor and actress there. So after a couple of hours setting everything up and getting all the different shots we required there, we made our way to the next location in Kelvingrove Park. It took quite a bit longer in Kelvingrove to get all the footage we needed because although the filming was mostly in the one area, we had to decorate a tree with all the various props that we had brought with us. All in all it was a really successful day. Our actors were really professional and everything looked great when we filmed it. And we learned the valuable lesson never to try and use a balloon in a film ever again especially in a windy March in Glasgow.

Friday began with a screening of a film that has been mentioned dozens of times since the start of the course but one that I had never watched: Casablanca. I hadn't heard a great deal about what the film was about other than everyone seemed to really like it and it is regarded as a classic. Before he put the film on, Andy told us that Casablanca is like the Hamlet of movies in that it contains the greatest number of well known phrases still in use today. So with that in mind I tried to spot as many as I could throughout. Anyway I really enjoyed Casablanca. It's a great story that doesn't need masses of locations or complicated characters to be successful. It is a simple yet very effective story because you care for the characters and their story. A good deal of the film actually takes place inside Rick's club which proves you don't need millions of pounds worth of fancy locations and costumes and explosions to make a brilliant film. The climax of the film is really gripping and has you hooked right till the very end which I think is a very appropriate and sweet ending.

Week 8 - Term 2

This week began with our regular Monday morning class with Kim. In the past few weeks of classes we've all been developing the ideas for characters and storylines that we came up with. A few weeks ago, we each had to come up with one new character for a soap and come into class and pitch it. We were then put into small groups and had to go away and come up with a story that these characters could be involved in. For this week, we were tasked to write the outline for a full week's worth of Coronation Street episodes for our particular stories. In my group were Sam and Amelie. So on Friday we sat down in the library and briefly planned what would happen in our stories in each episode and then assigned each other different episodes to write. I was also assigned to role of script editor.

So this Monday we had to read out the outlines for our week's worth of episodes. After that, we then wrote a line on a piece of coloured A4 paper that summed up each episode and posted them on the wall. As a class, we then had to figure out for each day's episode which of the four stories would be the A story, B story and so on. This was quite an interesting process especially because Kim told us this is the way storylining is done in many professional programmes such as Coronation Street.

In Andy's class in the afternoon, we were discussing our favourite ever year for films. There were many different answers but most of ours were around the 90s and early 2000s. My year was 1994 because some of my favourite films including Forrest Gump and The Shawshank Redemption were released in this year. Other favourites released in this year include The Lion King and Dumb and Dumber.

On Tuesday, we all met in the DTU for our first editing class in a good while. This class involved learning how to export footage from Final Cut and compress it into a smaller file. We also learned how to make DVDs for clients by using the program DVD Studio Pro for the first time. After this at about 12 o'clock, Adam, Andy and Ray came into the DTU just to try and put Gav off as he was showing us how to do one final thing. The purpose of this gathering was to tell us about some of the new upcoming projects that we will be involved in. The first topic is a collaboration with CPP students where we will be filming their performances at the Arches. And despite some of the crzy stories we've heard about previous years' Into the new performances, it sounds like quite an exciting and challenging project. We were then handed out a sheet of paper detailing the next project that we will all be involved in. This divided us into two groups and told us that each group would be making a two-minute short film on the theme of Home. So, at 2'oclock we assembled in our respective groups and had a meeting to discuss everyone's initial thoughts and ideas on the project.

On Wednesday, we had our television class with Andy in the afternoon. This particular lesson focused on advertising from its origins in Britain with a commercial for toothpaste right up to the present day with the likes of GO COMPARE! It was quite funny and interesting to hear eveyones else's views on the adverts that we all remember whether it's because they are funny or have a catchy tune or whether they are just plain annoying.

Our sound class on Thursday morning with Cammy was cancelled so instead we met in our respective groups for the Home project to collate our ideas and then send them on to Gav via e mail. After this, we had our new Web and Mobile Technology class with Adam in the DTU. In this we continued the discussion about how this new wave of mobile techonology is going to affect the film industry. We also briefly discussed The Virtual Revolution, a show we had been asked to watch for this week's class. This class is always quite exciting and frustrating at the same time when we always reach the same conclusion: no one knows yet of the correct business model for the combination of film/television and the internet.

Our Friday screening this week was the original version of King Kong. I actually found this very entertaining and it was a really good watch. I've not seen the recent remake of the movie so I can't compare them but the story was very fast moving and gripping. It was also funny to see the movie which, at the time, was regarded as too shocking and had to be censored when it was re-released several years later.

Hunger

Tonight I watched the film Hunger for the second time since I got the DVD a couple of years ago. Hunger is one of few films about the 1981 hunger strike in the Maze prison in Ireland in which ten prisoners died. This particular film focuses on Bobby Sands, the leader of the hunger strike and the first to die. The film was released in 2008 and won numerous awards such as a BAFTA and other awards at film festivals like Cannes.

It's a very arty film. It doesn't follow a lot of the conventions of other films. For example, there is a sixteen and a half minute shot where the camera doesn't move at all and focuses entirely on a conversation between Sands and the prison chaplain. Other scenes are very visual and have no dialogue but a strong use of imagery instead. In the first ten or fifteen minutes of the film hardly a word is said but this is quite effective, I think. One of the first shots of the film shows a prison warder in his home in the morning dipping his hands into a sink full of water. He is clearly in pain at the time which evokes sympathy from the audience. A similar sequence is then repeated not long after however, this time his knuckles are bloody and bruised from having just beat up a number of prisoners.

I had a brief conversation with Harry about the film a few months ago in which she said she didn't like the film or its director Steve McQueen because she thought it glorified Sands and the hunger strikers. I don't really agree with this at all. The film is actually very unbiased, I find. It refuses to take sides and I think for the most part shows what actually happened without trying to glamourise or dilute the truth in any way.

As with any historical film, there will always be small inaccuracies and many of the characters are fictional representations. There is a scene where some of the prisoners are attending Mass in a communal area and all the while the priest is speaking the prisoners are all talking to each other over the top and drowning him out. This scene, I think, was included deliberately by McQueen to show that the conflict in Ireland is not a religious one and that although British propaganda paints it as a sectarian war, the IRA's war is against the British occupation of Ireland. However, factually, although a lot of prisoners were probably not deeply religious, scenes like the raucous behaviour at Mass wouldn't really have happened.

For me the film was a little short and lacking in a lot of detail about other events that were happening at the time. The fact that Sands was elected as a member of parliament during the time of his hunger strike is completely omitted from the film and the only mention of it is at the title cards at the end. The story itself seemed to lack quite a lot and at times it seemed like more of a graphical and artistic depiction of the conditions in the H-Blocks rather than a strong narratively driven film about the hunger strikes. The first time I watched it I can remember being quite surprised when it ended as it seemed to miss out so many important details and almost glaze over everything else that was happening during the hunger strike.

It's most certainly not a nice film to watch. In fact many parts are disgusting and brutal. It's not a film you would sit down and watch with the family and it's not really enjoyable viewing most of the time. However it is very well filmed and a lot of work went into it. Michael Fassbender for example, the actor who played Sands, went on a crash diet of ten weeks and lost about fourteen kilograms in order to make the film look truly authentic. Some of the images are quite shocking but this is intended of course and I think overall, Hunger does a good job of portraying the conditions of the H-Blocks in 1981.

Misfits

On 12 November last year, a small group of us sat down in Meg's room in halls to watch Misfits, the new E4 programme that was showing that night. At the time I hadn't heard of it at all and even though I'm a television student, I still didn't have any great compulsion to sit and watch it. I didn't know anything about the new show, what it was about or anything so the only real reason I went to watch it with everyone else was for something to do and not to miss out on anything.

As with most things we watch in a group people are coming and going in and out so you're not always 100% concentrating on the screen. But I still quite enjoyed the first episode. For anyone who doesn't know, the basic premise of Misfits is five young people who are doing community service are caught in a freak storm which leaves them all with different superpowers. The storm also has a powerful effect on their probation worker who turns into a killing menace and ends up killing one of the community service workers and trying to kill them all. As a result they end up killing him in self defence and burying his body under a nearby fly-over. This is all in a single 45 minute episode.

So after that, due to not having freeview in halls and not being overly worried about seeing another episode I never saw the show again. Until last Sunday when I decided to download the full first series onto my iTunes for £10.99. I don't know why I suddenly decided on this purchase. I think in the debate last week, Misfits had been mentioned as an example of contemporary television that has potentially shocking content but is no longer shocking to audiences these days. So when I was reminded of the show then, I was browsing on iTunes at the weekend and saw it and decided I had to buy something with the vouchers I had got from Santa.

Over the next few days, I watched an episode a night and found myself really enjoying them. The first episode is more of a general story in terms of characters but after that each episode focuses on one particular character slightly more than the others. Although the premise is quite simple, I find the storylines really clever and gripping. We've been told we should be watching new material as this is obviously the best exemplar of what is popular now. And I've enjoyed this new programme, especially when it can loosely be described as homework. I've just finished the series there and am happy to hear that it has been commissioned for a second series.

All that practical jazz

In the past few weeks, I've done by far the most practical work I've done since our course started. On the third week back of term, we didn't have many classes, however on the Monday I was involved in a small two-camera shoot in the conference room. This featured a guest speaker who was giving a masterclass to TPA students. Our four man crew consisted of myself and Murray as camera operators, Amelie as camera assist and Sam as the boom operator. We also had 4th year Steven Ferguson to help us with sound.

So at 2 o'clock we set up all the kit in the room in preparation. Then at 4 o'clock the talk started. It was a good experience to be actually filming something real for once. Up till then we had had our fair share of technical classes with Ray, but never actually had a shot of operating the camera in a real situation.

Another big practical activity came on Thursday when the whole class was involved in filming the Bum Clocks gig. We were all assigned roles for this collaborative event with Kelsey, Meg and I the editors. So although I didn't have a particularly hands on role in the gig itself, it was still good to be there on the night helping prepare the kit with everyone else.

Last weekend, I also took out some of the kit to practice over the weekend. After three journeys up from Sam's car to the sixth floor of halls I was starting to regret taking as much stuff, and made a mental note not to specialise in roadieism. On the Saturday, Meg came up to get some practice with the kit. The only problem was, we didn't have any idea what to film. Obviously we could have just practiced setting up all the gear but it's always better when you've got some sort of project to work on. So after sitting about for a wee while wondering what we should film, Meg came up with an idea for a small story that we would be able to film without leaving halls. Obviously when you've only got two people and the fairly small rooms in Liberty House, it's quite awkward maneuvering big Kino lights and cameras and tripods and monitors around but we seemed to manage quite well. We also managed to get Flick down as well to help with the project which helped a lot. The basic story involves a man who is in his flat preparing for a romantic Valentine's Day dinner with his girlfriend. He places chocolates, a rose and a card on his bed then goes through to the kitchen to prepare dinner. Not long after, his girlfriend goes into his room and we see her eyes lighting up as she sees the chocolates. The man then returns to the room to find the box of chocolates empty and his girlfriend with chocolate smeared all over her mouth. So we filmed from about two o'clock to six o'clock without stopping and managed to get the whole story complete.

On Sunday, we managed to get the help of Sam and his car so decided to go on location. With the whole city of Glasgow and beyond as our oyster we weren't sure where we wanted to go. But we put faith in the fact that Sam always seems to know some cool place to go in the city. So we ended up at the old shipyards on the south side of the river. We came across an old derelict building with no roof and decided to film some sort of horror movie. We filmed for a few hours there until the rain came on and we had to leave. And when you film for hours and end up filming probably less than a minute of actual footage, it really makes you realise how much hard work it actually is and how much work must go into making a feature length movie.

Television - The Small Screen (Summative Statement)

Since the start of my time at the RSAMD, my view on television has changed quite significantly. For the most part, my change of feelings towards TV has probably been subconscious and I don't feel as if my view has changed on it. And to be honest, my overall thoughts about television have not changed too much, but the way I look at TV will never be like it used to.

From the start of this module we've learned about people's attitudes to television, why people watch it etc. Obviously there are many reasons why people watch television. However I think the reasons are best summed up in the BBC's mission statement phrase "to inform, educate and entertain." Many people use the TV as a source of knowledge, for example, the news and other current affairs programmes. There are also many educational programmes on TV like documentaries and even things such as cooking programmes which can still be classed as educational. Obviously there are also thousands of programmes out there that are designed for pure entertainment and it can be argued that most people these days are only interested in this latter aspect.

Throughout the module we've also looked at the different varieties of shows from their infancy right up to present day. The origins of the sitcom with I Love Lucy through shows like Porridge and up to contemporary sitcoms like The Inbetweeners. Also other programme genres like cop shows, game shows and reality television.

Overall I think I've changed my view on television, whether this is a good thing or a bad thing I don't know. I certainly view things in a much more critical light now and understand the reasoning behind a lot of different shows that I would never before have questioned. And although I was forced to argue the opposite view during the debate, I definitely feel that television is more than lights and wires in a box.

The Writing Week

For the first three days of this week we were quite excited to know that Richard Smith, our screenwriting teacher was back from living it up in LA to teach us for three intensive days. This was quite exciting as we had all recently submitted scripts to him and were looking forward to getting back into the writing classes as well as hearing feedback on our scripts.

Monday morning started in the traditional AGOS 9 where Richard eagerly awaited our arrival. The first exercise we had to do was simply to warm up our writing muscles so we did the statue game where a couple of people of the class stand up at the front and are arranged in a certain way. The rest of us then have to create a story around these muses. After this we revised all that we had covered before Christmas to refresh our memories on things like three-act structure, theme and character. After lunch we then had the opportunity to do an entirely new exercise which Richard promised we would enjoy. He had prepared sheets of paper for each of us with sixteen stages of a story on it but each of the stages was blank. We had to all sit in a circle and each fill in one stage of the story and pass the sheet to our left then fill in the next part of the story and so on. At the time this exercise was undertaken very seriously and strategically and after all the sheets were eventually filled in, Richard decided we should hear a couple to see where some of the stories went. Sitting on the end of the row, I had to read out the first story which, when reading it out just made us all realise how funny all the stories had become. And so, after we all agreed that we should hear what happened in every story, we went round the class and everyone read out the story they had in front of them. Almost every time the stories became more absurd and extremely funny ranging from a woman who breaks her leg and ends up in hospital to a claustrophobic submarine driver. It was at this point that Richard probably questioned that we were some of Scotland's best potential writers and wished he had stayed in his beach house in Santa Monica. After a crash course in visual storytelling and then symbolism that was us done for the day.

Tuesday's writing class began with us sharing two brand new premises we had come up with the previous night. After the usual process of going round the group twice, we managed to devise a shortlist of premises that could potentially be made into good short films. The ideas were then put under the microscope and it turned out that they might not be as simple to write scripts on as was first thought. After this we learned more about the essentials of writing, specifically focusing on character and dialogue. For character we had to do some simple but interesting exercises where we saw a photo of a person and we had to answer questions about them such as what the contents of their fridge was and what type of underwear they wear. This turned out to be quite stereotypical for a lot of it although there were some interesting results. As for dialogue we watched a couple of excerpts from films then discussed all the technicalities of dialogue. Visual storytelling was a main factor that we concentrated on which was really interesting because people automatically assume that a "script" should have dialogue and lines for actors etc. but in fact visual storytelling is very important and often much more effective. It was here that I really wanted Richard to just say "Okay you can go and re-draft your scripts," because with all this new knowledge it made me slightly less excited to have the script feedback tutorial. And yes, I now understand why Andy had showed us all these silent films.

A slightly strange task was set for our homework for Wednesday. We had to come up with three things that we don't like or would change about ourselves. Any other uni course and you would probably be questioning this but anything goes in screenwriting and this turned out to be quite mild compared to the day with the post-secrets and beliefs. So after going round the group three times and sitting in a nice wee circle listening to each other's flaws, we treated ourselves with some chocolate and cookies. After this we watched a short excerpt from some weird but classic horror/thriller film which led us nicely into learning about conflict and tension in a story. After this we arranged our tutorial times for later in the day so that Richard could give us feedback on our scripts. In between this I went to see Up in the air - the quickly released sequel to Pixar's latest phenomenon - with some of the others at Cineworld. My tutorial with Richard was quite good. It was fairly short and he didn't give a great deal of in depth feedback but we both agreed on the points that were good and the points that could have been improved on. Later on, I saw the film Brothers at Cineworld with Murray and Sam which, despite what Sam says I thought it was quite good.

On Thursday, we continued with the intensive week of writing with a visit by the BBC producer and writer John York. I found this class to be quite good and even though it was very fast paced because he was cramming a lot of information in, it was interesting and informative. A lot of the things we already knew from our work with Richard about three-act structure and the like but he told us a lot of other things like the five-act structure. In the afternoon we then had two history of cinema classes crammed into one and Andy had our attention from the off by telling us that if we remember anything from our three years in the academy we should remember this if we ever make films. We're up to the Russian Revolution kind of era in this class and we learned about the Kuleshov effect which I found quite interesting. This consisted of the Russian film maker, Lev Kuleshov, filming an actor looking at different objects such as a bowl of soup, a dead child and the Soviet flag. Each time the actor would have the exact same passive expression. However, when the audience saw the different clips they thought that the actor was very skilled. This experiment then revealed that the audience will actually feed in their own emotions to a film which I think was the main message that Andy wanted us to learn. The audience will provide their own context for a film, they don't need to be told everything and in fact often like it when they have to make an effort to add their own details even if it is subconsciously.

Friday started off with another screening of Charlie Chaplin in one of his final movies City Lights. Talking pictures had already started and Chaplin, refusing to bring the little tramp into talking movies, stopped his movie career not long afterwards. I think out of the three Chaplin films we have watched so far, this was definitely my favourite. The story was really lovely and engaging and of course there were some greatly funny moments in it as well. And the score of course was really good, especially compared with the likes of Battleship Potemkin. Fair play to Chaplin, he was a bit of a legend.

Week 2 - Term 2

This week started off on Monday morning with a brand new class that we'd never had before. Kim Millar, a successful storyliner for Coronation Street, Hollyoaks and River City came in to give us our first class on storylining in television. This was quite an interesting class and we learned a lot about how competitive the television industry really is. We also learned about the various different roles and jobs that exist in the writing side of television from the storyliners and script editors to the actual dialogue screenwriters. In the afternoon we had a History of Cinema class with Andy. For the first half we had the opportunity to watch very old films that had been discovered in England that had been filmed right at the start of the twentieth century. These Mitchell and Kenyon films included short silent clips of no more than a couple of minutes where they would film people going about their daily life in the workplace, school, in the street etc. After watching about five of these films, we then watched a final special one that had been filmed in Jamaica Street, Glasgow. This was actually quite fascinating to see, although fairly short it still showed a great deal of information about how people went about their lives back in that time. Every vehicle was horse-drawn and people walked everywhere. There seemed a much stronger sense of community and everyone helping each other as well. We then saw a remake of the video made by Charlotte and Gavin (I think) at the same spot in the year 2009. It was quite strange to contrast them and see how differently it all looked. It was a little bit depressing actually: everyone in cars, nobody dreaming of talking to each other of even looking at each other unless absolutely necessary. In the second half of the lesson we watched a DVD about the origins of editing which dragged on for a bit even though there were some interesting points to it. On Monday night I also went to the Britain's Got Talent auditions at the SECC to the envy of Meg and Kelsey.

Tuesday we had our technical class with Ray and we were continuing with lighting. Today we focused on white balance and colour temperature and how each specific light we use has a different colour temperature that affects the picture. There's a lot of new buttons and terminology to grasp with these lessons but it always becomes clearer when I actually try it myself of a camera. For example, I learning how the do a white balance correctly on the camera by actually doing it myself as opposed to just listening to Ray and scribbling notes. Later in the day I also had my tutorial with Gav to discuss our formative assessments from before Christmas. This went well and we watched the short motorbike advert that I had edited and he also discussed the results for the written test as well.

On Wednesday we had Andy's television class in the morning. We focused on reality TV in this lesson. From its origins with shows following the emergency services to modern day reality television like Big Brother and the X Factor. The main point of the class was to understand about Authorship in relation to reality TV. In the end we decided that there are a various groups of people who influence what happens on reality TV. Of course the whole idea of it is that everything is realistic and unscripted however there is still a degree of authorship in it. For example, the Simon Cowell type characters in each show who, although it is not always overtly shown, does have a decision on which people stay in the show or leave the show or whatever else. The viewing public also have a certain say in reality programmes like I'm a celebrity and the like where they phone in to decide who should stay in the jungle.

I had the day off on Thursday due to Adam's tutorials in the morning and no other classes all day. So after a nice wee lie in I sat in my room and wrote a good bit of my two minute comedy script. After a while of this I decided to go a walk for some fresh air so walked down across the river to the Gorbals kind of area then back round via Bridge Street until I suddenly realised that I was on Jamaica Street where the old Mitchell and Kenyon film was taken. On Thursday night some of us also went to the RSAMD production of the opera War and Peace at the Theatre Royal.

During the week, Andy had already slyly hinted that the Friday's film would once again be silent however it was not Russian. Today it was Nosferatu, effectively the first ever vampire movie. This turned out to be really cool, it was interesting to see where it all started and how vampire films had evolved to what we have now, and also the fact that they are still popular to this day.

First week back

So the first week back on the course after New Year started with a nice 2 o'clock start just to ease us back in gently. We are beginning to look into the origins of cinema in greater depth now, still looking at the history of cinema right from the very start with the invention of the camera and the first ever films like the arrival of the train. It's interesting to hear about these early days of cinema when the inventors like the Lumiere brothers and Edison scarcely realised the gold mine they had uncovered, thinking film would just be another passing fad. The stories of the early films like the train and the kiss are also quite funny as everyone watching the train film ran out of the way, terrified they were going to be hit by it and the kiss which caused national hysteria.

Tuesday's class with Ray was quite intense as is always expected, even though we still had the later start time of 2 o'clock. Today we were starting lighting for the first time and so, after we finally discovered which room we were in, we all took a trip to the kit room to take up all the lighting equipment. As is often the case in Ray's class, it was a furious note taking session for a lot of the time whilst he demonstrated the many different varieties of lights that the academy uses. On top of which we had to learn all the new industry slang combined with the official jargon - I never knew there could be so many words about lighting. After a break we had the opportunity to have a look at the different effects that the different types had. I was chosen to be the model for part of this and so, after the camera and monitor had been set up, had to sit in a chair and have the various lights tested on me to show everyone else the effects. This was quite a good laugh as well but we soon ran out of time and had to put all the kit safely away back in the kit room before 5 o'clock. That night at Cineworld, there was an advance showing of A Prophet, a new French film. Myself and Samuel Ferguson had managed to secure tickets to this prestigious event so went up to the cinema at about half six and were greeted by a joyous Michael Maxwell taking tickets. The film itself I thought was absolutely brilliant and it's easy to see why it's already won awards and been describes as the best film of the year. I'll probably go and see it again when it actually comes out so you can maybe expect a blog on it, if not at least I'll have the ticket to prove I was at it, how sad I know.

On Wednesday we got a text in the morning to inform us of a programme meeting at one o'clock with just us first years. This was really brief but it was still quite good all the same: we were informed that although the first term is not a particularly practical term, this one should be more hands on and that a new script competition was starting where any of us could submit a 2 page script on a specific subject and have the chance of it being commissioned by the tutors. After this we had about 50 minutes to kill before our TV class with Andy at 2. When this came we were in the new and exciting AGOS Board Room which is leaps and bounds ahead of our classic AGOS 9. It felt like we were in some sort of business conference with the long table and comfy chairs. We were warned by Andy at the start that this would be a really dry and potentially difficult to grasp lesson however it turned out to be not as bad at all. We were discussing authorship with regards to television and how this came about in the sixties due to a number of different factors. After the break we then watched an episode of the critically acclaimed television drama The Street. Last summer I watched this programme and up until recently I thought it was brand new when I was watching it but it turns out that was the third series. Anyway I already knew I liked it and how brilliantly written the episodes are. This episode I hadn't seen however as it was from the first series (I think) but it was absolutely brilliant and after it literally the whole class were astonished at how good it actually was. What makes the programme is undoubtedly the good writing and what I think makes the show so successful is that the idea for every episode is incredibly simple. Everything is very low concept and realistic yet the situations that arise are always so compelling that you can't help but want to watch right to the very end. Even the basic premise for the programme that every door has a story behind it is incredibly simple yet genius.

We got a text late on Wednesday night to tell us that Adam was sick and wouldn't be able to take our class on Thursday. So we decided to make the most of the day and a few of us went to the Xscape thing at Braehead and played ten pin bowling then went to Frankie and Benny's. After that we returned to halls and I sat and did some more work on my script for Richard. Later on we decided to go the the cinema just cause we're film students and we've got an excuse to. Some of the girls went to see Nine but having already seen this on Sunday night, me and Sam went to see Daybreakers, a vampire movie which was actually pretty good I thought. Sam and Harry then successfully stole a cardboard cutout of Nowhere Boy John Lennon from the Cineworld skip and we returned to halls at high speed just managing to evade Strathclyde's finest. After everyone went their separate ways I went back to my room and did more of my script. I managed to get a ground-breaking new idea for the ending so went crazy and did absolutely loads of it then went out to the Counting House for a couple of Guinness to celebrate.

On Friday, we knew that we would be watching a silent Russian film. Black and white. Silent. Russian. 1925. Not really the most exciting combination to be honest so I wasn't overly looking forward to the screening but for some reason was pleasantly surprised. Maybe it was just the kind of mood I was in but I actually enjoyed it a lot more than I thought I would. The main reason we were watching it was to gain an appreciation of the early techniques of film editing - where the film makers would literally cut a piece of film to edit it. This was actually very noticeable in Battleship Potemkin and it was clear that the Russians did spend much more time editing the clips. It was obvious that there were more shots from different angles and such like which shows they used editing in a more artistic way than purely for story-telling purposes. Fair enough the overall story was probably not that brilliant or riveting and as Amélie pointed out to me about half way through, the film was made for propaganda purposes. I much preferred this to Dr. Caligari, however, maybe it was just much easier to follow or I quite liked the subject matter, who knows but I actually didn't hate this movie. And as I said after it, I probably enjoyed it more than I enjoyed Nine.