Hitchcock Film Review

‘The Master Of Suspense’, Alfred Hitchcock, hangs over cinema like an all seeing spectre. His work and technical flourishes are so viscerally imprinted on cultural psyche that even someone who has never seen one of his films would still recognise his touch at a glance. Any biopic of such a looming figure (both metaphorical and literal) has huge boots to fill and it’s a task that Sacha Gervasi of Anvil! The Story Of Anvil fame has attempted with a dramatization of behind the scenes of  one of The Master’s most celebrated works.

 

1960: Worried that age is catching up with him and his talent slipping away, Alfred Hitchcock (Anthony Hopkins) boldly settles on the controversial pulp novel Psycho as his next project. It’s lurid subject matter sees him meet refusal from Paramount Picture executives so he takes the unorthodox move to finance the film himself putting at risk his reputation and house together with his wife and longtime collaborator Alma Reville (Helen Mirren). The drama follows them and their efforts to make the picture whilst confronting their own marital stresses.

 

Whilst it may be unfair to immediately compare Hitchcock with another film of similar subject matter, it cannot help but be cursed to have been released in the wake of television movie The Girl starring Toby Jones as the titular director. Whilst not without its flaws, that film presented a darker, more complex view of the man in regards to his supposed infatuation and harassment of Tippi Hedren whilst making the follow up to Psycho, The Birds. Whether or not you agree with the account, it added  layers of credible complexion to a figure whose dry comedic wit and physical appearance dominate public perception of him. Here Anthony Hopkins dons the fat suit and the make up and makes a good stab at the hangdog expression and the constantly  bemused vocal tones. However whilst Hopkins provides the surface for Hitch, what’s beneath amounts to little more than a running checklist of all the well known tics and traits. He liked his food and drink, had the fondness for blondes, was something of a bully on set and so forth. This unfortunately leans more towards mimicry than performance. The supporting cast fare little better. Whilst you can argue that psychical likelihood is not the cornerstone of a biopic performance, neither Scarlett Johansson and Jessica Biel convince as Janet Leigh and Vera Miles respectively. James D’Arcy is surprisingly uncanny as Anthony Perkins yet is given very little to do whilst fine character actors Michael Stuhlbarg and Kurtwood Smith are given practically walk on roles.

 

Of all the principal performances Helen Mirren as Alma easily steals the show. Nobody quite corners the market as strong willed supporting roles quite like she does and she provides Hitchcock with a passionate line that it needs badly. The marriage interludes hinting at Alma’s resentment of her husband’s success and lack of her own adulation do drift towards soap opera material yet Mirren turns it around and manages to convey a fiery will that sees her husband and his projects through. Another intriguing, if brief performance comes from Michael Wincott as Ed Gein, the serial killer whose bizarre and horrific crimes influenced the novel of Psycho (they also served to be the inspiration for another landmark American horror title; The Texas Chain Saw Massacre). Hitchcock imagines Gein in a number of scenarios, taunting him with references to the darker, sadistic sides of the director’s personality. The darkly amusing opening shot of the film sees Gein beating his brother to death with a shovel only for the camera to pan and reveal Hitch who breaks the fourth wall in his Alfred Hitchcock Presents persona. Eye catching as these scenes are they mark a conflict of tone of the film. We get hints of Hitchcock’s psychological impulses and dark desires yet Gervasi never acts on them or brings them fully to the fore. Rather the more potentially questionable sides of his personality are cast aside in favour of playful admiration and constant name dropping of stars and films of the period. It tries to be edgy yet comes off as surprisingly toothless.

 

All in all Hitchcock feels like its treading water when a terrific, meaty subject matter lies just  beneath it. Hopkins and Mirren do their best but the playful idolization becomes too much of a distraction. You could argue that the movie would more benefit those who are unfamiliar with Psycho and Hitchcock. That may be true but then why would you watch this over Psycho or any of the great man’s work?

Zero Dark Thirty Film Review

News travels fast and the arts, arguably, just as fast. It seems that little time passes between major news, political and cultural events occurring and their portrayal in mainstream media. At time of writing a Julian Assange movie is well into production and Bradley Cooper has just been cast as disgraced cyclist Lance Armstrong. Barely eighteen months have passed since the death of Osama Bin Laden and now Kathryn Bigelow’s thriller about the hunt for the Al-Qaeda leader arrives on these shores amidst both critical adulation and a storm of controversy. Bigelow was already well into production on a project about the failed hunt for Bin Laden when real world events forced a rapid change of focus for the film. Hopes were high following her historic Oscar win for Iraq war thriller The Hurt Locker. Can her return to familiar theatre hold up to scrutiny?

 

Following the September 11 attacks, newly recruited CIA operative Maya (Jessica Chastain) is deployed to Pakistan where she joins a covert team dedicated to seeking out Osama Bin Laden’s couriers in the hope it will lead to his location. The narrative then follows Maya and her colleagues across a grueling decade of dead ends, shifting political landscapes, assassination attempts and haunted obsession before arriving at the inevitable outcome of May 2nd 2011.

 

Bigelow is a master of crafting a tough, machismo drenched world through her camera lens. Her past work has traded in different genres and protagonists from different walks of life. Her aesthetic here is similar to that of The Hurt Locker; lots of handheld camerawork, extended close ups and disoriented framing have a powerful culmanitive effect. What’s fascinating this time round is how much of the drama she chooses to show through screens within the frame. The protagonists of Zero Dark Thirty are shown poring over lengthy intelligence data, hours of interrogation footage, news reports of major terrorist attacks and the frighteningly familiar overhead sights of CIA drones. A good chunk of the final raid is viewed through the first person viewpoint of the SEAL’s night vision goggles. Where The Hurt Locker and films before it portrayed a war fought on the ground side by side with the ‘grunts’, Zero Dark Thirty portrays a unique 21st century attitude towards combat. This is  a war fought through intelligence, data and statistics. It is a cold and stark view that matches our 24 hour media mainlined view of contemporary warfare. That’s not to say that the film branches out in all directions; political figureheads are glimpsed briefly and major events (Invasion of Iraq, Obama’s election) are alluded to but never directly mentioned. There’s a cool and clinical air of detachment over the proceedings.

 

Without a backstory or even a surname, the central character of Maya is presented to us as a decidedly single minded individual with little to no life outside her hunt for Bin Laden. A child’s hand drawing reading ‘Mommy’ is glimpsed but never brought up and she shoots down all questions about her private life from colleagues. Such a portrayal could be viewed as unengaging but a fierce performance from Chastain makes it anything but. Pale, ethereal and with a thousand yard stare Chastain dominates every scene she’s in, her evolution from rookie to veteran wholly believable. While there is a whole other ideology hanging over the films head, it is also possible to see one aspect that attracted Bigelow to this specific take on the story. Maya is one of few female characters in the film operating in what is seen as a  predominantly male environment (read:Hollywood) and she spends just as much time butting heads with her colleagues than she does hunting her prey. ‘I’m the motherfucker who found him’ she cooly intones to a room full of indecisive superiors in what is probably the closest the film comes to a ‘victory’ moment. In many ways Maya’s journey reminded me of David Fincher’s superb Zodiac, another exhaustive, fictionalized account of the hunt for one individual and the havoc it wreaks on those who search for him.

 

Anyone heading into see Zero Dark Thirty will be no doubt aware of the controversy surrounding its alleged depiction of torture of detainees and the suggestion that such methods worked and led to Bin Laden. American senators have written letters to the production company criticising such a depiction whilst author Naomi Wolf wrote a scathing article comparing Bigelow to Nazi propaganda filmmaker Leni Riefenstahl. Certainly Bigelow and script writer Mark Boal do not shy away from the fact that ‘enhanced interrogation techniques’ occurred at American forces hands and the opening scenes showing a detainee being stripped, humiliated and waterboarded are horrifying to watch. However the film portrays the brutalisation of detainees yielding no or useless information. It is when the characters re-examine existing evidence that they eventually wind up on the road to Bin Laden’s compound. I personally don’t agree that the film condones torture and prefer such a brutal stark portrayal to that of the likes of 24 where Jack Bauer’s relentless torture of characters become both repetitive and repellent. I certainly won’t pretend to be smarter than anyone making the allegations; I would point out Alex Gibney’s article on the film which though I disagree with it he argues his points very well. However I would point out the argument of torture being effective (and in turn accusations of condoning American violence) is largely undone by the cold, blunt delivery of the films finale. Bin Laden is finally killed practically offscreen in front of screaming women and children with no triumphant ‘got him!’ moment. The first thing the SEAL’s do when the deed is done? Take pictures with a camera to confirm the kill. More distancing through a digital screen.

 

There’s no ‘ra-ra’ patriot message to end on. The narrative ends hours before Bin Laden’s death is made public. No footage of celebrations in Times Square, rather Bigelow chooses to end on an image that suggests that the decade long mission has brought nothing but a Pyrrhic victory. Maya’s quarry finally caught, her life is practically over. Many may feel differently and either way it is no easy watch. But Bigelow has created a never less than compelling , astonishingly well made thriller which dodges the cliches it could have fallen into and shines a light where similar films have rarely gone. However you feel about that is completely up to you.

 

 

Django Unchained | Film Review

Quentin Tarantino is a filmmaker whose name and ego seems to precede his films by quite a substantial degree. Since bursting onto the independent scene with the fantastic Reservoir Dogs in the early 1990’s his reputation and title as a ‘saviour’ of contemporary American cinema has grown rapidly, winning an astonishingly loyal fan base and even coining its own phrase; ‘Tarantinoesque’ which commonly refers to the trademark motormouth and foul mouthed dialogue that he revels in. Yet for the admiration that has been heaped upon him, Tarantino has found himself under growing accusations of plagiarism, violence for violence’s sake and the inability to rein in his work, spiralling off in all directions and drawing out what are essentially ‘B-Movies’ into epic lengths. His latest, his long planned Western, is arguably guilty of all of these and yet is handled with such bravura and panache that when all is said and done there is no denying that whether for better or worse, you are at the mercy of a force of nature behind the camera.

 

Shortly before the outbreak of the American civil war, Django (Jamie Foxx) is freed from a chain gang by Dr. King Schultz (Christoph Waltz), a dentist turned bounty hunter who needs Django to identify a gang of outlaws he is hunting down. Quickly realising that Django has talent for the trade, Schultz forms an alliance to give him his freedom and rescue his wife Broomhilda (Kerry Washington) from the plantation she has been sold to. It is a journey that will take them across a surreal and profane landscape and ultimately to the doorstep of the extravagant and sadistic slave trader Calvin Candie (Leonardo DiCaprio) and his unnervingly loyal servant Steven (Samuel L. Jackson).

 

Tarantino has made no secret of his love of the Western genre (though he has referred to this new work as a ‘Southern’). Motifs and visual allusions to the classic Spaghetti westerns of the 60’s and 70’s adorn his previous films along with the now typically anachronistic use of music from Ennio Morricone to present day rap tracks and  everything in between. Django Unchained feels more like a sponge for pop culture than just a straight homage. That it works as well as it does is a testament to how horribly addictive Tarantino’s aesthetic is at its best. Profane soliloquies trip off the tongue, cameras swoop and crash zoom with grace and claret soaks the surroundings to a hysterically overemphasised effect. There is a killer in joke in which Franco Nero, the Italian superstar famed for playing the titular Django in a series of Italian westerns, meets his American namesake. The films setting, both historical and social, has brought controversy for Tarantino’s supposed fixation with racial epithets but the swerve and swagger on display as well as the overall theme of retribution puts aside accusations of racism on his part. As he did with Inglorious Basterds Tarantino has taken an idea (or at least a cinematic idea) of history that is emblazoned on our minds and has taken a switchblade to it and crafted a piece of postmodern beauty out of it (if beauty is the word you can use). He does this more effectively than he did in Basterds and in similar vein Kill Bill Vol.2 where he was indeed guilty of spinning off into a fan boy tangent and making the parts more than their sum. Whilst I do think the third act of Django could be tightened somewhat, it never becomes dull or trying. Long dialogue driven scenes, notably one set around a dinner table late on, throb with tension and a knowing wit. The payoffs are exceptionally enjoyable. It’s not just verbally that Tarantino excels; a jaw droppingly violent shootout stands next to the House Of Blue Leaves showdown in Kill Bill as proof he should be considered an action director of note.

 

Django Unchained also serves as a reminder for Tarantino’s other exceptional trademark; his ability to elicit magnificent performances from his ensembles. After the accolades he received for Inglorious Basterds it is no surprise to see Christoph Waltz reunite with the director and a joy it is to. He would seem to have been put onto this Earth for Tarantino’s words to have the pleasure of his delivery. His Schultz is savvy, charming, deadly, is smarter than everyone in the room and knows it. There is a line comically alluding to Schultz’s English being a second language. Whichever language which he delivers in (English, German or French) he remains masterful. Leonardo DiCaprio is clearly having a ball flitting effortlessly back and forth between comically debonair and psychopathic rage. Watch out for the scene where he loses his temper and smashes a glass with his hand. The result is not faked. Having spent many years playing the incredibly straight faced and dramatic lead, he proves a perfect foil for a more extravagant and comedic turn. Here’s hoping he plays to the advantage. Brilliant as these two are the films is very nearly stolen by Samuel L. Jackson as house servant Steven. The Uncle Tom from hell, balding, limping and in a constant state of bewilderment/silent rage Jackson relishes the ultimate in reverse stereotyping. It’s a role that if misjudged could have come across as extremely uncomfortable. Under his performance, it’s a scary and hysterical joy. Another larger than life performance could tip things too far over the edge yet Jamie Foxx wisely decides to play down any caricatures. His Django is a man of few words and big actions and when there are words they come like daggers. It’s a performance of quiet electricity.

 

Django Unchained is not perfect by any stretch. Part of me still would very much like to see Tarantino whittle down a project to under two hours and some of his choices of direction still raise an eyebrow. He casts himself in a cameo role with a bizarre and quite frankly terrible Australian accent that proves he should genuinely stay behind the camera than venture in front of it. Minor faults aside this is something of a comeback for Tarantino, ironic that he is considered the master of comebacks for actors. His devotees would argue he never went away but this is definitely in the upper tier and reminds you of his best. It’s like a shot of tequila; it burns the throat but the aftertaste is terrific.

 

Flight Film Review

You may think that Flight is an air disaster movie, but you would be wrong. It is a film about addiction and consequence, but do not let that put you off. This dazzling and adult film from Robert Zemeckis is a punchy, entertaining and thrilling look into the life of Whip Whitaker, a pilot who is introduced to us in the opening scene in a hotel room with empty bottles, cigarette butts, a naked women and cocaine. The cocaine he then snorts because he is working that day and has to go and fly a plane.

The role of Whit Whitaker is played by Denzel Washington, and, boy, does he go for it. Washington really is one of the best actors that we have. He is just excellence personified. As the pilot that can fly better when high and drunk than other pilots can do sober, his charisma makes you like him, even when he is pressing his self destruct button over and over again. His character’s arrogance is beautifully played by Washington, ‘Nobody could’ve landed that plane like I did.’ An investigation is launched into the crash and the people surrounding Whit are trying to get him off, but is he?

John Goodman’s drug dealer is always underscored on entrance to a Rolling Stones tracks and the supporting cast are all first class. Kelly Reilly is also very good as a drug addict who Washington tries to save.

I loved this film. An entertaining, adult look into addiction and people trying to connect with each other. Go see.

Do Elephants Pray? | Film Review

Do Elephants Pray? is a film that anyone on the 9-5 rat race will be able to relate to, and to their credit, the filmmakers capture the dull greyness of adulthood, jobs and responsibility perfectly.

Advertising executive Callum Cutter’s (Jonnie Hurn) life completely changes after he meets a French free spirit (hippie) Malika (Julie Dray) and their worlds of commerce and nature collide. Malika promises to change Callum’s life forever, as long as he keeps her identity secret.

Callum is the head of his own failing advertising company and is trying to find meaning in his own soulless life, he is played with subtlety by Hurn who is very good in his role and is also the screenwriter and producer of the film. Callum faces the dilemma of selling the unsellable product.

Marc Warren (of Hustle fame) is also in this film, playing a cad after Callum’s job to perfection. This film was five years in the making and is based on real events on the life of writer/actor Jonnie Hurn, which gives the movie substance. Filmed in London and in the magical forest of Broceliande in Brittany, the film stays true to itself. Do Elephants Pray? is an enjoyable film about self awareness and the meaning of life. With talented and passionate people behind the story it is definitely one to watch. Director and producer Paul Hills has directed well, capturing the essence of the film.

Length: 105 minutes.

The five things filmmakers can learn from Kickstarter by Andrew Harmer

The five things filmmakers can learn from Kickstarter (and visa-versa The five things Kickstarter creators can learn from filmmakers). By a filmmaker in the middle of a campaign!

 

Hello, I’m Andrew Harmer, the writer-director of the Fitzroy. Right up front I want to say we are currently slap bang in the thick end of a Kickstarter campaign.

 

Here’s the elevator pitch for the film.

 

The Fitzroy is a live action black comedy set in an alternative post-apocalyptic 1950’s. The world is covered in a poisons gas and the last place for a traditional seaside holiday is The Fitzroy hotel an abandoned submarine just of Margate.

 

This list isn’t necessarily the five things we have done, but it is the five things we would do (or be prepared for) if we started over again! Kickstarter, like film making is a constant learning curve and this list might well change by the end of the campaign.

 

  1. Tell the most interesting story.

You only really get one shot at a Kickstarter campaign or making a film. Sure you might do another one or another dozen but then a bus might also hit you! So you better make this one count and make it the best it can be.

 

And that means telling the best story you can.

 

A film has to be the very best ‘version’ of that story you can possibly tell. The most interesting, dramatic and honed story possible.  Nobody want’s the B plots to be more interesting than your focus so make sure you are telling the most interesting story.

 

The same goes for a Kickstarter campaign. You need to hook people into your campaign and to do that you need a great story (as well as a great product). And I don’t just mean the story you are selling, I mean the story behind the project. YOUR story. Your struggles, the adventure you have been on to get to this point. Is your idea based on a life altering brush with death? Did you witness a moment of kindness between an old man and his wife on the buss while riding the bus to work? It doesn’t matter what it is, just make sure it’s interesting and told the best way possible.

 

2) Be yourself.

Let your personality shine. I like films where I can ‘see’ the personalities of the filmmakers. I don’t always like those personalities, but I would much prefer to see an idiosyncratic film than a pixel pushing blockbuster with no heart. I truly believe a soul of a film comes from the people who make it. While it is being made it absorbs the personality and characteristics of the director (if they want it to). And I want to see that. Film is a personnel experience a conversation between the viewer and the director.

 

Same goes for Kickstarter, but to an even larger degree. The old adage ‘people invest in people’ is true. You have to put yourself out there. It’s scary but you have to share your passion, fears and hopes. Sure you might end up looking like a fool but if you don’t put yourself out there people will just turn off. But word of warning – don’t try to be something you’re not. If you’re funny be funny but if you are not don’t even try. Cool and hip? That’s fine but if you aren’t don’t force it. People can smell it, and it stinks. No bullshit. Just be yourself and people will engage with you.

 

3) Do it quick.

Okay this is straightforward. Kickstarter is on the web so you don’t have long to tell your story. Minutes, if you are lucky but seconds in reality. So you better make your page accessible, clear and your pitch video SHORT and to the point.

 

Same goes for the film (unless you’re Terrence Malick) edit, edit, edit. Cut the fat and edit that script so it’s tighter than a drum. All through the film and into post production, if it doesn’t move the story on then it goes. Don’t waste people’s time.

 

Word of warning though don’t jump the gun and rush head first in to it. With both Kickstarter and films make sure you are ready, that everything is prepared. And even if you think it is –  it probably isn’t. Do it quick but make sure you are prepared.

 

  1. Know your audience and engage with them.

Kickstarter is social, very social. It is a direct link between creators and their audience and in my humble opinion a very powerful tool. But before you start a campaign you must identify the audience you are targeting. This could be fairly obvious, your family and friends, people with ipods, hardcore gamers, Teddy Ruxpin fans. Whatever your audience you need to identify them, find them and engage with them.

 

Film-makers need to do the same thing. There’s not a one size fits all film. Everyone has different tastes and yes you can try to create a film that appeals to as many people as possible and the mass market. But I prefer films that are aimed at… well… me and my tastes. There is a distinct risk when trying to appeal to everyone that you can water down a story. Be specific and know your audience.

 

  1. Take it seriously and have respect.

Both Kickstarter and filmmaking are, at the end of the day, businesses and you are asking for people’s time and money. That is not to be taken lightly. Sure you are hopefully giving back to them in the form of entertainment or in the case of Kickstarter some sort of reward. When people give you their hard earned money you have a responsibility, a contract to deliver on your promises and work your boney ass off to make sure you do.

 

If I can tell someone has put their heart and soul in to a project or a film it means a lot to me as an audience member and it pays dividends.

 

  1. Be flexible and learn to adapt.

Just like this list! It was meant to be five and we end up with six? It’s not a problem just not what I was expecting when I started writing. It took me by surprise. Your Kickstarter project is an organic beast, it is going to change and develop as the campaign progresses. It is going to throw you some curve balls, stuff you planed will fail and other avenues and opportunities will suddenly appear. You can’t let the setbacks knock you, you just have to keep moving forward and be open to any new possibilities.

 

I can’t think off anything that is more applicable than that to film making! Be flexible and make it work.

 

 

So that’s it, that’s what I have learnt so far, and who knows what is around the corner. Hopefully we can reach our target and make an awesome film. If I heed my own advice, we just might!

 

If you would like to see how we are doing on our campaign please check it out. www.thefitzroy.com/ks any advice or support in spreading the word would be warmly welcomed.

 

 

 

The Fitzroy – The Final Week on Kickstarter

A post-apocalyptic comedy about the last
refuge for a seaside holiday
www.thefitzroy.com/ks

The final week of the Kickstarter Campaign

The Fitzroy, is black-comedy live action feature film set in a post-apocalyptic 1950’s, on board The
Fitzroy hotel, a leaky submarine beached just off Margate – the last refuge for a traditional summer
holiday

Written and Directed by Andrew Harmer and Produced by Liam Garvo & James Heath, the team
behind Dresden Pictures.

Short Synopsis:
Set in an alternative post-apocalyptic 1950’s, The Fitzroy hotel, a derelict submarine beached just
off Margate, is the last place for a traditional summer holiday.

Bernard, the hotel’s bellboy, cook, maintenance man and general dogsbody faces a constant battle to
keep the decaying hotel airtight and afloat.

But when he falls in love with Sonya, a murderous guest, he is thrown into a world of lies,
backstabbing and chaos. As Bernard struggles to hide her murders from the other guests and
suspicious authorities, the hotel literally begins to sink around him.

As his world implodes, Bernard must choose between the woman he thinks he loves and the hotel
submarine that is keeping them all alive.

THE FITZROY: ONE WEEK TO GO

The Fitzroy, Kickstarter campaign really caught alight in the last week. On Tuesday 11th December
we were delighted to be announced by Kickstarter as their ‘Project of the Day’ and featured on the
home page spotlight for the whole day, this led to over a £7,000 increase in pledges. Kickstarter
followed this up on Thursday 13th December by naming The Fitzroy as ‘Projects we Love’ in their
weekly newsletter, with the subject line ‘Hotel Submarine’. This went to everyone registered on
Kickstarter, and over the next 24 hours resulted in 200+ new backers.

To create The Fitzroy, Dresden Pictures are looking to raise £60,000 through Kickstarter. We’ve
had some incredible support and at the time of writing have raised 83% of the target, an incredible
£50,000. We really couldn’t be happier and now we are looking for one big final push to get us over
our goal.

The campaign finishes Sunday 23rd December at 6pm GMT. For The Fitzroy to happen we need
to reach 100% of our target by this time or we don’t get any of the money and none of our generous
backers will be charge and lastly the film simply won’t get made.

THE STORY SO FAR
One of the key reasons why we believe Kickstarter have got behind the campaign is due to our
eagerness to engage the audience throughout the campaign in new and original ways.
In the first weekend, The Fitzroy team was out in full force at the Sci-Fi London Post Apocolympic
event on Nov 9th & 10th chatting to the patrons about the project, its rewards and raising
awareness. This was followed by an open invite shindig, in Hoxton, London at the Underbelly on
Nov 19th and had the film’s soundtrack producers, the Green Rock River Band (GRRB) playing
their mean doom-folk sound.

On the weekend of 8/9th December we were brave (maybe foolish) enough to take on making a
short film in 48 hours based on ideas provided and voted for by our followers on Twitter and our
friends on Facebook – we called it the Mini-Fitz Challenge!
Still from the ‘Choke Mate’ shoot.

We wanted to give something back, so asked our fans for their favourite idea, prop, location and title
as well as calling them out to help out as cast and crew. The end result was a five minute film ‘Choke
Mate’ that premiered online on 10th December. It’s a much darker piece than the feature film but
one we are all very proud of achieving with no budget and very little time – check it out for yourself:
https://vimeo.com/55276148

On Sunday 16th December we went street busking, with the fantastic GRRB on the London South
Bank. We tapped into a new audience as the crowds gathered round and GRRB soon sold out of
albums. The band got a brilliant reaction from fans. The video of highlights from the day will be going
live in the last week of the campaign.
‘GRRB’ busking on South Bank

We really want The Fitzroy to be a film made by people who like us, at heart, are film fans. We want
them to be part of it and share the experience with us. For example, one of the cool rewards is an
animated cartoon version of you or your loved one, which will inhabit the opening title sequence.
We’ve really tried to tailor the Kickstarter rewards to be as exciting as possible. Our rule was if we
wouldn’t pledge for it, then how can we ask others to. So we feel there are some great rewards in the
form of posters, DVD box sets out of a Beach Survival kit and gas mask props from the finished film!
The full list is viewable on our Kickstarter page, as well all other details on The Fitzroy.
View the Kickstarter video for The Fitzroy

The DIRECTOR AND PRODUCERS
Writer & Director Andrew Harmer
James Heath (Producer), Andrew Harmer, Liam Garvo (Producer)

Midnight’s Children | Film Review & Interviews

Midnight’s Children is an ambitious and sprawling film. Based on the celebrated 1981 Booker Prize-winning novel by Salman Rushdie and adapted by Rushdie himself, it is thoroughly enjoyable. It is visually stunning and allows itself time to tell it’s story.

Filmed in Sri Lanka and spanning several decades, the film is something of a history lesson. The surrender of the Pakistani army and the subsequent creation of Bangladesh is filmed incredibly well. No overplaying of the situation and a good overtone of respect. Although I knew the history surrounding this time it was great to see it on screen. History is too often forgotten.

The film starts with Saleem telling how his grandparents met, then his parents, until we come to his birth on the stroke of midnight on the day of India’s new independence from the United Kingdom in 1947.

I loved that this film takes it’s time to really tell the story, but it is not filler, it has a good length. The actors are all brilliant and the film is beautifully shot. This film may be a history lesson, but it is an entertaining one. An ambitious film which has payed off.

Definitely one to watch.

 

“Born in the hour of India’s freedom. Handcuffed to history.”

 

Spanning decades and generations, celebrated Canadian filmmaker Deepa Mehta’s highly anticipated adaptation of Salman Rushdie’s Booker Prize®–winning novel is an engrossing allegorical fantasy in which children born on the cusp of India’s independence from Britain are endowed with strange, magical abilities.

 

Midnight’s Children follows the destinies of a pair of children born at the stroke of midnight on August 15, 1947, the very moment that India claimed its independence from Great Britain — a coincidence of profound consequence for both. “Handcuffed to history,” and switched at birth by a nurse in a Bombay hospital, Saleem Sinai (Satya Bhabha), the son of a poor single mother, and Shiva (Siddharth), scion of a wealthy family, are condemned to live out the fate intended for the other. Imbued with mysterious telepathic powers, their lives become strangely intertwined and inextricably linked to their country’s careening journey through the tumultuous twentieth century.

 

IN CINEMAS DECEMBER 26TH  

 

INTERVIEW WITH DIRECTOR DEEPA MEHTA

Why this book? This story?

I first read Midnight’s Children in the winter of 1982 in Delhi. I distinctly remember talking about the wonder of it all with a friend while we walked around Lodhi Gardens. It had an enormous impact on me. It uncannily echoed my own upbringing, and for a novice filmmaker in the early ‘80s the book seemed to read like a movie – full of cinematic language and rooted in popular Indian cinema. The novel’s fearless dark humour combined with its affection for all human foibles stayed with me. Salman and I often talked about working together. One night, over dinner, I asked him who had the rights to Midnight’s Children. He said he did. I asked to buy them and he sold the option to me for one dollar. It was not premeditated; it was just gut instinct.

 

What is the movie about?

It is a coming-of-age story, full of the trials and tribulations of growing up, and of the terrible weight of expectations. What separates it from other similar thematic films is that this coming of age story is not only about a boy but also about his country, both of whom are born at the very same time at a pivotal point in Indian history. Saleem’s journey as our vulnerable, misguided hero is always intertwined with the struggles of the newly independent India, as it finds its own voice in the world.

 

Art by its very nature is political and I believe that Midnight’s Children says something important and universal about survival, freedom and hope.

 

Why this movie now, for you?

There is a saying – luck favours the prepared. The choices that I have embraced in life and the movies that I have made previously have certainly given me the technical and emotional confidence to tackle an epic about my homeland, but in many ways, I felt that I was learning the filmmaking craft all over again. My desire to make this film came from a gut instinct. I knew I wanted to do it but it required a huge amount of chutzpah to then wrap my head around actually filming it. I think that my producing partner David Hamilton’s dedication and leadership really did make it possible. Some of the most meaningful decisions in life are based on that indiscernible feeling of just knowing it’s time. And it was.

 

My core team: design, camera, wardrobe, editing were all available and wildly keen to work on Midnight’s Children, as was the wonderful ensemble cast. But I think the most vital factor of all is the pure delight and fun of working with Salman, and how profoundly in synch we are about the heart of the story. Salman and I have both made our homes in the Indian Diaspora; I in Canada, he in Britain and America, and we have similar complicated intertwined roots in India. Those shared perspectives and memories, plus his creative generosity and wit, kept me, and the movie, going. Salman once said, about Indian born artists who have emigrated, “ Our identity is at once plural and partial. Sometimes we feel that we straddle two cultures; at other times, that we fall between two stools. But however ambiguous and shifting the ground may be, it is not an infertile territory for a writer to occupy.”

 

Is this film a “love letter to India”  from you?

Salman has often said that the book is his love letter to India. I hope the film reflects the same sentiment. The last lines are, “The truth has been less glorious than the dream. But we have survived and made our way. And our lives have been, in spite of everything, acts of love.” The story, in its detail, becomes universal in its message of love and redemption.

 

How did you and Salman work on the adaptation, and what are the key changes from the book?

After Salman sold us the option to the book, he agreed, reluctantly, to write the screenplay. The book is inherently visceral and cinematic; the problem is length. The novel is 533 pages long and first drafts of the script were 260 pages. Early on, at our most important script meeting, Salman and I both brought handwritten lists of the dramatic moments which absolutely had to be preserved. One might spot some karma or magic at work here – our lists matched, in almost every way. The ruthless surgical decisions about cutting had to be Salman’s alone: whole swathes of story and characters – gone. And then the intricate balance of what to shape, change, or add was our shared task. I suggested scenes, moments, emotions. Drafts went back and forth as they do. Painful cuts continued to be made right up to shooting and also in the cutting room. We preserved and protected the central thread of the story and tied it always to Saleem.

 

The biggest changes from the book are that Saleem and Shiva are now inextricably linked throughout and Shiva is given greater prominence; the story builds towards the Saleem-Parvati- Shiva triangle. Recalibrating and reshaping the last scenes during the Emergency and afterwards are important shifts, but it would ruin the ending to say anything further about those specific changes. We also deleted the overall narrator (from the novel), and in its place Salman wrote a spare, precise, evocative voiceover, which he performs – wonderfully.

 

How did you prepare for Midnight’s Children?

I have the terrible reputation of spending my down time not moving unless I have to. Devyani, my daughter, has often said that her mum’s favourite exercise is “turning the page of a book”! Well, a slight exaggeration but somewhat true. All that changed about six months after Midnight’s Children was green lit. I found an empathic, encouraging trainer and went to the gym every day (reluctantly!) before production. I felt I needed every bit of stamina and awareness, and this physical preparation was perhaps the most essential of all. This film, more than most, because of its sheer scope was going to need not just my focus but also my stamina. The wisest decision I made.

 

Preparation with the cast is a given. A month before shooting there was an intensive workshop in Mumbai with the actors and me, led by my friend Neelam Choudhry, a theatre director from Chandigarh. This was not a rehearsal of the script; it was work based on the Natya Shastra, a treatise written in India in the 4th century AD about the art of drama, which includes a rasabox or grid of nine essential mental states and emotions: love, repulsion, bravery, cowardice, humour, eroticism, wonderment, compassion, and peace. This intensive work knitted us together as a group and grounded us in the emotional arcs of the film.

 

I don’t use shot lists or storyboards; the actor motivates my camera. From the actors I know what the emotional centre of the scene will be and then we shoot it. By now my long time DOP Giles Nuttgens and I have a finely honed shorthand.

 

But the most important preparation (except perhaps for the gym!) was meticulously planning the world of the movie. In Midnight’s Children we meet four generations over five very distinct time periods; there are three wars, 64 locations, and 127 speaking parts, plus animals, babies, snakes, cockroaches [Well, that didn’t really work out. Our cockroach wrangler failed]. And everything in the world of the film had to be shipped or found or designed or built in Sri Lanka. My closest ally and second brain/eyes is always my brother Dilip, who is responsible for the entire “look” of this film. He fought for authenticity in every aspect of the movie: visuals, historical period, class, accents, religious backgrounds…no detail too large (wars, helicopters, parades) or too small (ants, lizards) to escape his scrutiny. There is no one else whom I fully trust who knows the historical landscape and the “real” India, and who could create all of this flawlessly and with such a passion for accuracy and for beauty.

 

Did you have any filmmaking touchstones or influences as you planned the shooting of Midnight’s Children?

During the script process I thought a lot about classic elegant films like The Leopard, which is also a historical/political film. As we got closer to shooting Midnight’s Children and I got more inside the script and the energy needed to keep the story going, I began to think about movies like The Conformist – movies with tougher and more immediate storytelling. All along Giles and I planned on a traditional camera department, and many extra tracks and dollies had been shipped to Sri Lanka. A week before shooting I realized that we had to ramp up the energy of the movie, keep constantly moving psychologically, always have a sense of immediacy and fluidity, and free ourselves from time consuming set ups. There was just too much to cover. So we ditched most of the equipment and Giles shot almost the entire movie handheld, up close, intimate, and full of energy. This was a major liberation for all of us, especially because I do all of my blocking with the actors right on set.

 

How did you want to deal with the magic or magic realism elements?

I always wanted to show the fabulist as realism. I never wanted masses of CGI and visual effects; there are some effects in the movie, but pretty minimal. I wanted the fantastical elements to be grounded in reality. Salman has described the Children as “gifted or cursed with telepathy”. It’s up to audiences to draw their own conclusions about Saleem’s experiences, his loneliness, his vivid imagination and the Children’s corporeal reality.

 

The movie intentionally plays around with time shifts, foreshadowing, dreams and witchcraft. The most significant magical item is probably Parvati’s basket of invisibility, yet it is used in very practical and credible ways. Or at least Picture Singh believes so…and magicians are the last to believe in real magic. For me the film magically changes the definition of family. By the end of the movie, Saleem’s concept of family (and perhaps ours) is truly transformed.

 

How did you pull all the aspects of this complex story together in the edit?

When we came back from the shoot my editor Colin Monie and I knew Midnight’s Children had to be constructed in stages, and that we had to get each stage right before we moved on. These stages were:

1) The flesh and blood: Saleem and the character/family saga stories had to be shaped first;

2) Then the history-wars-time periods had to work within the overall story and be clear;

3) Then the theme, politics and what the film says about India, had to be woven in

…and that actually is how the movie came together: cut by cut, screening by screening.  From intimate personal story – to family saga – to epic.

 

We protected the personal, the intimate, and the emotional core of all the characters inside this roomy canvas, full of disasters, wars and shattering events. That was not always easy, nor was figuring out how much of the history and politics to include. This is a movie for audiences all around the world who will have very differing amounts of knowledge about India and we did not want to over explain, or under explain.

Deepa Mehta

 

****************************************************************************

 

ON  T H M A K I N G   O F   M I D N I G H T C H I L D R E N SALMAN RUSHDIE

 

Deepa Mehta and I agreed to work together to make a film of Midnight’s Children on June 9th, 2008. I was passing through Toronto on the North American publication tour for The Enchantress of Florence and had dinner with Deepa on my one free evening. She asked me who had the rights to Midnight’s Children; I replied that I did; she asked me if she could film it; I said yes. It was as simple as that.

 

Four and a quarter years later, the film of the “book that was impossible to film” is finally finished, and I’ve had quite an education in what it actually takes to get a film made. I’ve learned, for example, that when some potential financial backers tell you that they totally adore your book, they 100% love your script, they worship Deepa, and they are totally committed to helping us get our film made, this is what they mean: “Hello.”

 

Over the years, before Deepa, David Hamilton and I started on our journey together, more than one attempt to film Midnight’s Children had foundered. There are so many ways a film can fail to get made. Consequently, I’ve developed a great respect for anyone who gets any film made and puts it out there. I’ve also come to feel – and I am not ordinarily a superstitious or mystically inclined individual – that it was right that those earlier attempts to film my book failed, so that this one could succeed. One might almost use the word “karma.”

 

I’m happy that we were able to retain complete creative control of the project and to make the film that Deepa and I wanted to make. Nobody told us how to write it, cast it, shoot it or cut it, so there’s nobody else to blame, and that’s exactly the way we both wanted it to be.

 

Years earlier, Hanif Kureishi had told me of his happy collaboration with Stephen Frears on My Beautiful Laundrette, and Paul Auster had said much the same about working with Wayne Wang on Smoke and Blue in the Face. I had long hoped that I might some day encounter a filmmaker with whom I could have such a close, happy, fruitful working relationship. Deepa Mehta was the answer to that dream.

 

From our first script meeting, we found we were almost uncannily of one mind about how to approach the adaptation. When I suggested dropping the novel’s “frame narration” in which the protagonist, Saleem, tells his story retrospectively to the “mighty pickle woman” Padma at the Braganza Pickle Factory, Bombay – dropping it because it was too “literary” a device which, on film, would constantly break the audience’s emotional engagement with the characters – Deepa said, “I was going to suggest that but I thought you wouldn’t like it.” And when I showed her my first list of scenes we needed to include to make it a true adaptation of the novel, she produced her own list, and the two were almost identical.

 

We did much of the casting together in Bombay, and even when we weren’t in the same place at the same time we discussed actors together, watched clips of their work, grew excited about some and rejected others. When Deepa thought of the then relatively unknown Satya Bhabha for the lead role she sent him to meet me and only after both of us had seen, in him, the sweetness and vulnerability we were looking for, did Deepa formally offer him the role. We met with a number of Bollywood titans, to whom I had to “narrate” the film in their homes and even in their stretch limousines; but we agreed, in the end, to avoid casting those Bombay ultra-stars who were unfamiliar with working as part of an ensemble cast. Instead, we chose wonderful actors, highly acclaimed wherever Indian films are seen, who left their egos at home and gave us their all.

 

It has been an extraordinary experience to watch my novel brought to life by so many talents working in harmony. Dilip Mehta’s production design, with its meticulous eye for period detail, re-created the world of Midnight’s Children, much of it drawn from my own childhood memories, so vividly and accurately that there were moments when I gasped – see, there was my father’s old Rolleiflex! And look, there were my grandmother’s ferocious geese! Giles Nuttgens’s magnificent camera photographed a world that was both epic and intimate, which was afterwards given rhythm and shape by Colin Monie’s editing; Nitin Sawhney’s score lifted scene after scene to new levels, adding layers of emotion; and above all Deepa Mehta’s kindly, ferocious direction orchestrated it all and made a film that’s true to the spirit of the original novel, but that also, I think, possesses its own authority, and establishes itself as a work of art in its own right.

 

And now it’s done, and it’s for others to judge what we did. This is the gamble of art: to make the work you want to make and then offer it to its audience, and to hope that it will touch them. When that happens, with a book or film, it’s the best feeling in the world.

Salman Rushdie

 

HISTORICAL BACKGROUND TO MIDNIGHT’ S CHILDREN

Midnight’s Children is an epic movie based on a novel drenched in the history of India. While the characters are almost always fictional, the major events, wars, and seismic power/political shifts are not. In order to give extra historical context for the movie we asked a friend, Professor Deepika Bahri, who teaches at Emory University, where Salman Rushdie is Distinguished Writer in Residence, to write a brief essay about some of the historical aspects, as they intersect with our story.

 

———————

“Handcuffed to history”, Saleem Sinai is the designated Midnight’s Child whose fate will mirror that of the nation as he finds himself center stage at major events in the history of the region. Right at the core of Midnight’s Children are the two signature events in modern Indian history that are joined, like the clock hands at the midnight hour (Saleem’s birth) on August 14/15, 1947: the partition of British India, and the independence of India and Pakistan. After some 150 years of colonial occupation, the British left India divided in two on the basis of religion, with Pakistan as an Islamic state led by Governor General Mohammed Ali Jinnah, and India a secular democracy under Prime Minister Jawahar Lal Nehru. Muslim leaders who advocated Hindu- Muslim unity and dreamt of an undivided nation free from British rule are represented in the film by the fictional figure of Mian Abdullah. The movie presents an intricate metaphorical rendition of events that are vastly more complicated in the historical record. The murder of Mian Abdullah and the concealment of his secretary Nadir in the basement signal the muffling of resistance to

Partition. Scholars do not agree on the causes or reasons for Partition, but they recognize that it left behind unresolved boundary issues, and set the stage for decades of conflict in modern South Asia. Also left unresolved, like Amina’s longing for her first husband, Nadir, was the nostalgic hankering for a united subcontinent–a dream that would gradually fade from historical memory.

 

The movie’s unusual hero Saleem is our way through this fractured history. A cruel school teacher points to Saleem as a study in “human geography”, his face and nose “the [Indian] Deccan peninsula hanging down” and the stains and birthmarks on either side of his face the Western and Eastern wings of Pakistan. Some 1000 miles of Indian territory separated these two regions. Apart from nation-status and a majority-Muslim population, the two wings shared little either by way of language or culture, eventually separating into two nations in 1971 with Indian intervention. In the years following Partition, India and Pakistan would fight two other wars in 1947 and 1965, largely over the fate of Kashmir (where the film begins on the beautiful Dal Lake). The two nations remain deadlocked over a volatile Kashmir to this day.

 

India-Pakistan Wars

Although Saleem’s story is tied most closely to the modern nation of India, Rushdie’s novel and screenplay conveniently and brilliantly place him center stage for major events in the entire region, including in Pakistan, and later, Bangladesh. After Jinnah’s death in 1948  (we see his photo is on display in the medical clinic in Karachi) and the assassination in 1951 of its first Prime Minister, Liaqat Ali Khan, Pakistan suffered decades of political and economic instability, with democratically elected governments struggling to complete their terms. In 1958, President Iskander Mirza suspended the constitution (lines echoed in the movie): shortly afterwards, the military sent President Mirza into exile and the Army Generals assumed control of a military dictatorship. Eleven-year old Saleem is at hand to participate in the plotting of this bloodless coup at the dinner table, having been exiled to his aunt Emerald and uncle General Zulfikar’s household in Rawalpindi, the military headquarters of Pakistan.

 

By the time he is seventeen in 1964, Saleem is reunited with the rest of his family in Karachi. The Sinai family’s forced departure from Bombay in search of a fresh start in Pakistan is destined to be ill fated; they perish a year later in a bomb attack during the next Indo-Pakistan war – the second futile war over Kashmir which ended in a stalemate and small tactical victories for India. Saleem survives the bomb attack, but he is brained by a fateful, silver spittoon which was presented to his mother Amina and her first husband before Partition. He awakens in a Pakistani army hospital six years later in 1971, “remembering nothing,” ready to be thrown into the next major event in South Asian history: East Pakistan’s secession from the Western half of Pakistan.

 

The Birth of Bangladesh

Less than a quarter century after the formation of Pakistan, its Eastern wing, aided by India, would break off to become the sovereign nation of Bangladesh. The outcome of the 1970-71 elections in Pakistan had strained the already fragile relations between its eastern and western sections to a breaking point. The Awami League, which advocated autonomy for the more populous East Pakistan, swept the elections to gain an overall majority. Faced with the unacceptable prospect of a national government led by an East Pakistani leader, then President Yahya Khan postponed the National Assembly session, leading to massive insurgency in the East. Negotiations to form a coalition government broke down and a devastating civil war ensued. India’s third Prime Minister, Indira Gandhi (Nehru’s daughter), decided to intervene on the side of Bangladesh, defeating Pakistan quickly and decisively in 1971. Naturally, Saleem is present to witness Pakistan’s surrender to India and the birth of Bangladesh, before he is magically returned to India in Parvati’s basket of invisibility.

 

The Emergency

India’s victory over Pakistan catapulted Prime Minister Gandhi to unprecedented heights of popularity. In 1975, however, she was found guilty of electoral fraud, prompting calls for her immediate resignation. Gandhi’s response was to manipulate the Indian Government to declare a State of Emergency, citing threats to national security and a crisis in law and order. In the 21 month long period of suspension of elections and civil liberties during the Emergency the nation’s claim to democracy was tested in the extreme. Saleem and the other Midnight’s Children, the “promises of independence,” bear the brunt of historically recorded excesses during the Emergency: forced sterilization, the razing of slums, the incarceration of opponents, and the torture of detainees. These abuses, which are shown in the film, continued until an overconfident Indira Gandhi called the next elections in 1977, with every expectation that her party would win. Instead, it was soundly routed. India had chosen democracy, and has continued on that often bumpy, but courageous path, ever since. As does our film’s hero Saleem, who in the end embraces a tougher optimism, and recreates a family which includes many of the factions and faiths of his beloved India.

Deepika Bahri

————-

 

Deepika Bahri is Associate Professor in the English department at Emory University. She is the author of Native Intelligence: Aesthetics, Politics and Postcolonial Literature and editor of two collections of essays, Between the Lines: South Asians and Postcoloniality and Realms of Rhetoric: Inquiries into the Prospects of Rhetoric Education. In 1996 she edited Empire and Racial Hybridity, a special issue of the journal, South Asian Review. HIV/AIDS in developing countries is a secondary research interest. She also maintains an extensive Postcolonial Studies Website. Her current book project examines representations of racial and cultural difference in literature.