Have You Seen… Five Documentaries To Seek Out (Part Two)

   

This is the second part of my list of five documentaries that I love and hope that you will discover and love too. The first part, in which I lurch from historical curios to sexual fetishes and underground comics, can be found here: Part One.

 

The Sorrow and The Pity (1969)

 

Perhaps due to its appearance as an anti-date movie in Annie Hall, Marcel Ophuls’ The Sorrow and The Pity is often unfairly relegated to the punch line of jokes about gruelling and dull ways to spend an evening. It’s true that Ophuls’ film is a pretty mammoth undertaking but for those willing to persevere it can also be an immensely rewarding one. Filmed in 1969 (although not released until 1981 due to objections from the French government) and clocking in at a mammoth 251 minutes, Le chagrin et la pitié (to give it its French title) is an in-depth look at the behavior of the inhabitants of the French town of Clermont-Ferrand during Nazi occupation.

 

In a sense The Sorrow and the Pity could almost be watched as a companion piece to Albert Camus’

A striking poster for the film.

powerful1947 novel La Peste, which deals with the same subject by using disease as a metaphor for occupation and I will admit that having this book in the back of my mind certainly helped me clarify my experience of this gargantuan film. There is a famously enigmatic quote at the end of this novel, ‘What we learn in time of pestilence [is] that there are more things to admire in men than to despise.’ It is The Sorrow and The Pity’s inability to either confirm or deny this statement that makes it so compelling and the audience is forced to try (and fail) to make the moral judgments that the film so stubbornly avoids.

 

     The Sorrow and The Pity is split into two parts. The first of these, entitled The Collapse focuses on the French Resistance and particularly on Pierre Mendès-France, a Jewish political figure who was a key member of this group. The second, entitled The Choice, presents us with the other side of the coin recounting the story of Nazi collaboration particularly that of Christian de la Mazière, a member of the upper classes who fought under the banner of Fascism. As well as these key figures and other well-known persons (including British primeminister Anthony Eden), Ophuls also spoke with the ordinary townspeople who were faced with the impossible choice of collaboration or resistance. This puts a very human face on this grueling situation and by the film’s close you really do feel as if you have lived among these haggard, corrupt, heroic and deeply relatable people in their little town of Clermont-Ferrand. Perhaps the most remarkable and uncomfortable thing about the film is it’s lack of moral judgments particularly given the film’s relative proximity (just over twenty years) to the events it describes. Anthony Eden provides us with perhaps the most useful way of processing this when he states that, ‘One who has not suffered the horrors of an occupying power has no right to judge a nation that has.’ By the end of The Sorrow and The Pity it is impossible to argue with him and we realize that this is perhaps the closest we’ll get to an understanding of Camus’ inscrutable sentiment.

 

The Sorrow and the Pity is currently available on region 2 DVD and is well worth setting aside time to watch.

 

 

Capturing the Friedmans (2004)

 

The Friedmans celebrate during happier times.

Arnold and Elaine Friedman and their three sons were pretty much your archetypal middle class family living in a small town in upstate New York in the 1980s. He was an upbeat and well-liked teacher who ran a computer class out of their basement while she was a hardworking housewife whose rather serious demeanour made her the butt of her husband and three sons’ high-spirited jokes. Like many upwardly mobile families of the period, their favourite pastime was recording their mundane yet happy lives on their personal video camera (a relatively new innovation at this time).  They were content, down to earth and almost aggressively normal, like a Jewish 80s Cleavers. All this came crashing down in November 1987 when their typical suburban house was raided after Arnold was accused of molesting several children in his computer class. Extraordinarily, the family did not give up their beloved hobby and continued to record every tense discussion and blistering argument on videotape as more and more allegations were made, son Jesse was accused and their family began to disintegrate.

 

Andrew Jarecki’s Capturing the Friedmansassembles this startling footage and intercuts it with interviews

The accusations tore the family apart

with the family, police and victims. What makes the films so gripping is that it is cast in the mould of a thriller with each new piece of evidence or witness testimony contradicting something that the audience had earlier been convinced was fact. The result of this is that you are never really sure of anything except the truly subjective nature of truth and, by the film’s close, it is almost impossible to make any definitive judgements about Arnold and, to a larger degree, Jesse’s guilt. This style is undoubtedly effective and makes the film breathtakingly gripping. However, its moral implications have opened it up to some justified criticism and it is hard to watch the film in the same way now that news has emerged that Jarecki (who had previously declared himself to be impartial) actually funded Jesse Friedman’s appeal.

 

What earns Capturing the Friedmans a place on this list though is it’s unique, self-documented insight into a family in turmoil; the way each family member deals with the traumatic events is a master class in psychology and it is staggering to consider why on earth they chose to film themselves going through this horrible ordeal. Elaine Friedman is perhaps the most fascinating character in this respect, the seemingly emotionally fenced-off wife who was oblivious to her husband and son’s crimes. She is also arguably the most sympathetic of the Friedmans and it is heartbreaking to watch as her family continues to favour their father, frequently taking sides against Elaine even after he is prosecuted for the most despicable crimes. A great documentarian will often start with one subject and allow it to develop organically into something entirely different. This is certainly the case with this film, which started out life when Jarecki interviewed son David Friedman, who is a clown by profession, for a documentary he was making on children’s entertainers in New York City. That this light-hearted film spawned  Capturing The Friedmans is as intriguing as it is darkly ironic.

 

Capturing The Friedman’s is currently available on Region 2 DVD and come with a wealth of special features including Jarecki’s ‘Just a Clown’, the documentary on New York clowns that introduced him to David Friedman, and a wealth of documents (including a psychologist’s assessment of the victims) which are provided as DVD-Rom content.

 

Read Part 3, in which I discuss my favourite feature length documentary.

Charles Rivington can be followed on Twitter at @crivington.

Can “Friends With Benefits” really be the start of something beautiful?

Can “Friends With Benefits” really be the start of something beautiful?

In the eponymous Hollywood film, Mila Kunis and Justin Timberlake are FWB, ‘friends with benefits’ – they like each other, they definitely fancy each other, but they’re just not ready for a romantic relationship. But off screen, can two people really have a non-committed relationship without one person getting hurt?

According to relationship scientists from eHarmony.co.uk, studies show that people who choose to become ‘friends with benefits’ are not ready for a committed long-term relationship and find that sticking with this type of casual set-up works better for them than moving it on.

This is particularly true of men. A new study (2011)[1] found that men were more likely to desire casual sex without the need for a monogamous relationship whilst women were more likely to crave a deeper emotional connection, hoping for it to develop into a full blown relationship. So, if casual fling evolves into committed relationship, how likely is it to be a happy one?

A study by Paik (2010)[2] investigated how different sexual encounters could predict relationship satisfaction. By surveying married or cohabiting couples, Paik found that relationships that began as sexual encounters, such as casual dating or non-romantic (friends with benefits), were significantly less satisfied with their relationship than couples whose first sexual encounter was in a serious committed relationship.

So relationship science says “be warned”. Whilst an intimate encounter with an old buddy may seem like a good idea at the time – and makes a great Hollywood script – in reality there could be tears later on.

Rise of the Planet of the Apes: Film Review

The Planet of the Apes is a franchise that has been going strong since I was a kid. Actually, the original was one of my favourite films.

With scientists admitting that they were doing tests on monkeys, and fresh Daily Mail worries about animal/human hybrid experiments, it makes it all the more real and scary.

The Rise of the Planet of the Apes has the amazingly talented Andy Serkis as Caesar, and what a performance.

In support, James Franco plays Will Rodman, whose father, played by John Lithgow, has Alzheimers. Rodman tries desperately to cure his father and the key lies in Caesar who receives an amazing amount of intelligence and self awareness due to the the drug ALZ 112 previously injected into his mother. But the drug doesn’t get funded after Caesar’s mother seemingly turns violent and is killed.

But it’s Serkis’ Caesar who steals the film. We see him unsure of his place in the world, missing his family, feeling different, like an outsider and wondering why his kind are treated differently. Andy Serkis should be allowed the Oscar.

This film has been a runway success so far, taking $54.8m in its opening weekend. Deservedly too. It is a good film, lots of action, well acted and you care for the characters. ‘Rise’ is timely and good entertainment. In short, I recommend it for a perfect fun night out while definitely giving you something to think about over your post-film pizza.

Prose & Cons Casting and Update

Prose & Cons update….

So, we are on IMDB! http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014324/ We are really excited now. We are tweaking the script, casting actors, getting ready for a funding blitz. )If you would like to become a producer contact us at frostmagazine@gmail.com)

Lots of people have asked me about casting, and hundreds of people have already applied. I have put a few of the characters we are casting below, but there is more. Feel free to apply, and if you are a filmmaker or actor who has something worthy of being in our film section then email frostmagazine@gmail.com.

The film has no funding at the moment so it is completely a collaboration. No one is getting paid anything, however, if we get funding; you will be paid. I know its annoying but Richard and I are not rich so we can’t fund our own projects.

Thank you!

Company: Run Pictures Film Company

Production Name: Prose and Cons

Production Type: Film (Feature)

Location: London

Salary: Pay depends on whether we get funding!

Production Details: We are doing a feature film, http://www.imdb.com/title/tt2014324/ It will be entered into festivals. We are trying to get funding but if we don’t we will be making it for no money, no one will be paid, we have cameras and location, etc, all for free.

We understand if this is not for you, but please realise that if we don get funding, it is not just the actors not getting paid.

Paula: female, artistic, good at writing poetry, agoraphobic, anti-social, melancholic, slightly unstable, has to be okay with not showering everyday and looking a bit dishevelled. We are flexible on age. Gender; female Min Age 29 Max Age 40

Spud: Sarah’s best friend: Description25-35, must be able to drive a car. No exceptions.

Spud (not her real name, she loves potatoes) is a screenwriter about to make it big and go to Hollywood. She is best friends with Sarah. Spud has an on/off thing with Jamie.

Jamie: Male, 25-39, eccentric, slightly dim but warm and loving. Terminally unemployed. Loves Spud.

Two Dog Walker: We need two dog walkers with good comedy reactions for one day filming. Any gender.

Sarah’s Publisher; any gender. 35-45. Literary agent. A little heartless.

George White; Male, 45-55, TV presenter, think Philip Scofield but arrogant. Or any American TV anchor.

Anna Whiteman ; 25-35, Female. TV Anchor/presenter. Presents own TV show with Matt. 25-35.

We have more roles to cast but that’s it for now.

Why Films Are Getting Stupider (Probably)

When DreamWorks’ CEO, Jeffrey Katzenberg, stated last month that 2011 had so far been one of the worst years for cinema in recent memory, it was easy to see where he was coming from.

Sure, the CEO of DreamWorks complaining about the quality of filmmaking does reek of hypocrisy (this is the man responsible for the unforgivable Shrek sequels) and yes, this year is probably not worse than 2010 but still, it’s hard to imagine 2011 being remembered as a golden year for cinema (or une année d’or if you want to be all Cannes about it).

How will it be remembered?

Perhaps as the year Harry Potter part 7 part 2 was able to stake a legitimate claim to the title of ‘Best Film of the Summer’, or the year Hollywood was running so low on ideas that they made a freaking Smurfs movie even though no one asked for one and scientific studies (probably) showed that most people would rather have a knitting needle shoved into their eye than have to pass posters emblazoned with the vacuous faces of the smug blue bastards on the tube everyday. Or perhaps 2011 will quite simply be remembered as the year cinema got even stupider.

The central problem with cinema today is that the film industry is no longer making movies for adults. I believe that the blame for this can be attributed to one little word: ‘demographics’.  For a long time now, the balance between ‘show’ and ‘biz’ has been out of whack. Studios are so focused on revenue that films are increasingly being made solely to appeal to the broadest possible consumer demographic, forsaking little things like quality and integrity.

It seems that some marketing genius somewhere has also decided that people over the age of about 15 don’t go to the cinema anymore.  In addition to this, it’s common knowledge that the young, perhaps due to their not-as-yet-entirely-formed brains, are much more inclined to buy the ‘merchandise’ that movie studios are busy fashioning out of cheap plastic and the tears of orphans in some factory in the Far East. This has led to film studios pouring huge amounts of time and money into films aimed at teenagers and, God help us, tweenagers. (It should be noted at this juncture that this demographic of course deserves to be rewarded for its valuable

Unnecessary and irritating

contribution to our flagging economy and for the fact that it isn’t comprised of ungrateful squatters insistent on milking dry our society’s bizarre idolisation of the young).

This not only leads to more films being made specifically for a younger age group, but also to the tweaking of films that traditionally might not have been aimed predominantly at a youth market (this is why every big Hollywood film now has to have a seemingly unnecessary and irritating teenage character who makes wisecracks and adds little or nothing to the plot).

In addition to this, there are countless examples of screenwriters having their work butchered because Hollywood execs are worried that this youth market won’t understand words of more than two syllables or be able to focus on the screen for 15 seconds without an anaemic chase sequence or a cutesy CGI rabbit prancing around.  In short, they are attempting to make movies so stupid that even the stupidest person in the room can enjoy them.

Of course, this is based on the mistaken assumption that teenagers and children are idiots. I don’t believe this and I’m sure you don’t either. In fact, in my experience kids are more equipped than most to follow the plot of even the most byzantine blockbuster because not having student loans to pay off or a job to worry about means that they are able to focus much more energy on understanding the intricate details of a fictional world.

Naturally, some children are idiots in the same way that some adults are idiots (children and adults share many similarities like this, something the use of ‘demographics’ fails to elucidate) but on the whole, children are pretty smart. If you don’t believe me, just ask any little boy about his love of Star Wars or James Bond or dinosaurs and I guarantee that he will amaze you with an answer so extensive and detailed that even Temple Grandin would probably think it was a

All it takes is one strong gust of wind...

little over the top.

No, I don’t think that the youth market is stupid and neither do you, but as we all know, conventional wisdom has no place in Hollywood and clearly they think the little darlings are as thick as box of rocks.  Don’t believe this? Don’t believe that movies are getting stupider? I have a statistic: the average shot length (ASL) of US films in 2008 was 2.5 seconds (the most recent statistic I could find). This means that roughly half the time in 2010, movies could not go 2.5 seconds without cutting to a different shot. The average movie studio believes that we can’t go more than about three seconds without the under-15s getting distracted and leaping around the cinema trying to catch imaginary butterflies.

If this is not an absurd underestimation of our collective intelligence then I don’t know what is.

Compare this to the fact that in 2000 it was 4.7, in 1994 it was 6.8 and in 1972 it was a whopping 8.6 seconds and you have categorical proof that films are getting dumber and it’s children’s fault.

 

Of course, the fact that so many films are being so heavily targeted to the youth demographic means that anyone over the age of 15 is skipping the cinema and staying home to watch Game of Thrones on Sky Atlantic instead. This means that when the marketing guy checks the figures again, he naturally comes to the conclusion that no one over the age of 15 goes to the cinema and so he reports that the studio should be even more heavily targeting their output to the youth demographic who are of course all suffering from ADHD, anterograde amnesia

Did you know that if you watch Transformers: Dark of the Moon whilst simultaneously listening to Pink Floyd's Dark Side of the Moon it actually drowns out the piss-poor dialogue?

and crippling stupidity. This in turn, leads to more stupid movies and even fewer intelligent adults going to the cinema. The marketing guy then checks the figures again and so on and so forth. It’s a vicious circle, but I’m sure you’ve got that now (unless of course you’re a teenager, in which case we’ll be here for hours).

Compounding this problem is the fact that films getting steadily stupider means that cinemagoers (on the rare occasions that you do go to the cinema) are becoming less demanding, indoctrinated by this widespread idiocy. This means that the bar for what people will pay to see at the cinema just keeps getting lower. So when you forked over your hard-earned cash to see Transformers: Dark of the Moon (even the title has a typo) because ‘y’know it passes the time of day and there are like some real cool ‘splosions and such’ you were actually creating a demand for more horribly inane movies to be made. Basically, it’s your fault.

By now this relentless negativity, this somewhat condescending end-of-the-world-as-we-know-it attitude that I’ve adopted has started to wear you down and you’re probably left asking firstly, whether things are really as bad as I’m making out and secondly whether we can do anything to prevent cinema’s seemingly inevitable descent into idiocy.

Well, the answer to the first question is a tentative ‘not really, I’m being dramatic’. While on the whole, studios do seem to be churning out more and more movies that are little more than products designed to generate revenue, all is not lost. This year alone has seen

Apathy is bad

many surprising, heartfelt, challenging brilliant films such as Win Win, True Grit, Tree of Life, Beginners, Bridesmaids and Submarine so we definitely shouldn’t give up hope yet.

And the answer to the second question is ‘yes’, you can prevent it by going to see the films I listed above because demand creates supply.

If more people go to see intelligent and well-made films, then more intelligent and well-made films will be made, it’s basic economics. Now, I’m not saying that we all need to be watching Eastern European art house films with inexplicable costumes and ugly people crying, just choosing the better option.

If you’re going to the cinema this evening, don’t go and see Transformers, go and see Super 8 or Tree of Life instead. And later this year don’t go and see Final Destination 5 (5inal Destination, seriously?), go and see Woody Allen’s Midnight in Paris.

Have some self-respect and demand something from cinema. Demand to be challenged, to be moved, or to laugh. Demand to be exhilarated or befuddled. Demand to be angered even.  Just don’t allow yourself to be yet another pile of laundry who just sits in that dark room feeling nothing for 90 minutes and then immediately forgets about it afterwards because you are better than that and you deserve better than that. After all, we are lucky enough to be alive at a time when the likes of Terrence Malick, Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese are still making movies. Let’s take a moment to be grateful for that.

If you want to try to counteract the ill-effects of the cinematic junk food you are being force-fed, then please check out our new semi-regular feature, ‘Have you seen… ‘. The first of these is about the 1998 film Happiness and can be found here:    Have You Seen… Happiness?

Have you seen… Happiness?

In the first instalment of a new series of articles highlighting films that have you might have missed, Charles Rivington tackles Todd Solondz’s controversial 1998 ensemble piece, Happiness.

 I want to start by stating quite simply that Todd Solondz’s Happiness is not for everyone. It seems odd to say this given that I am meant to be encouraging you to watch it but I feel compelled to tell you that there is a good chance that you will hate Happiness. I have shown Happiness to a large number of friends and while half of them

       

Philip Seymour Hoffman and Lara Flynn Boyle form an unlikely bond in Happiness

have loved it and raved about it (never the ones you expect), the other half have branded it ‘tasteless’, ‘disgusting’ and ‘immoral’.  These people aren’t bible-bashers or Daily Mail readers either, they are well rounded and open-minded and yet they still take moral umbrage with this film. To be honest it’s not hard to see where they are coming from. Happiness presents us with a veritable smorgasbord of deviant and disturbing behaviour: sexual abuse, suicide, murder, masturbation, dismemberment and, most prominently and most upsettingly, child rape. And yet it if you can cope with these issues being discussed and alluded to in a film (for the most part they occur mercifully off-screen), Happiness is a brutally funny, unexpectedly moving and thoroughly rewarding experience.

 

The structure of Happiness is clearly inspired by Chekhov’s Three Sisters (also the inspiration for  Woody Allen’s brilliant, Hannah and Sisters which may well be the subject of a future ‘Have you seen…’). Happiness centres around three adult sisters, their families and neighbours who all live in a nightmarish version of New Jersey that would  even make a ‘real housewife’ rather uncomfortable. Trish (Cynthia Stevenson), the eldest sister is a smug suburban housewife and mother whose psychiatrist husband, Bill (a spellbinding turn from Dylan Baker) has developed a secret obsession with his eleven-year-old son’s classmate. Helen (Lara Flynn Boyle) is a famous poet who has become disillusioned with her success, leading her to fantasise about being raped. The youngest daughter, the ironically named Joy (a charmingly pathetic Jane Adams) is a meek, dormouse of a woman whose love life and singing career are equally as dead in the water, eliciting the smug sympathy of her more successful siblings. Rounding out the cast are Louise Lasser and Ben Gazarra as the sisters’ divorcing parents, Camryn Manheim as an overweight woman who ‘hates sex’ and a pre-fame Philip Seymour Hoffman delivering a hilariously repugnant performance as Helen’s lonely and sexually deviant neighbour.

 

While outlining the film’s plot above in such a perfunctory manner suggests that Solondz is merely attempting to provoke shock for the sake of shock (and there is clearly an element of this), Happiness’s success lies in its handling of these controversial issues and horrifically flawed characters, not only with blistering humour, but also with alarming sensitivity, compassion even . The is most striking in Dylan Baker’s masterful performance as Bill, a child rapist and the centre of the film’s most controversial and disturbing plot strand. While Bill’s actions in the film are despicable and calculated and I’d be loathe to go as far as to describe him as sympathetic, Solondz’s writing and Baker’s performance at the very least present Bill as being unquestionably human. His humanity is most apparent in a quiet yet pivotal scene  in which Bill confesses his crimes to his young son, Billy (Rufus Reed). The conversation between father and son is both deeply unpleasant and very moving; despite his heinous acts it is clear that Bill loves Billy and can’t bring himself to lie to him. It’s an unbearably painful moment that will sear itself onto your memory and stay with you long after the film is over.

 

Despite it’s disturbing themes, Solondz also manages to mine a large amount of pitch black humour from the material (Happiness is essentially a comedy, albeit a very dark one) and much of the film is laugh-out-loud hilarious and irresistibly quotable; a personal favourite being the sophisticated Helen insisting to her younger sister that “I’m not laughing at you, I’m laughing with you” to which Jane Adam’s Joy, her eyes wide and watery, meekly replies, “but I’m not laughing”.  Solondz’s cruel sense of humour is apparent right

Jane Adams looking pensive in Happiness

from the off in the film’s fantastic opening scene which depicts a horribly uncomfortable dinner date between the pathetic Joy and her even more pathetic, soon-to-be-ex-boyfriend Andy (Jon Lovitz in a hilarious cameo). This remarkable scene is pretty much self-contained (it feels like a short play) and serves to lull the audience into a false sense of security, deliberately wrong-footing us so that we are ill-prepared for the horrors that await. Even if you don’t feel compelled to watch the film, I would recommend tracking down this one scene as it is very funny.

 

So there you have it: Happiness, a disturbing, disgusting and hilarious portrait of the dark side of human nature. Whether you immediately add it to your Lovefilm queue or you roll your eyes and close this browser window in disgust is entirely up to you. Happiness is not for everyone and maybe it’s not for you but even if its not can we please all take a minute and appreciate what a good thing that is. In a world where big studios spend all their time and energy chasing the broadest demographics and dumbing movies down in the process, I think we should all be grateful when a film comes along that isn’t ‘fun for all the family’, isn’t patronising, doesn’t talk down to us, is aimed solely at adults and, most importantly, doesn’t have ‘something for everyone’. Thank you Todd Solondz. Thank you Happiness.

Watch the (somewhat misleading) trailer for Happiness here:

Happiness Trailer

And the opening scene:

Happiness Opening

Prose & Cons: A Melancholic Comedy

After the success of Bridesmaids, a new wave of films with strong female characters are hitting cinema screens. Prose & Cons is a black, melancholic comedy set in the world of artistic frustration and writers block.

Sarah [Played by Catherine Balavage] is one of the new waves of poets. Her book sold millions of copies, but now she hasn’t written anything for over 160 days, and her publisher is getting restless. After an ultimatum from her publisher, and a horrendous poetry reading that went viral on twitter and YouTube, Sarah becomes increasingly desperate for new material. Her actions have far-reaching consequences that will change the lives of all of those around her.

Directed by Richard Wright and produced and written by Richard and Catherine; Prose & Cons is a film about writer’s block, consequences, friends and the resilience of typewriters.

Follow the film on Twitter here: @undersadtears

Here is the directors production diary: http://undersadtears.wordpress.com/

You can keep up to date on Prose & Cons IMDB Page

And more info on Catherine here: http://www.imdb.com/name/nm2952107/

Released 28th November 2011.

This Month's Magazines; Jennifer Lopez Believes in Love, 9/11 Anniversary.

Note: Magazines come out a month in advance. September’s magazines are Augusts.

The September issue of Vogue is out and the advertisers have made the issue heavy enough to use as a dumbbell. No complaints from me.

It is the International Collections special and there are lots of clothes to fawn over, Labels and trends to be urban cool, and accessories that make a difference in Vogue’s Big Fashion Issue.

There is a brilliant article on the history of Gucci, Paloma Picasso revisits Venice and talks about her journey to becoming a jewellery designer, Dries Van Noten gives a guide to his Antwerp, up-coming actress, producer and writer Brit Marling is interviewed (Frost loves her), Rifat Ozbek is doing Robin Birley’s new club, Ruperts; Good two page article.

Olivia Wilde talks Haiti and Childhood, there are a lot of autumn clothes that all look too hot, it’s 30c in London at the moment!, Miss V has her excellent social diary, there is a 9 page spread on the turbulent life of John Galliano, Tom Ford on his new cosmetic line and an article on the new David Bailey film. I noticed afterward that in the shops you get a free fashion DVD. However, I did not get this as a subscriber. Bad form.

Emily Mortimer is on the cover of this month’s Tatler and there is an interview inside.

There is a free gift but not for subscribers, grr.

There is a moving tribute to Tatler senior editor John Graham, Princess Tatiana of Greece and Denmark, A guide to nightclubs, An article on what it is like to stay on Abramovich’s yacht and the Royal Family residences, who sits where at White’s, Secret Cinema, Kate Middleton joins Competitive Princessing, Sir Michael Sorrell, What to wear: looking posh on less dosh, Legendary Lotharios, Rich Kids, a good 6 page spread on Tina Brown.

Guy Pelly, Astrid Harbord and Jake Warren have a new club, 37 year old Sam Leith goes back to school, Diana Von Furstenberg tells all about what she loves.

There is also lots of Travel and the Bystander (the social diary). Kate Middleton makes an appearance at the Derby with William, as does Elton John’s annual White Tie & Tiara Ball.

Frost has been complain that Marie Claire has not been giving its subscribers free gifts because of ‘cost’, and this month’s issue came with a free gift. It would seem someone listened but, alas, no. In the shops you get a free nail polish and a conditioner. I just got a conditioner.

Anne Hathaway is on the cover and interviewed inside. There is a good article on what to wear to fashion week (which I will be listening to!), an interview with Mulberry bag designer Emma Hill, an interview with Katie Holmes, how to get French style, what the New York fashion pack wear, China’s fashion, what men won’t tell you until the third date, Should you move abroad?, 9/11 Anniversary, A good three page article on Stella McCartney, The X Factor, Beyonce, Oh Land, a One Day Special; article on the book and interviews with cast and lots & lots of fashion and beauty.

Vanity Fair has Jennifer Lopez on the cover and her first interview since her divorce inside. She says she is “an eternal optimist about love…it’s still my biggest dream.”

L’Wren Scott gives us the low-down on her stuff, in Fairground there is a lot of lovely picture of the Duke and Duchess of Cambridge in Hollywood attending the BAFTA party.

Also articles on Michael Buble, Private Eye’s 50th anniversary, Agnes B, how the US failed to stop 9/11, Hackers, The 2011 Best Dressed List; Tilda Swinton, The Duchess of Cambridge, Carla Bruni-Sarkozy, Andrea Dellal, Johnny Depp, Vanessa Paradis and Arpad Busson all feature, There is a celebrity portraits of Angelina Jolie amongst others, Michael Lewis investigates German attitudes towards money, the actors who play the Duke and Duchess of Windsor are photographed and interviewed for Madonna’s new film W.E, Designers and their muse, John Currin.

Glamour has Mila Kunis on the cover and she is interviewed inside.

How to be a Cavalli Girl, Feminism, Fall in love with your job again, How to eat well if you have £15 until pay day, 9/11 Anniversary article, Career rules rewritten, What sex feels like, Jim Sturgess interview, Are you Destroying your own love life?, Comedian Jack Whitehall, Why do women want to be WAGs?, Fashion’s Hot 100, How to have a great hair month, How to get more energy.

Phew!

Red has Laura Bailey on the cover and has a free bodywash. Laura is interviewed inside. There is a good article on no kids and no regrets, the original supermodels and what they are doing now, an article on people’s on/off duty wardrobes,

My City, My shopping guide, The looks that sum up a city. Anjum Anand show Red around her life, 8 Lessons in love and loss, four women reveal the moment they found their dream property, Dominic Cooper, Adele, Tom Ellis, Will Young, Colin Farrell, Fiona Neill, Jo Whiley’s Festival Guide, 4 ways to update your face, How to get radiance, there are a lot of good recipes, cooking with in season vegetables , paella, home made curry, global shopping guide, find your health/life balance, what is causing your breast pain and Audrey Tautou tells all about the best things in life.

[This page will get updates as more magazines come out. Thank you.]