…So says the tagline of this downgrade horror. If the tagline doesn’t get you, the cover surely will – a parody of Jaws with rodent-in-the-water terror (in case you didn’t know, I adore rodents.) As yet I don’t know if the film’s up to scratch, but they’ve surely made an effort with the lost art of imaginative covers. Shameless Screen Entertainment, the label outputting Ratman, has made similar effort with the DVD. It’s packed with random horror trailers (about 30-mins worth) of films which may well turn out to be not the greatest watch, but they sure make for some entertaining snippets, and as I always say, “trailers are a movie in themselves” and not to be missed, people!

www.shameless-films.com

What’s the story? Mourning glory. It’s the fifth and final chapter of my series on the death of Hollywood and I’m looking pretty dapper in my funeral attire. There’s no body, of course. The cadaver of Hollywood Film lies unrested, dumped and seeping out her poisons, though nobody seems to have noticed she’s missing from her own funeral. I have eulogised her in Remembering Film, and I’m now going to conclude my mulling of her passing over a few triangular egg mayonnaise sandwiches and some sherry trifle.

I spy with my critical eye something beginning with A. Dunno? Ok, it’s Art, Art people, Art! We’ve looked at film as entertainment and the place of imagination within it; today we’re going to be taking a little look at film as art. Now, I’ve touched on this previously, the idea that film is an art form and as such has a duty to be critical. Art is beauty and creativity, but it also functions to be critical of society. True freedom of speech exists within it and the loss of its critical functionality is loss of freedom.

Looking and not seeing. It is not just filmmakers who are guilty of this, but we the audience, too. The lost act of seeing has been surpassed by the unquestioning ingestion of New Hollywood’s puritanical tirade. Filmmakers are failing us in the realm of imagination, lacking in the fulfilment of film’s ability to take us on a journey, to dream, to imagine. But we, as the audience, are not seeing the messages and blindly consuming, sightless, unquestioning. And so it is that our film industry has traded our dreams for a heavily promoted reality benefiting the governing ideology.

Film exists these days not as escapism, but as a form of social control. For film to exist as art, it is not just to be questioning in itself, but it is we who must question. To look and to see is to not alter the meaning of an artform, but to take our own meaning from it. When we are no longer seeing, we are no longer extracting either the director’s meaning or our own. Current Hollywood, though, has done away with any vagueness; if it’s not an analogy for terrorism it’s a lecture in family values. Though we may not be seeing these messages, we are constantly absorbing them, and so, their work is done.

The loss of film as art cannot be underestimated, for it is our last stand in true freedom, and it’s loss as an artform means we have surely now lost our freedom. New Hollywood has lost both its critical and imaginative edge and left us plummeting into a pit of samey, samey crap. However, it’s not just our viewing pleasure that’s suffering, but our individuality as consumers of am artform. Whether we have noticed or not, Hollywood is banding a dangerous and creepy message of conformity. I have noticed. I hope I’m not alone. (All by myself, don’t wanna be all by myself anymore…)

Welcome, welcome, welcome to Part 4 of my short series on the death of Hollywood. Please take a seat and get yourself comfy as I begin to further unravel the bloody red carpet of the film industry and sneak a peek at the current state of Hollywood film. So far we’ve been Remembering Film, sniffed the morbid air of The Death of Imagination and asked ourselves Who Killed Hollywood And Why? Followers of the series and those with a canny eye to culture will know that today’s edition, Minority Report, will be examining the socially-aware construction of today’s film within dominant ideology. So, how d’ya like them apples, huh?

The America we once loved has become a dominant and malignant power. Its film industry reflects this, existing not just as an industry in its own right, but as an aid in re-enforcing and upholding the current ideology. We are no longer living the dream, but rather the nightmare. But what is the current ideology? In short, Puritanism. The right-wing stranglehold of America’s socio-political state has wholly infected its film industry, with overtones of Puritanical Christianity an all-pervasive force. The moral majority are in control and their typically judgemental and dominating traits are in full swing.

Back in the day, the staple of the Hollywood diet was fun. These days, though, it’s all about a large helping of moral fibre and, as we all know, too much fibre in one’s diet causes digestion problems...and a lot of shit. And so it is that I am suffering from a severe bout of filmic indigestion. I am literally sick of spoonfed moral fibre and am spewing up my indigestibles in the form of an anti-morality diatribe. Bibs on, folks, I think it’s gonna get messy.

Hollywood film has undergone somewhat of a metamorphosis. Previously imaginative and questioning, it lost its edge in favour of indoctrination. When I was a young kid, my brother and I would mess about at bedime. Soon would come the cry from my parents of “settle down now!,” and Hollywood has taken upon itself such a parental role, not so much pleading as outright stating we must now “settle down.” But what is it to ‘settle down’? Well, one thing’s for sure, it pretty much means losing your dreams. Film doesn’t reward for risk-taking and disobedience the way it once did. These days good old Family Values have come along to piss on our chips. Yes, family values are a good thing, but not as it is, portrayed by a moral crusade from a totalitarian state.

America has become a “get with the program” fascist. The “wedding film” has become a subgenre all of its own. Mainstream movies for the masses are merely propaganda from the moral brigade. But this doesn’t just apply to ‘chick flicks’. Oh no, no longer is it the preserve of a woman to be put in her place, but ‘lads’ films, too, dictate the lesson. Just look to films such as The Wedding Crashers and 40-Year-Old Virgin for your lesson in settling down. It’s just a variation on a theme, with stories just a guff enabler of the message.

But, possibly the saddest thing about the moral crusade is the sex versus violence issue and the fact that the sight of a human being in is natural state has somehow become abhorrent and offensive to the point of needing psychotherapy. How have we got to this, that the sight a woman’s breast is detrimental to out mental wellbeing? It’s just titties, people, come on! But, of course, violence is so much more acceptable; indeed anything above that most reviled of beings – The Sexual Woman. I am in no doubt that sexual violence is a dangerous thing in films, especially for those too young to really understand it. But sex and nudity is natural and it’s the people who make children feel that it is wrong who cause this cycle of repression, and to be sexually repressed is a highly dangerous state to live in.

And so it is that the moral right have taken over. The fact is that the New Hollywood has become inherently infected by it and it seems that, as consumers, we are passively ingesting it. Nobody seems to be questioning this new wave of social control for it has seeped in largely unnoticed to the point that, frankly, it’s creepy. The frivolousness of the Hollywood heyday has gone, now seen as wasteful, as it no longer functions for the current ideology to promote diversity, fun, questioning, imagining. But as we know, Hollywood is by far unconfined to America; its reach is far and wide across the globe. Looks like the body of Hollywood Film didn’t make it to the mortuary after all. Someone wanted her gone, dumped her now bloated body in the reservoir of the world and the poisons within her are leaking out into our drinking water. Consume with care, people. Consume with care.

Coming Next: Part 5: Looking And Not Seeing 

Yes, it’s somewhat of a whodunit today. As with all good murder mysteries we need a body, some evidence, clues, motive, method and, of course, some grouchy but-on-the-ball detective. So join me as I play “Who Killed Hollywood And Why?” Now, the body is easy to spot for its rotten stench if stinking up the place. Hollywood Film has been murdered and there’s blood on the carpet. Far be it for me to nominate myself to detect, but I think you’d agree, as writer, it makes by far the most sense. So, don me now my detectivey apparel. Weird eye? Check! Crumply raincoat? Check! Lovable Basset hound? Check, check, check! Looks like I’m good to go. And so, to the case!...

Though the body of Hollywood Film is now badly decomposed, early investigations show this was a pretty clean kill. Hollywood Film was an acquaintance of mine, we go way back, but I haven’t seen much of her lately. She’d changed, you see. Once a grand dame who put the light in my life, she became tainted over time, too heavily influenced by forces beyond her control. It’s only by way of nostalgia that I realised she had disappeared. But who would want to murder a once great institution and why?

Evidence shows there was more than one method of kill and more than one killer. The clues are apparent when we look at what Hollywood Film had become: dumbed-down, indoctrinating morality. She used to be so much fun, so full of imagination and had this great knack for finding adventure in even the most mundane of situations. Above all, she was an inspiration. But she lost it. She took to lecturing people on moral lessons, patronising kids, segregating groups, and had become obsessed with this all-pervading political and religious ideology. Every conversation was a slightly different subject but the message was always the same: “get with the program!”

Usually in a case like this, we look to enemies for answers. But that’s not applicable in this case. It looks like an inside job and so we must turn to Hollywood Film’s friends to solve the case. Clues point to a socio/political kill with dark media undertones. But what of a motive? Why would those on the inside cause the death of their own institution? Who will benefit from such a kill? Film, as in all media, is a very powerful medium. Film is entertainment in its purest form, but it is also art and as such it is both socially reflective and socially critical (at least when it is true to itself.) Hollywood Film was top of her game. She was the hub of the industry, and an industry it is, lest we should forget. As an industry, those who benefit are those in the machinations of the media. As the audience, we are consumers of the industry. But those with existing power in society or with a wish to gain power will also use film as a medium for their propaganda, however covert this may seem to be, and Hollywood Film has been exerting social control for quite some time now, largely unquestioned. Hollywood has not only been reflecting change in the social climate, but it is manipulating its consumers, used as a tool itself to promote the dominant ideology and ensure social control. Conformity, for all those in control, is the dish of the day and individuality and diversity are mere rotten scraps of yesterday. As we shall see, it no longer functions for the media to promote fun and adventure, but the idea of conforming, settling down, and getting with the program.

No doubt Hollywood Film will continue in her current form, but the great broad she was in her heyday is dead. The method? Autopsy results show she was slowly poisoned over time and then finally stabbed in the back. Nobody has come to claim the body and, in fact, little notice has been taken of her passing. One can only hope this won’t become a serial case. She was head of the Film family and, as good friends of mine, I worry for her distant relatives, close brothers European and World Cinema. In my experience, when there’s trouble at the top, it usually filters down.

Coming Next: Part 4: Minority Report 

Cinema is art, and it is also entertainment. But what is it ‘to entertain’? What is the duty of entertainment? Surely it is more than the passing of a couple of hours of your time? Certainly, the cinema of today seems to have lost its way in its duty and to a large extent imagination has died, with escapism a lost art. To look retrospectively to the 80’s as a boom era, represented as such in its cinema, the “anything is possible” attitude was enormously prevalent. Before cinema became the segmented institution it is today, it was open to all to enjoy no-holds-barred fun, to escape, imagine, take risks, rebel and adventure. It was the age when Lucas and Spielberg were weaving their legendary movie magic and the young and old and everybody inbetween were flocking to share in this imagination, to imagine themselves, to escape. These days, the only journey’s cinema takes you on are the personal ones, and even they are wholly tainted by the all-prevailing morality lessons.

Back in the day, there was imagination. To see a film was to escape, to take a trip; maybe to another galaxy, maybe another time, or maybe just to the possibility that right under your nose there was adventure to be had. A blockbuster movie was absolutely that: a blockbuster. It was a real event when a big mainstream film came out (in the days when mainstream wasn’t a dirty word for film fans, but the staple of your movie diet) and it was inclusive. Yes, today a Tom Cruise film will be the cause of some sensationalism and gimmicky premiere bullshit, but in the 80’s there was purity to the grandness of the event. We all wanted our chance to dream, and we all got it. With films like Cocoon and Batteries Not Included, even the old folks could dream. But these films were not exclusive, they were open to all. All ages would be hunting for treasure; all ages would be looking towards a future. 

What does it mean to have lost this imagination, to have lost this sense of dreaming? Well, as we shall see, the ‘anything is possible’ has been replaced by ‘towing the line within society’s existing parameters,’ and the shared art of imagination has given way to realism replicating the status quo. We are no longer to question, to think, to dream. Disunity has ensued in cinema and segmentation has set in. Settling down has replaced adventure as an adult and the old folk are just obliterated. Kids can’t look to adulthood with any wonder anymore; all the magic of the oversimplified multi-cultural fun in the movies has been replaced with grinding lessons in morality and fearing thy neighbour. It’s no wonder our generation look to a time we once had and cherish it – for growing up didn’t mean it all turned to shit, it meant we had even more adventure. But times changed and cinema never delivered on its promise. We grew up and they took our dreams away and passed off churned out indoctrination in its place. The duty of entertainment is to make us question and dream and the craterous hole left by the lack of imagination in the current state of cinema cannot be underestimated, for this is where we all come to escape, to live out our dreams, to see a world beyond what is in existence and the chance of opportunity and individuality.

Coming Next: Part 3: Who Killed Hollywood And Why?

When I was young (I never needed anyone, and making love was just for fun, those days are gone :() I had a dream. Yes, I dreamt of a day when black children and white children could hold hands and walk together as brothers and sisters, but I also had a dream of a land where anything was possible, where adventure was to be had in your own neighbourhood, on your own doorstep. All you needed was a parka jacket, a bmx and a plan and you were away. You could call it The American Dream.

These days I’m all grown up (well kinda,) but I’m still dreaming. Dreaming of the land where even as a grown up there was still adventure to be had, crazy capers and scrapes to get your self into. This was the land where anything was possible. This land, America. But oh how my dream has soured. And so, if you’ll permit me, I’d like to tell you a little tale of one girl’s broken dreams and a country that lost its way, all through my cinematic eye…

Growing up in the 80’s is something I hold very dear. It was a great time for kids, possibly the greatest decade in history to be a child. I wanted to be a boy, of course. Boys had all the best stuff (mhmm, yes you did.) When I wasn’t donning my dungarees climbing trees, or playing A-Team with my brother’s friends, I was down the road with our more well-off buddies messing about with Star Wars figures. Yes, media consumption was really blowing up and it was truly the era of the very superb action figures. But what of the films themselves which spawned such delights?

Pre-VCR days’, going to the pictures was a rare treat and I relished it as a young consumer. I guess I don’t need to name names, but the usual suspects were apparent in my life – E.T., The Goonies, Labyrinth, etc. Kids were having the greatest of adventures on screen and I was right along there with them. And so I dreamt. Dreamt of this land where anything was possible, anything and everything you could imagine could really happen, happen to you. As a child, grown ups would ask me where I would go in the world if I could go anywhere at all. “America!” I would reply. What was wrong with these people? Wasn’t it obvious? Didn’t everybody have an American dream?

Of course, the 80’s was a boom era with a true “anything is possible” sense, and cinema reflected this. There was magic in the air and movie magic on the screen. Stephen Spielberg was in his element conjuring up big screen wonders that adults and children alike were lapping up with glee. Mainstream wasn’t a dirty word like it is today and it was open to everyone, young and old, to be part. Several spinning newspapers later and we’re at the present day, 2008, and all is, I fear, lost. The dream has soured and the impact upon cinema has never been so apparent. The moral majority are winning and cinema, as art, has lost its critical edge. Where does that leave us today? Find out later in the series.

Coming Next: Part 2: The Death Of Imagination

Cast your minds back, people, if you will, and you may recall I wrote a piece on female directors. Well, today, as somewhat of a prequel, I am going to be sticking my opinionated nose into the itchy scratchy world of film funding to see where it all began. And so, folks, I give you Living In A Box: The Legacy Of Film Funding…

For anybody who hasn’t read/can’t be bothered to read/can’t remember the women directors piece, a quick recap says I was having a peep at the problems with female direction and why these talents end up on the shelf. Now, before you scream “feminist bullshit,” I was taking the view that part of the problem could lie within the women themselves doing their own disservice, that, whilst often the only option open to them is the romantic comedy genre, many will edge towards the dreaded ‘Woman’s Film’ (i.e. women’s ‘issues’, periods etc.) But, how much of this is the fault of the women themselves and how much blame can be laid on the grass roots issue of film funding and the legacy it carries?

Working in the film industry and having aspirations towards filmmaking myself, I am well aware of the constraints in gaining funding and, further to that, the route you take post-production. Unless very lucky, most filmmakers will need to apply for some form of funding, and here in Britain, we have the Film Council and its various offshoots. It is upon application that you will find yourself neatly boxed according to your own personal ‘minority’ or ‘marginalised’ status, and thus begins your journey of churning out predictable guff in accordance with such restraints.

This kind of ‘boxercise’ (the exercise of putting people into boxes) doesn’t only pertain to women, of course. Anybody considered in a minority or marginalised group will be doled the cash according to this. So, we have women making women’s films, ethnics making ethno-focused films and homosexuals making gay-centric films. Of course, if you happen to not fit these categories, do not fear, there is still a box for you – the straight, white, British male making regional films (sigh.) Whatever happened to prizing talent, imagination and diversity? The problem here is twofold: (a) money is thrown to people with no talent but just a box to crawl into when they feel like having a pop at making a film and (b) people who do have talent and ideas are being forced to work within these strict parameters, thus culling the creative market. Subsequently, the British film industry is dying a death swamped by its own faeces. Yes, I know it’s fuck hard being an Asian woman in Britain. Yes, I know it’s fuck hard being taken seriously as a female footballer. And yes, I know it’s fuck hard living in the North where it’s super grim.

This is not to say that everybody is being forced into making films they don’t want to make, and nor is it to say that people shouldn’t make films according to their effecting issues, or even that there is no audience interest. What I am saying is that the tendency towards boxing is causing a dangerously generalised effect, that maybe as a woman you might want to make a woman’s film, but equally you might want to make balls-to-the-walls horror or such like. Yes, of course, being a woman or gay or ethnic or regional is going to effect your filmmaking as it is a big part of your life and governs to an extent your outlook and experiences. But, that is not all you are and to be treated as such is causing the very problem it’s meant to eradicate: marginalisation, ignorance and stigma.

So, you’ve got your funding, you’ve made your film and you’re going to show it at festivals. Let’s just say you’re a woman, like me, and you’ve been cajoled into making a ‘woman’s film.’ You screen at the Women In Film season and nobody comes because everybody knows already what it’s all about. I myself have attended festivals and watched with dismay at the utterly predictable gynaecological diatribe that pours from the screen. You know what you’re gonna get and you get it. But whose fault is that? How do we know these women didn’t want to make a crime film, or a sci-fi film? How do we know the gay, black immigrant didn’t want to make a family comedy or some obscure animated short? Sadly, though, accepting the opportunity means, to a degree, silencing your creativity.

And so, what does this mean for Britain as well as the individual? Well, for the individual filmmaker it means living in a box unless a lucky break means a bid for freedom and the chance to unfurl those creative wings. Still, though, you run the risk of being picked up for precisely the type of films you’ve already been making. Of course, there are exceptions such as Simon Pegg and Neil Marshall whose stars have really been in the ascendance. Wasn’t it so glorious when Marshall brought Dog Soldiers and The Descent into our samey, kitchen-sink drama-drenched world? And Pegg, fresh from his sitcom success with Spaced (and subsequently secured funding) brought us his Edgar Wright collaboration, Shaun of the Dead. No, not on of my favourite films but oh my was it good to see something different, something that didn’t make me groan and bury my head in shame at being British. And, coming on the tail of Spaced, Shaun of the Dead was doing its own service of representing a culture increasingly evident in our society – the 20-something/early 30’s post-grads with nothing to do, no real job prospects, still grasping the wastefulness of youth. This is a burgeoning culture and hadn’t before had such representation because Britain was too tied up with its factory of grim. Yes, it’s lighthearted, but it is representation, and, moreover, the Pegg/Wright productions, with Shaun of the Dead and Hot Fuzz brought back something that’s missing in cinema in general – the idea of the chance of adventure (more on this in my next piece.)

Sadly, however, it’s largely a case of R.I.P British film. Some projects do exist to break the mould, such as Marshall’s school for female directors in horror film making, but on the whole this country is pumping out nothing but its own effluence, utterly bogged down in its culture of grim. Looking to other countries (not including America because America is stuck in a rut of indoctrination – and yes, more on this in my next piece) they seem to have a perfectly thriving industry, making money with films they and the rest of the world want to watch. France and Korea, for example, are seeing actual talents surface, funding given to ideas, the talents thriving and money being brought into the industry. In Britain, money is dished out and not more than a handful of people, probably friends and family, are watching this bilge. We are failing ourselves in so many ways. Very rarely will I watch a British film because I already know what it’s about, and it’s going to be depressing. Yes, film should represent real life to a degree, but is it not also about entertainment, art, imagination, vision and escapism? I don’t believe the talent’s not out there, I just think it’s being railroaded into boxes by the supposed ‘super-helpfulness’ of film council funding, with the result of further separating marginalised groups and simultaneously killing the British film industry

I just received an email from David Bourk of last exit productions the diretor of Last Exit who I Interviewed a while back.

It seems Last Exit Productions have completed shooting on their latest movie No Right Turn. It’s still in post production at the moment but they have released some exclusive stills.

Shot over a five week period around Febuary this year during the cold Danish winter, this new film features a larger budget than Last Exit and from the stills looks like its going to be pretty good.

David and his team are hoping for a theatrical release date, around Dec 06 / Jan 07.

Synopsis: Nina is the voluptuously alluring girlfriend of Johnny, a charming but delusional crook.
To escape from her weary life she casually sleeps with an old friend, Teddy, but is quite fed up of her current lifestyle
especially the drunken dreams of Johnny. One night after an argument with Johnny, she storms home where she is abducted by a pair of thugs and is fortunatley rescued by a timid and guilt-ridden girl, Monella. (… read more)

More stills here

Many thanks to David for letting us know about this one and please visit the films site at www.lastexitproductions.dk/norightturn.html

No Right Turn – trailer

Teaser trailer and "Slide show" for David Noel Bourke's No Right Turn "A haunting fairy-tale thriller set between snowy landscapes and a neon city".

Interview with David Noel Bourke, director of Last Exit and No Right Turn | Last Exit - review

No Right Turn - stills and poster

No Right Turn (Official Site) | www.myspace.com/lastexitproductions

View the teaser at youtube.com

Imagination combines stop motion animation techniques with live action drama. It is the tale of two gifted yet challenged young female twins. The gifts come in the form of heightened intelligence and, more importantly, a heightened imagination. The challenges they face include near blindness for one, and the rare mental condition Asperger syndrome, which is similar to a form of autism, for the other. These things cause the young twins to develop a bond beyond that of normal sibling ties and escape into a world of repetition, art and fantasy that only they can perceive. With their parents stressed to breaking point a Dr tries his best to understand and treat the twins, but it may be that their imagination is the best place for them to be.

The film is the combined work of Eric and Jeffrey Leiser, themselves artistically gifted siblings. Eric is a stop motion animator (and directer of this film) and Jeffrey a composer (he also co-wrote the film with Eric). Imagination takes its influence from a mix of sources particularly the avant garde school of film making and the works of Czech stop motion master Jan Svankmajer (Little Otik). The animation is wonderful as you would expect and not just the figurines, the earthquake scene is a simple looking yet fascinating. However the live action parts of the film give mixed results, the acting while not bad, feels more amateur theatrical than it should. The shots are set up nicely they can at times feel wasted. As the film switched between live action and animation it can be slightly jarring as well. However, these are things those of you used to watching films produced on a tighter budget will probably be able to understand and forgive. I must admit the stop motion would be the draw to a film like this for me anyway. A mention must be given to Jeffrey Leiser's outstanding score, the music is beautiful and really compliments the animation. In some of the live action scenes the aural outshines the visual.

Imagination does, I feel, suffer from unstructured creativity to some degree and the dramatic does feel slightly retrofitted to the animation and music. This does meen the film lacks a certain cohesiveness, but it does make up for this buy being genuinely interesting and covering ground rarely if ever explored in film. Esoteric and at times surreal in nature, avant garde in execution, Imagination is certainly a film those interested in something "more" from moving images should seek out.

www.myspace.com/imaginationfilm

www.albinofawn.com

Vanguard International Cinema