The Whole Era of Soviet Sci Fi is Over...

...as Boris Strugatsky died today.

Part of Strugatsky brothers tandem, he was one of the most influential sci-fi writers not only in the USSR but in the whole world. Born to the society fascinated with space he and his brother also touched on the Soviet and universal problems through philosophical prism.

His works can be known to you through the film of Andrei Tarkovky's Stalker.

But their sci-fi books are so fantastic that they deserve more and more films to be made.

Rest in Peace, Boris.

Sweetheart had Raindance Worldwide Premier!

Last Sunday our film Sweetheart that I directed, had its premier at Raindance Film Festival. Sweetheart was screened alongside other short films in the selection of Program 14 named "Thrillers".

The atmosphere at the festival was amazing, previously several days before the screening all the tickets were sold out so the organisers moved this selection to a bigger screening in Apollo Cinema. But couple of hours before the program started all tickets were sold out again. It was packe! People were queuing up to find seats. Every film was welcomed with a round of applauses.

Before the program started filmmakers could introduce the film and say couple of words to the audience:

Huge thanks to all the crew and cast who worked so hard on this film!

We shot film at the end of March 2012 and through making this film I met so many great people!


Here is a picture of the team at the Raindance:

You can read more about the film, its team, news and watch the trailer on Sweetheart's Website.
Also follow Sweetheart on twitter and facebook.

Lawless - my very informal view

Lawless is a new gangster-drama by Joan Hillcoat, director most known for The Road and The Proposition and his collaboration with Nick Cave.

Nick Cave wrote a script for this one as well - this time adapting Matt Bondurant's novel.

I haven't read the novel and these kind of films are usually not my cup of tea unless they are more about the drama rather than the time.

Reasons are, well, half of the time it is hard to understand what they are saying. And it's not just me being foreign and stuff. A lot of British people I talked to could not understand completely, of course they did, but not entirely.

Another reason - not being a person who grew up with the notion of this Prohibition era I can hardly sympathise it. When people were starving in the other countries it is hard to think about poor people not having alcohol and it just feels that like everyone was a baddy those times. The trick is to show that they are baddies with a human face or with very strong dramatic reasons for being baddies. Boardwalk Empire really succeeds with that. And Broadwalk Empre creates characters not out of the blew, of course it has hours and hours to show exposition. A feature-length film does not have this luxury and needs to dig into the story.

But still, a lot of the characters in the Lawless I am left not connecting too. Take the "villain" Guy Pearce. Why on earth is he so weird and so violent? What is it in for him? Why is he so persistent. The greatest way was to show that something bad happened to him or that he actually has his truth. But just being the force of evil is not enough. Besides he is not evil if you think of it - they are breaking the law, and he is enforcing it. In terms of a soldier mind, or a perfect cop or samurai - serving the law or master is matters of pride and dignity. In this case Guy Pearce's character's master is the government.

I am sure there are all these reasons in the book. But I found it difficult following it in the film and sympathising characters.

Acting-wise, everyone was amazing. The way the move, talk, creating the reality in the voice, smiles. From little performances of the Cricket guy to stunning Jessica Chastain and super-sincere performance by Shea LaBeouf. I am not going to talk about Tom Hardy. He is one of the best actors in his generation and I hope he is going to take up more roles like this, central and creating reality from scratch.

Technically-wise, it was beautifully shot and edited, great blocking and compositions. I had some problems with cutting in terms of continuity of movements. It was a stylistic choice but at some points it was taking me out of story. But who cares.

My favourite film of John Hillcoat is the The Raod and this hasn't changed after Lawless came out.





- Posted using BlogPress from my iPad

We are at Raindance!

Last night one of the most important independent film festivals in Europe - Raindance opened its doors for the 20th time.

I remember several years ago someone recommended me Raindance as great evening course for screenwriting. It was the first step in my filmmaking career (which only just began). I remember the thrill of getting to the course in the evening in Apollo cinema and then hours of talking to fellow film-inspired folks in the local bar.

Two years later and our film is in the festival. Short film Sweetheart that I directed this spring is in the official selection of Raindance in program 14 to be screened in Apollo theater on October the 7th at 17.00. You can view details and book tickets here.

It's been a great year so far for Sweetheart and we are really excited about the future of this film.

Here is a trailer to the short film:

"My Week With Marilyn" review or "Why did they even bother getting great actors?"

It's 1956 and Hollywood goddess Marilyn Monroe arrives to London to work with famous Laurence Olivier in his film "Prince and The Showgirl". Young and passionate about films Colin Clark uses his connections and dedication to get a 3rd assistant director role on the set of Olivier's film. He observes working relationships on set and starts his own close relationships, including one with Marilyn Monroe.


Michelle Williams plays Monroe and while she does it with charm and delicacy, let's just say truth: she is not Marilyn and one can only pity an actress who has to portrait on screen someone as charismatic as her. Same goes to Laurence Olivier played by Kenneth Branagh. If you want to imagine how these two would go on, it's enough to watch the real "Prince and The Showgirl" and picture Monroe and Olivier playing a Director versus Star. I am not going to criticise Williams' performance as she had to keep up with some astonishingly cheesy lines.

Cheesy lines, that's what downgrades Eddie Redmayne's otherwise brilliant performance. He is usually great with being extremely innocent and sweet, that's what makes him the best for this role and casting couldn't make a better choice for Colin Clarke's character. But saying out loud what belongs to romantic novellas and girls' diaries does not make one look very convincing.

While story is beautiful and sweet, it lacks conflict and scriptwriters failed to dramatise it. Instead they injected a full amount of super-sweet lines in places where silence, a look and a pause on actors' eyes would do a better job. Why cast great actors anyway if you make them narrate all of their feelings? Actors are there to get those feelings out on screen so the audience trust what they SEE not HEAR.

This is what cinema is about.

It's about reaction, when one character is on the front and talks to someone who is standing behind, sometimes reaction is more important than words. But director Simon Curtis decided to go on a narrow lens to make every shot stylish and "cinematic", i.e. using shallow depth of field. It is very frustrating when one can't see a face of an actor/actress just because they are out of focus for stylistic reasons. Why do you need these great actors at all if you keep on not showing their faces?

The middle part of the film was quite flat and repetitive. Shot as a beautiful postcard of Britain it lacks the bittersweet feelings of young Colin Clark. Great sunny weather only suggests that everything is brilliant, while Colin knew at the bottom of his heart it's just a silver lining in the enormous black cloud that covered Marilyn's life.

It is a great film to watch for aspiring filmmakers to see what could be done better at scriptwriting stage, editing and directing. This story could have been saved and had all the potential for being one of the best films this year, Mr Weinstein.

Grading Digital

Hello everyone,

As some of you know I am a filmmaker and currently studying at Metfilm School in Ealing Studios.

Anyway, until now I was only editing and never had a chance to grade or colour correct, now I am in editing class having to grade one third part of a feature film. We are mostly using Colorista II in Final Cut Pro, as it's most suitable for the quality of digital footage we have.

Just wanted to show you a quick example from a first day - I was trying to create an effect of Sepia for one of the flashbacks to 1942.

Here is an original footage:

And here is the changes I applied in Colorista II playing with colours:

To be honest this pictures reduce quality significantly, but you can see the idea behind it.

Have a nice week!

A bit of analysis on Czech hidden gem "Daisies"

Film “Daisies” by Vera Chytilova was made in Czechoslovakia in the times of oppression and strong political control of communist party over all the form of art. Vera Chytilova and other brilliant Czech filmmakers (like Milos Forman and Ivan Passer) contributed to the creation of movement that was later called as “Czech New Wave”.

The objective of making film for them was “to make the Czech people collectively aware that they are participants in a system of oppression and incompetence which had brutalized them.” Most films of Czech New Wave including “Daisies” were made just few years before the events of Prague Spring, period of political liberalization at the end of 1960-s in Czechoslovakia.

When analyzing this film it is important to look at the historical, social and cultural context of the times and place where this film was made. “Daisies” is enjoyable to watch and anyone who ever had to deal with any form of repression can relate to this film. “Daisies” is a filmic fest of freedom and joy of rebellion. Somewhat surrealistic it is explained not only by the cultural context but also the social and political setting in which this film was created. Surrealism of this film is an antidote to brutal realism of Soviet and communist societies.

“Daisies” is a great example of anti-narrative structure, made in the years of political, social and cultural oppression it breaks the rules of narrative and style. It is not simply an example of anti-narrative art, it is in every form an attempt of deconstruction of narration. This film despite its illogical structure and form makes an enjoyable and intelligent viewing experience, because the absence of plot is compensated by creation of story (“fabula”) by each individual viewer.

Some parts of “Daisies” include dialogue, but those that do not are in a way similar to silent movies.Soundtrack is mostly illogical and non-diegetic. Some of the scenes are especially similar to the early silent comedies from the use of filmic style: the scene in the night club where girls outperform dancers and show outrageous and silly behavior. First of all there is no dialogue in this scene, only music accompanying it. The place where girls sit looks like a static. Exaggerated movements and gags are great example of early comedies, when cinema was not regarded as a form of art but a form of entertainment.

This is again a revolutionary act from the authors of the film, as in communist societies, film could not be the form of entertainment and pleasure, but the form of education and propaganda.

The absence of constructed dialogue plays an important role in destroying the narration. Rudolf Arnheim argues that “The addition of spoken dialogue has made storytelling easier, dialogue narrows the world of film.”

The context of this film is linked to its filmic style: it is illogical and inconsistent. Any filmic style created is destroyed within some moments. For example, the change of colours with the rhythmic repetition is linked to the change of sound and when audience gets used to it and regards it as the filmic form, just in few moments it is broken only to be replaced by another one. Therefore I believe that the context of this film and the destruction of narration is closely linked to the destruction of filmic style.

Abundancy in food is mirrored in abundancy in filmic construction (although in this case I mean deconstruction): bold cuts, very bright colours, great variety of various cuts, psychedelic visuals , especially the ones with moving train and of course the great number of montage pictures of various things from roses to butterflies.

Film “Daisies” is full of images and actions that can be regarded as archetypes. Carl Gustav Jung described archetypes as “inborn tendencies which shape the human behavior”. These visions and symbols are universal. Jung continues “we often meet these themes in the fantasies, dreams, delirious ideas and illusions". As film in question is following deconstruction of narration and plot , the experience of watching it is very similar to fantasy or a surreal dream. This dream is full of archetypes: a tree of life, virginity, apples (and food in general) as a source of knowledge and life. And of course archetypical fears like castration (cutting phallic-shape food with scissors proceeding to cutting own bodies) and drowning as a form of punishment.  (http://www.carl-jung.net/archetypes.html, 2010).

By including archetypes Chytilova made the experience of watching this film more surreal and dream-like and as any dreams are very deconstructed and illogical. Usually in the morning we do not remember the plot of the dream however we strongly remember the feeling of it.

However one should make a difference between archetypes and stereotypes. While archetypes are included in the convention of the film, stereotypes are destroyed. It is interesting to compare “Daisies” to another very feminine film that deals with stereotypes, “Gentlemen prefer blondes”. The American film does not deconstruct stereotypes but acknowledges their role in society. For example Lorelei says: “Don't you know that a man being rich is like a girl being pretty? You wouldn't marry a girl just because she's pretty, but my goodness, doesn't it help?” (Gentlemen prefer blondes, 1953).

In contrast to that Chytilova destroys every stereotype and “heroines rebelliously try to subvert the patriarchal system and gender stereotypes”. The revolutionary act of sabotaging gender stereotypes goes in harmony with the filmic style of deconstruction. (Kinoeye, 2002).

A great example of illogical narration within the film is a philosophical question (although in the film it is a trivial problem): “Why do they say “I love you”? Why don’t they say, for example “egg”?” Main characters question the meaning of the words that are used everyday with no real meaning and value to it. If they are used with no meaning, why not replace it with something else. The whole film exploits this idea and replaces values and meanings with very brief creation of new meanings and style only for them to be deconstructed in next to no time.

There are different approaches to the principles of film narration. The distinction between the story and the form was theorized by the Russian Formalists. They studied two most important principles: story (also called fabula) and plot (syuzhet).  The plot is “a system because it arranges components – the story events and states of affairs – according to specific principles”. And there are three sorts of principles that relate plot to the story: Narrative Logic, Time and Space. Chytilova does not follow these principles in “Daisies”, the flow of story is illogical, time does not matter and space is a free structure.

Story or fabula on the other hand is not a system, it is action, series of events. Tynianov argues that “story can only be guessed, it is not a given”. (David Bordwell, 2005).

At the very beginning of the film Marie I says “Nobody understands anything”, this  is a great summary to the plot of the film: it warns audience that there is nothing to understand and every attempts to find meaning and matter will be laughed at and destroyed within no time. (Daisies, 1966).

Narration structure was viewed as one of the most important elements in creating film and plot. But experimental filmmakers had a fresh approach to filmmaking by using anti-narrative. Anti-narrative on its own has got a structure and follows its own rules created by authors within the film. But “Daisies” is a great example of early experimental films which destroy any attempt to find logical plot. Any new form of narration and style to be regarded as new shall be first deconstructed and broken.

At the end of the film when girls are drowning, film questions: “Is there any way to mend what’s been destroyed”. The answer is no, as girls are killed with a huge chandelier and the film is ended with no chance to mend its deconstruction. (Daisies, 1966).
This was followed not only in art but also in society: revolutions were needed to create a new society. It is a pity that it took Czech Republic and its filmmakers such a long time before revolution and the chance to create openly.


Bibliography.

Bordwell, D. Principles of Fim Narration. In: Wartenberg, T.E., Curran, A. eds. The Philosophy of Film, 2005, Oxford: Blakwell Publishing Ltd.

Concept of Archetypes at Carl Jung, 2010. Carl Jung Resources, [online]. Available at: http://www.carl-jung.net/archetypes.html

Daisies (Sedmikrásky), Vera Chytilová, 1966, Czechoslovakia.

Gentlemen prefer blondes, Howard Hawks, 1953, USA.

Hames, P., The Czechoslovak New Wave, 1985, Los Angeles: Berkeley.

Radkiewicz, M., 2002. Angry Young Girls. Kinoeye, 2(8).