(Release Info London schedule; July 10th, 2018, Picturehouse, 18:30) "Racer And The Jailbird" When Gino (Mathias Schoenaerts) meets Bénédicte (Adèle Exarchopoulos), it’s love at first sight, passionate, unconditional, fiery. She's working in the family business, and she also drives cars on circuits. Gino is that kind of normal guy, cool, handsome, but he hides a secret. That kind of secret that can endanger your life and the lives of those around you. Gino and Bénédicte will have to fight against fate, reason and their own weaknesses to save their love. Gino has a very boyish persona. Inside he’s still a little boy. Bénédicte untamed nature and naivety suited Gino’s own character. And then circumstances force her to grow up practically overnight and that opens up the story. Gino is still a heavyweight gangster and a thug, we asked ourselves; what does an elegant gangster look like, someone refined, soft-spoken? Bénédicte falls madly in love with this guy, and vice versa. It’s not that she's fascinated by a dark, mysterious figure and has a crazy one-night stand. This is a love that consumes them for years. He’s not malicious by nature, he’s not calculating. A lot of gangsters seem to have dead eyes, but Gino is alive. There’s still this teenager in him, there’s something vibrant in him. And he’s like Bénédicte, he’s driven by adrenalin; it’s the car, it’s life, it’s adventure. It’s energy discovering itself through someone else, it’s falling in love with that. And that an interesting concept. His love is absolute all the time. There's no going there, he's permanently there, all the time. So you need to feel the need, the desire and the fear. It’s all-in, all the time, and that’s complicated to play, because how do you bring shades into that? Bénédicte has a mental resilience and pride. She treats Gino, how she loves him in spite of, or rather thanks to, his flaws. Even more than his looks, it’s his scars and his dark side that draw her in. Benedikt lives for Gino and rather like the rapport that they've. One can’t live without the other. She needs him even though she's very independent. He helps her step out of her own shadow, he eases her loneliness but he always respects the person she's. Because he needs her as well. She guides him through life like a beacon in the night. Still, the film does not reveal everything about Bénédicte. Some aspects of her personality and past are left to the viewer to fill in or interpret. For instance, how did she manage to survive without her mother? And why does she let Gno get away with so much? Such is life, after all. We all carry secrets even those closest to us know nothing about. She protects herself at first. But she's willing to pull out all the stops for him. Also, she has no desire to change him, she wants him to keep his freedom. They don’t feel like defending their choice for each other to others. They just want to let their love for each other run it's course. Luckily there are all kinds of different scenes in the movie that help bring out those textures and colours. "Racer And The Jailbird" is inspired by the French-speaking gangster scene in Belgium of the 1990s and early noughties. Back then the gangster's wives were almost as infamous as the gangsters themselves, and those couples were known for their tumultuous love lives. The film takes one of those real-life stories, dissected it and put it back together in a way like 'The Hormone Mafia" in "Bullhead". It's a fictional tale of love and crime, of desire and failure. A love tragedy, or better, an 'Amour Noir'. "Racer And The Jailbird" is the second part of a crime trilogy. Each part is freely based on a particular moment in Belgian criminal history. For "Bullhead", the source of inspiration was the hormone mafia. This time, the film draws inspiration from notorious Brussels gangs and the equally by adrenaline driven world of auto racing. However, as was the case with "Bullhead", "Racer And The Jailbird" is a film about these gangs, nor a biography of one or another real-life gangster. The foundation of this story is the love between a man and a woman and the impossibility of actualizing their relationship. Their love is thwarted not only by their characters and origins, but also by the blows that fate deals them. As in "Bullhead", animals are important to the storytelling. From the very first scene it’s obvious that Gino is frightened of dogs. It’s almost as if he himself is a wild dog that must be domesticated. He needs to be tamed and trust in the love he receives. And eventually he does submit. Because that’s what love is in a way; it is not only being seduced but also submitting to your partner. It's a metaphor in the relationship between Gino and Bénédicte. Just like Jacky in "Bullhead", he becomes the very thing he fears, even though he doesn’t realise it. "Bullhead" and "Racer And The Jailbird" are like a diptych. They've a lot in common yet they're also very different. The film creates a kind of ’Brussels Riviera’. That’s a contradiction, but then so is the movie. Yet in spite of that glamour, the opening is also characterised by a grim atmosphere that develops in the course of the film. Classic motor racing photography is a big inspiration, and the livery of old race cars such as 'The Martini' and 'The Gulf'. Those colours come back in Bénédicte’s outfits. When they meet in Brussels on a grey and overcast day, she's wearing a blue coat with orange high heels. Those are the Gulf colours. The film infuses with the characteristics and grandeur of motor racing but at the same time it had to be obvious the film isn’t set in Cannes or Saint- Tropez, or even Paris. This film is a meeting of American film noir and the French polar. The storytelling is like the love child of "Heat" and "A Man And A Woman". "Racer And The Jailbird" turns the love story into the sun and the crimes are the moons orbiting around it. It doesn’t have the typical plot of a crime film. Usually the heist goes wrong and the love story is determined by that. This film is different, it’s driven by emotions instead of by the plot. In these days, when there's so much cynicism going on, this film is a kind of antidote. The tagline of the film is; would you fight for something that is already lost? Well, yes, if you love it you will. And that’s why this film is important. It deliberately and explicitly portrays this absolute form of romantic love.

Dunkirk is one of those films that had me gripping the edge of my seat in anticipation. I loved every minute of the award winning Christopher Nolan war film (actually I heard that Nolan refers to it more as a thriller than a war film.) The constant ticking throughout the film and lack of dialogue all added to the atmosphere of suspension and made me feel like I was part of the film, as if I was on Dunkirk beach running beside our leading character Tommy ( Fionn Whitehead.) Hans Zimmer created such a powerful soundtrack that heightened your adrenaline and had you fearing what would come next. I loved all of the strong performances but especially enjoyed father and son portrayal (Mark Rylance and Tom Glynn Carney.) The subtle glances the two made to eachother was endearing and I loved that they communicated with expressions rather than words. Cillian Murphy's shell- shock soldier was splendid and I felt real sympathy for a man that after all just wanted to go home. Newcomers Fionn Whitehead and Harry Styles also stood out for me, the harshness and desperation to stay alive from Harry's character Alex was unnerving and brilliantly acted and the lost young innocent soldier of Tommy was outstanding. While watching the film you begin to wonder how on earth these young boys barely out of school are going to survive and you root for their survival knowing that not all of them will make it out alive from the terrors of Dunkirk beach. Also to mention, Tom Hardy and Jack Lowden were fantastic as spitfire pilots and made me feel exceptionally nervous as they dived and swept to avoid the enemy. Overall Dunkirk is one of my favorite films and I can officially now say that I am a huge Christopher Nolan fan. I love his attention to detail and his superb story telling that captivates you from start to finish. His interwoven scenes and the structure of the film was easy to follow and shows a unique perspective on each of the characters. The whole cast was perfect and gave strong performances and I came out of the cinema instantly wanting to see it again.

As a lifelong DC fan, of both comics and films, I was immeasurably excited to see Justice League. Despite my many grievances with most of the previous entries in this DC cinematic universe, (Man of steel, Batman v Superman, Suicide Squad) I was looking forward to seeing my favourite superhero team on the big screen for the first time. Throughout the entirety of its production, rumours of reshoots, disagreements and tonal changes were rampant, and with the switch between directors happening mere months before the film was due out things were not looking good for Justice League. Admittedly, I was dubious by the time I finally got to see it. As I got into the cinema, I found myself praying fervently that the film would be, at the very least, fun as opposed to the monochromatic mess of Batman V Superman. I was not disappointed. Objectively this is not a well made film, with rather obvious green screen, evident reshoots and countless scenes cut that appeared in the trailers. While objectively from the point of view of the average filmgoer this film was a muddled mess whose weak villain, watered down plot and frankly horhorrific cgi Superman face may have been enough to turn them away, I simply could not move. As a fan, I absolutely loved this film. Despite its plethora of aforementioned problems what was eventually delivered was a fun romp through the DC universe, with just enough fan service to make a fanboy swoon. I found myself squealing with delight when Superman used his freeze breath and to see Steppenwolf (the admittedly weak villain) carve through amazons like cake was pure, unadulterated awesomeness. Throughout the superman films of yesteryear, the prevailing issue through them all has been Superman's characterisation. The Christopher Reeve films of the 70s leaned too heavily into the golden age boy scout rendition of the character, while the grim and gritty Man of Steel bombarded us with elements of the brooding post-crisis version of the character, feeling more like a stereotype than a living, breathing character. This film nailed his characterisation to a T. Granted it took death itself to give us the true Superman, but this is truly Superman. Gone is the stoic, isolated outsider, replaced instead with a quippy, slightly arrogant Superman who takes joy out of being the most powerful being to ever exist. The one caveat for this is, of course, the weirdly pasted out, distended face of Henry Cavill. While his actual face is fine, due to a legal dispute between Warner Bros. and Paramount the editors were forced to green screen out a moustache that the actor had grew for a different role. Wonder Woman was awesomely characterised, with her arc carrying over from her solo film seamlessly. Characterising Cyborg was a positively herculean task, but one that they pulled off far better than I could imagine. Aquaman, while not really resembling his classic 60s persona is surprisingly pleasant to watch, despite being a nigh complete departure from his actual character. The three weakest characters were by far Batman, The Flash and the villain, Steppenwolf. While not necessarily a bad character, the Flash we got resembles more the Wally West incarnation of the character as opposed to being Barry Allen. Steppenwolf is a fairly one dimensional character, with little being known about him besides his coveting of the three mystery macguffins of this film, the Mother Boxes. This is in part due to the copious editing the film endured before release, but also due in part to the significantly shorter runtime of 2 hours, seemingly a ploy by Warner Bros. in an attempt to recoup their losses. . Arguably the single worst characterisation in the film was Batman. In this film, Batman comes across more as a bumbling, self-aware wise guy instead of the brooding, burly badass we have come to love. After a standout performance in last year's Batman V Superman, Ben Affleck seems to have lost all of the initial enthusiasm that made his portrayal so good, with his lines obviously being phoned in, and his fight scenes leave a lot to be desired, especially after the universally lauded warehouse scene from BVS. While originally this Batman seemed able to go toe to toe with Superman, this version seems incapable of fighting his way out of a paper bag. Despite these issues, I loved Justice League and while it didn't hit all of the right beats in order to make it a standout hit it is definitely a step in the right direction for DC comics' film division, and I am definitely excited for where they take this franchise next.

If somebody told me that I would watch and enjoy a 3-D animated movie where Batman is fully kitted in samurai armour whilst fighting the Joker in fuedal Japan...who also has a feudal-Power Rangers-esque Arkham Asylum that moves and flings giant 'chinese stars', I would say that they're gosh-darn-tooting correct. And guess what, I really enjoyed this movie. Like truly. Every aspect of this movie just appealed to the 8 year old in me who used to wake up extra early on Saturday mornings just to watch giant robots smash into each other and anime. From the fast paced 3-D animation to the intensely bright colour scheme to the creative action sequences, I was just sucked into this world for 85 minutes and loved almost every moment of it. I try not to be dismissive of 3-D animation, especially since when done well it can look stunningly seemless yet I tend to not watch many animes that are soley 3-D animated. However, the animation in Batman Ninja and the action sequences were so detailed, creative and dare I say beautiful? I even liked the character designs especially how the character designers combined elements of feudal Japan with typical shounen characteristics and the traditional comic book designs. I say this knowing many people are still recovering from how Damien Wayne was designed, but I still liked it. It was different, off-centre, creative and fresh - something that I feel like has been lacking lately in almost every superhero movies to date. The Joker? Absolutely chaotic! Just how I love him. Honestly I loved this totally unhinged, psychotically-fun Joker who in my opinion had some funny one-liners and absurdly comical plans. This Joker is intent on being chaotic and destructive for the fun of it and I've always felt that is the essence of the Joker. Honestly as a villain, this incarnation of the Joker is just absolutely fun to watch, I didn't exactly root for him but I was definately enjoying myself when he was on screen. Now for the negative: I'm not going to lie, the plot is the weakest element of this movie. The plot wasn't exactly thrilling or anything brand new, however, I felt it was pretty clear that wasn't the point of this movie. Things happen that are basically unexplaned/impossible especially towards the last third but seriously who thinks a vigilante playboy billionare in a mask running around the streets of America is realistic anyway? This isn't a Christopher Nolan-type Batman movie that will fill you with philosophical angst or anything and it's clear that's not what this movie was made for. Clearly this is just a fun movie that wonderfully combines the major stereotypically tropes of shounen anime such as the weird running and ridiculous fighting sequences and the heart of Batman and the Batfamily. This is clearly not a movie for ultimate die-hard fans of Batman who meticulously nitpick at the story and plot, honestly the faults in the characters and some of the plot points will probably give you an aneurysm. Probably. However if you're here for a good time and you want to see what happens when Batman fuses with shonen-style anime, well then this is probably the movie for you. Seriously if you're a Batman fan, or fan of anime or a fan of simply having fun, then watch the movie. Seriously worth it. 3.7 out of 5 stars.

You'd be forgiven for thinking – particularly if you'd watched the trailers, as I had – that Frank would be some ridiculous and zany madcap comical farce. And in fact – and despite being an ardent fan of Michael Fassbender and Domhnall Gleeson – I pigeonholed the movie for far too long on that basis; very foolish of me. It was only after I had come across Mark Kermode's review of the film that I decided maybe it was time to see why he had rated it so highly. Believe me, Frank is one of the most surprising films you'll ever see. So, what is it about? Directed by Lenny Abrahamson, Frank tells the story of Jon Burroughs (Domhnall Gleeson) who – after playing keyboard for the SORONPRFBS (don't worry, it's unpronounceable.) following the original keyboardist attempt to drown himself in the ocean – is whisked away by the band to Ireland for what he presumes, is a weekend gig. What should have been a short weekend away quickly turns into a considerably longer affair due to the band's unusual way of recording material. Jon struggles to find his place within the band; finding ardent indifference in Baraque (François Civil) and Nana (Carla Azar) and encountering outright hostility from Clara (Maggie Gyllenhaal) who threatens to stab him for various reasons on more than one occasion. The band's manager, Don (Scoot McNairy) and enigmatic but charismatic lead singer, Frank (Michael Fassbender) on the other hand, are much more accommodating; Jon quickly starts to become more and more obsessed with Frank. Frank is based on the writings of Jon Ronson and inspired by his time playing in Chris Sievey's alter ego, Frank Sidebottom's group, the Oh Blimey Big Band. It's worth noting this is not a biopic; more an amalgamation of influences ranging from the obvious, Frank Sidebottom, to characters such as Captain Beefheart and Daniel Johnston. Frank can best be described as a dark comedy: yes, it's funny, but not in the way you might expect. The humour lies within the cast's nuanced performances; in the absurdity of their characters personalities and situations, they find themselves in: its intelligence and understated nature are its strength and are the result of an excellent script, and an inventive and magnificent cast. Perhaps more surprising is the melancholia surrounding the movie and its characters. Frank can be an incredibly funny movie, but it's also replete with sorrow and dejection and regret: it explores and challenges the established conventions which suggest that genius and madness are somehow intertwined; tip-toeing the line adroitly and unravelling an enigma that's both heartbreaking and poignant. It's a film which is, at its centre, about mental illness; exploring this sensitive subject with a delicacy and intricacy rarely seen. Not something I expected from a film I'd assumed would be more akin to a slapstick comedy. Frank is the enigma of whom I speak, and to say he's complicated is an understatement. Fortunately, he's portrayed by one of the greatest, most idiosyncratic talents of our time, Michael Fassbender. The nuances Fassbender brings to the role are numerous (far too numerous to go into detail) and ranging; from the over the top eccentricities to the subtle mannerisms which cleverly hint toward the unveil at the end of the movie: impressive considering any sentiment or response had to come entirely from body language due to Fassbender having to wear the Frank mask throughout 95% of the movie. Frank is such an attention-grabbing, larger than life character, dominating the screen from beginning to end, it's easy to forget this is Jon's story, not Frank's. It's fortunate then we have the wonderful and endearing talent of Domhnall Gleeson to keep us grounded; preventing us from being completely swept away by Frank's almost whimsical nature. Gleeson has the most extraordinary ability to stand out on-screen; projecting his presence throughout a movie, whether in a lead or supporting role. More importantly perhaps is the fact that not only is he strong enough to play lead alongside the likes of Fassbender, but that he's quite willing and knows when to take a step back; allowing others to take the stage. Gleeson's character, Jon, has an awkward naivety about him; an outsider, almost underdog kind of vibe which masks the fact that he's actually rather ambitious and self-centred — which rubs Clara, in particular, up the wrong way. The cast of characters of whom forms the band is brilliant throughout, with Maggie Gyllenhaal (as Clara) delivering a particularly well-received performance. However, I would argue that one of the most outstanding performances of the film was also one of the most underappreciated — that of Scoot McNairy as Don. McNairy presents an ingenious and abstruse performance as Don, the band's manager; a man living constantly on the knife-edge of sanity, threatening to topple at any moment. In many ways, Don is a metaphor for the film as a whole; mysterious and endearing, but wracked with demons. He's arguably one of the most fundamental characters, being the individual who not only brings the group together but also holds them together; containing their eccentricities: something which inflicts a terrible toll on him. McNairy's role in the film is really downplayed, and he does a really good job of fading into the background; getting lost amongst the rest of the cast: as such, it's facile for the audience to relegate and forget about him. This isn't a criticism; it's a conscious decision made by the filmmakers, one which works really well; mirroring Don's character arc: both the filmmakers and McNairy deserve far more credit than they seem to have got. Frank is the kind of movie that gets better the more you view it: it leaves you contemplating the characters, their relationships, and their actions, long after the film has finished. The use and importance of music in Frank make this more akin to a musical in many ways, and the decision to have the music performed by the actors themselves bestows a tangible physicality to the film. As I feel I've waffled on for far too long already, I'm going to quickly wrap it up here. I'll end by simply saying, I love this movie: it will make you laugh, it will make you think, and it will make you cry, and, by the end, it will leave you feeling profoundly uplifted.

(Release Info London schedule; August 3rd, 2018, Curzon Bloomsbury) "The Escape" A woman sets out to reclaim her life in this stirring, emotionally rich look at what it means to start over.  Tara (Gemma Arterton), a housewife and mother in suburban London, is living a life that's no longer hers; it belongs to her loving but overworked, self-absorbed husband Marc (Dominic Cooper), her young son Phillipe (Jalil Lespert) and daughter Alison (Frances Barber) and the numbing routine of housework and childcare. In desperate need of a change, Tara one day makes a bold decision. Armed with a one-way ticket to Paris, she leaves everything behind to rediscover herself in a new city, but walking out on your life isn’t so simple. "The Escape" is a perceptive, deeply compassionate portrait of a woman on the rocky road to becoming herself.  The resulting story is an intimate portrait of Tara, a married woman who seemingly has it all, but is deeply unhappy. She feels trapped in the role of a stay-at-home wife and mother and yearns for more fulfilment. Tara is not perfect either, she’s very depressed. Tara knows she should be happy and that everyone expects her to be, but this pressure is slowly destroying her and all she can think about is escape. The trauma of that experience is quite clear to see in terms of Tara’s character, but at the same time Tara makes us understand why she does what she does and it plays on our sensibilities.       Mark is initially oblivious of Tara’s despair. He takes pride in providing for his family, believing that everything is perfect, but he's not an emotionally intelligent man, which means he's unable to tune in to Tara’s needs until it's too late. And even then he does not possess the emotional skills to respond to her in the right way. He makes it very difficult for Tara to leave him and a fundamental part of the film is that she needs to leave him. He makes it difficult not because he’s a bad guy, but because he’s clumsy and emotionally inept. He’s trying to do the right thing but manages to do the wrong thing each time. Mark thinks that he has done everything possible to keep his family afloat, to give them what they need. He thinks he's giving them the right amount of love and he thinks everything is perfect, but the foundations are about to crumble, things are about to fall to pieces and he does not have the ability to deal with it or salvage it, because he's so removed from the person that he's married to. Husbands sometimes can behave in subtlety dismissive and inattentive ways; they’re very focused on themselves and their routines and always wants to show that aspect of a relationship. Mark is like that, but when he realises that his marriage is falling apart, he’s able to deal with it in a way that shows he's actually a sensitive person. They want all the elements of modern life which apparently make everyone happy and content. But it clearly isn’t everything for Tara. Mark sees things in a straightforward way, there’s nothing wrong with how he views his life. So it comes as a surprise to him that Tara feels the way she does and the depth of her dissatisfaction.   The subject matter is about a mother who leaves her family. We've to look at the process of how that mother leaves her children and what she leaves it for and why. The film is really interested in the detail of relationships, the kind of stuff that might not necessarily be considered dramatic but is fascinating because of a kind of authenticity. And of course the most interesting stuff is not calm and happy. Nobody's life is that necessarily, even the happiest of relationships have difficulties. This story is provocative and concerns the more difficult things in life. Life is not perfect for anyone; often we’re locked into a cycle of just getting on with it. It’s a deep and detailed look at what someone goes through in a particular time of their life and deals with what makes us truly happy, what are our inspirations and what we live for. It’s a good point of discussion, perhaps it will open couples up to talking about what they’re really feeling rather than bottling it up and letting it all explode in a devastating way. If it can make people understand that maybe you don’t have to settle and that you can decide to change your life then that’s a good thing.

Hey, another Marvel sequel, lucky us! I can’t remember the last time Marvel released a film. Since the last one, erm about 5 months ago, there’s been huge anticipation. ‘I can’t contain my excitement any longer’ ‘I need my quarterly drug of a Marvel film’ ‘I hate not knowing when the next one will be’. Just a few complaints I’ve heard about the lack of releases in recent years. Ant-Man and The Wasp is the final Marvel film of 2018; Hallelujah I hear you cry! To begin, backstory. AMATW is set two years after Civil War, but before Infinity War. Christ, I'm already confused. Paul Rudd is under house-arrest because he got caught after the big fight in Civil War. It also means that Hank and Hope Pym are also being sought after by the po po because of their activities. I think. Hank and Hope hate Paul Rudd because of it. But they can’t hate him for long, because he’s Paul Rudd, and, like all the latest Marvel heroes are loveable doofuses. Thor. Star-Lord. Spider-Man. Original, good job. Well in the last Ant-Man, Paul Rudd shrunk really small, which meant he travelled into the Quantum Realm which should’ve killed him, but he didn’t. Anyway, Hank’s missus is trapped in the Quantum Realm and they have to use Scott (oh yeah Ant-Man is called Scott, I just love saying Paul Rudd because it’s a great name) to try and rescue Mrs Pym from the place. Hank and Hope have been building a machine that can take them into the Quantum Realm but they need Scott for something. I don’t know, probably the jokes. They team up, even though they shouldn't because they aren't allowed contact and do some Marvel saving the day hero stuff.  After Infinity War, everyone needed a lift and I have an exclusive from Marvel HQ during the following meeting after the release of IW. "guys, welcome back. I know it’s been a rough week for our fans. They all think their favourite superheroes have died" "lol idiots, as if we’d kill off a multi-billion franchise to just create a good story mhahaha" "so what we want now is to release Ant-Man, no hassle, no fuss, no drama, nothing that’s gonna upset our fans even more. ok?" "ok" That’s another post all together. However, AMATW was very light-hearted, some of the comedy in the film was very funny but yet again it’s just too much and all too similar with other Marvel films. I get that as a company they want continuity but it would be far more interesting too see directors have their own style to suit a particular film. The action scenes were very impressive, I absolutely love how they film the shrinking scenes, and the interaction with the normal sized characters. It’s very impressive to watch on a purely technical basis and just as a paying customer.  Really though, Ant-Man lacked any depth nor was there an improvement on the old film. As amazing as those scenes were, we saw all that in the last film. We saw Ant-Man go super large in Civil War. There was nothing new. Even the introduction of The Wasp was a bit flat; a bit underwhelming. She had some good additional powers but it didn’t really add anything in terms of her character development. The villain wasn't a villain. She was just stuck in a body full of Quantum energy that meant she was going to die, so wanted to kill Mrs Pym to absorb the energy. It was pointless in the end, because she wasn’t a bad guy and they probably could’ve worked something out if they just spoke.  3/5 All in all, this was a pretty big let down. Sure, it was fun. It had a lot of great laughs but Marvel have set themselves a large pedestal due to their current films and each of their films should be judged on the previous one. It would have taken a lot to top, or even match Infinity War because of the scale of it, but Ant-Man didn't really come close. If this was a Disney film back in the 90′s, it would've gone straight to VHS.

(Release Info London schedule; August 10th, 2018, Picturehouse, 21:50) "Under The Tree" Agnes (Lára Jónsdóthir) throws Atli (Steinbór Steinbórsson) out and does not want him to see their daughter Ása (Sigridir Scheving) anymore. He moves in with his parents, who are involved in a bitter dispute over their big and beautiful tree that casts a shadow on the neighbours’ deck. As Atli fights for the right to see his daughter, the dispute with the neighbours intensifies, property is damaged, pets mysteriously go missing, security cameras are being installed and there's a rumor that the neighbor was seen with a chainsaw. When Baldvin (Siguóur Sigurjónsson) and Inga’s (Edda Bjòrgvinsdótir) next door neighbours complain that a tree in their backyard casts a shadow over their sundeck, what starts off as a typical spat between neighbours in the suburbs unexpectedly and violently spirals out of control. "Under The Tree" follows a man who's accused of adultery and forced to move in with his parents. While he fights for custody of his four-year-old daughter, he's gradually sucked into a dispute between his parents and their neighbors over an old and beautiful tree. What starts as a typical spat between suburban neighbors unexpectedly and violently reaches a boiling point, soon spiraling out of control. This film is about neighborly disputes. What excited originally about the idea is that such conflicts can be absurdly funny since they very often revolve around minor issues, but then very often get blown out of all proportion. They can sometimes become very fierce, violent conflicts, in which normal, respectable people lose their dignity and self-control. Stories of neighbors fighting over trees are actually quite well known in Iceland so, and in fact, the story is in some sense inspired by a real-life incident, although the script then developed into something completely fictional. What’s also important to know is that trees are not all that common in Iceland, so if you've an old and beautiful tree standing in your garden, you’re very unlikely to ever want to let go of it. But on the other hand, if a tree in the next garden is preventing any sun from shining into your garden, you're going to want to get rid of that tree. Especially since you don ́t get much sunshine in Iceland. It’s the kind of head to head dilemma that unfortunately is hard to solve in a diplomatic way. The favorite subject-matter of Northern European fiction, the disintegration of social bonds that takes place behind well-preserved house walls, emerges through an intricate polyphonic composition that brings harmony into chaos. It's ́a great source for cinematic material. Mainly because our lives are most of the time made up of the mundane, this is what we know best and this is one of the elements that connects our human existence. It's a great challenge to make a thriller-esque drama about something as innocent as a beautiful tree. To make a war film where home is the battlefield. Music also plays a key part in defining the increasingly dark tone. Using music along with cinematography is a very important tool to create that feeling of unease and suspense. Especially since the narrative does take some unexpected turns in the latter half, the score turned out to be an essential and effective way to prepare this shift. By the end it turns into sort of a fable where the larger metaphor is living in a community, in peace with other humans. In that sense you can also read this story as one about two different, conflicting nations, ethnic or religious groups. Those stories share some things in common with the issues we can have with our neighbors. You can see the film as a cautionary tale for our time, about what can happen when coexistence and compromise start to fail. There are some terrible things in the air these days and we've reached the point where it's seriously threatening our existence on this planet. If we look at the biggest narrative of our times, climate change, it's exactly about that. The whole world has to come together and let go of a certain way of living but it seems that we just can't. We all have the same objective, and really we all have to compromise in one way or another and be considerate of each other, and if we don't, we're risking the future of our children. But still we can't do it. It's this terrible individualistic way of thinking and living, which is indeed encouraged by our capitalistic society.

Awards season is well and truly upon us with the release of Luca Guadagnino's eagerly-anticipated adaptation of Andre Aciman's novel of the same name. This is a film I’ve known about for quite some time. Since its excellent reviews at the beginning of the year and it's fifteen minute standing ovation at Cannes, although by now you have to wonder what the people at Cannes wouldn't stand for. However it does possesses a story that will resonate with many. An established actor in need of more recognition in Armie Hammer, and a sizzling juggernaut of a leading performance by a relative newcomer in Timothee Chalamet, and it'd be cruel not to mention the superb supporting cast as well. On paper the film is a simple coming of age drama. Elio (Chalamet) is enjoying his rather lavish life 'Somewhere in Northern Italy' as we're told in the opening scenes, but he is no outcast eg, last year’s best picture winner Moonlight or criminally under appreciated Edge of Seventeen, he adores attention and none more so than that of family friend and Parisian, Marzia (a wonderfully surprising performance from French actress Esther Gabriel), itself a beautifully intricate sub-plot throughout. However, as the plot details, the story is driven by the flowering romance between Elio and Oliver (Hammer), an intern invited to stay with the family by Elio's father. That to a steady, wise performance by Michael Stuhlbarg (Steve Jobs). On the whole, I did find the first 45 minutes somewhat pretentious, and at times quite self-indulgent, with some scenes unnecessarily lavish - for example when Oliver and Elio's father engage in a five minute history lesson on the origin of Latin phrases. Obviously, you can't fault the acting, as the lines are delivered, especially those between the leads, with the innocence, sexually-charged energy and pure charisma that you would expect from a film and cast so hotly tipped to contend in major categories at the Oscars. I did, however, grow into the film in its final hour, with the sharp dialogue between the two leads, coupled with the incredible backdrop of the score by Sufjan Stevens. But the main reason is undoubtedly Timothee Chalamet's ever changing performance. The way he ebbed and flowed from mature, sophisticated teenager, wiser than his years, to confused, impressionable and frightened of himself is really what I felt the whole film leaned on. There’s no doubt Armie Hammer gives his always solid performance, but it is purely a starter to the main event, even if for the first twenty minutes I was imagining one of the Winklevoss twins had run away to Italy. There are some wonderfully moving scenes in this film, none more so than the monologue delivered by Elio's father (Stuhlbarg) to him at the end, a scene even in the cinema I could see being played as it's read out as a best picture nominee at the Oscars in March. There is also a 'peach' of a scene that I’m sure many people have heard or read about (I’ll let you discover that on your own). Overall the film is no doubt a wonderfully crafted piece of cinema, with top-drawer performances throughout However it's directed so lavishly and cleanly that audiences may find it, as I did at times, slightly contrived and insincere.

(Release Info London schedule; February 15th, 2020, Curzon Soho, 99 Shaftesbury Ave, Soho, London W1D 5DY, United Kingdom, 9:00 PM) https://www.curzoncinemas.com/soho/film-info/greed "Greed" "Greed" tells the story of self-made 'British' billionaire Sir Richard McCreadie (Steve Coogan), whose retail empire is in crisis. For 30 years he has ruled the world of retail fashion, bringing the high street to the catwalk and the catwalk to the high street, but after a damaging public inquiry, his image is tarnished. To save his reputation, he decides to bounce back with a highly publicized and extravagant party celebrating his '60th' birthday on 'The Greek Island Of Mykonos'. A satire on the grotesque inequality of wealth in the fashion industry, the film sees McCreadie’s rise and fall through the eyes of his biographer, Nick (David Mitchell). The film opens in Mykonos, Greece, where Richard McCreadie is building a wooden 'Roman Amphitheatre' for the amusement of his guests, who are flying in from all over the world. McCreadie’s party is always intended to be 'Roman'-themed. It’s actually quite similar to the kind of parties that people like Philip Green have always thrown. These ostentatious displays of wealth. In fact, in a way, you might say that someone like Philip Green is being more honest than other people who try to present themselves as a more touchy-feely version of capitalism, the Richard Branson, approach to capitalism. Having a woolly jumper and a beard makes him seem very friendly, but, really, it’s the same thing, just different clothes. So the decadence of 'The Roman Empire' seems to be a good metaphor for the decadence of 'The Modern Age'. And that parallel is drawn unwittingly by the character of Richard McCreadie. As the party draws nearer, McCreadie and his son Finn (Asa Butterfield) trade quotes from the 2000 Ridley Scott film "Gladiator", about a Roman general who wreaks his revenge on the corrupt emperor who sold him into slavery. It’s a very good metaphor, because it’s celebrating the idea of someone who can only measure success in a very macho, aggressive, testosterone-fuelled way. It’s a very Donald Trump-like rationale, really, it’s a very unambiguous, unsophisticated, but very popular way of thinking about success. This also explains the reasoning for McCreadie hosting what he thinks is the most extravagant party of the season. One theme of the film is the gap between the lives of the women making clothes for McCreadie’s brands and the lifestyle that can be bought by the billions of profits from their labor. So it has to be a lavish party, and we feel that a 'Roman'-themed party, with McCreadie cast as a 'Roman Emperor', As the guests start filing in for the festivities, we see that McCreadie is suddenly concerned by the arrival of some Syrian refugees in the coastline where his 'Roman Amphitheatre' is being built. In fact, McCreadie is not concerned at all by their plight. Instead, he worries that the great and good will have their evening spoiled by the temporary camp that’s been set up next door. McCreadie’s frantic obsession with pandering to his celebrity guests offered a rich seam of satire. One of the themes of the film is the way business billionaires like McCreadie use celebrities to try to make themselves glamorous, and part of the narrative of the film is that he's trying to get these celebrities, who’ve always come to his parties in the past, to come to his latest party. Because, having had his businesses investigated, and, having been criticized in the press, he’s trying to restore his reputation, so he thinks that getting all these celebrities to come along will restore his image and his brand. Which means part of the narrative is; is that strategy going to work? And will it help him reinvent himself as king of the high street? One aspect of the world of fashion that McCreadie embodies is the way it uses celebrity and fame to make their world seem glamorous, hence the use of celebrities to endorse lines of fashion in their shops. People can buy a £10 dress and somehow feel connected to Kate Moss or Beyoncé. It’s a way of making your business grow. And equally connected to that's the fact that rich people like to be seen with glamorous people, so the party is really a kind of marketing exercise, in the hope that McCreadie’s brand will become successful again, which is a way a lot of big businesses work these days. Let’s face it, celebrities, by their very nature, have plenty of money, but they’re quite happy to get paid to add a little glamor to clothes being made by people with very little money. They’ll still fly off to a free party on someone’s yacht, even though they’ve got $50m in the bank. The people we've in the film understand that's not a very positive image of someone like Richard McCreadie, they’re people who are happy to make fun of themselves and don’t mind sending themselves up. Aside from the bona fide celebrities, there's also a joke about the use of star lookalikes to pad out the A-list guest quota. The party on Mykonos is very surreal. It's surreal anyway to be doing a night shoot with a bunch of people wearing togas, in the sand. But it's also surreal because as well as the actors we've these amazingly fun guest cameos, people like Stephen Fry, Fatboy Slim and Pixie Lott. The film comes up with the character of Richard 'Greedy' McCreadie, a self-made man whose reputation takes a dramatic tumble just as he prepares to celebrate his '60th' birthday with a highly publicized toga party in Greece. Richard McCreadie is a complex character. It's a film about a larger-than-life businessman. He's someone who ostensibly seems quite odious, you've to mitigate that, you've to make the character funny, then that sugars the pill somewhat. So the audience is entertained by him while being repelled by him at the same time. He has his flaws, but he also has some good qualities as well. The film has this underlying message, which is a satire on the way that inequality has grown and grown over the last 30 years, in a way that McCreadie has definitely benefitted from. It's a film about Richard McCreadie’s career, and the ways in which he's a man of his times, from his dodgy, cheap beginnings in the ’80s with the whole rise of free-market 'Thatcherism' and globalization, without any great skills; just a determination to get rich. The film engages with that career right from the very moment his empire is starting to crumble. He has these overly white teeth made, which is a predilection of the super rich, they think that they look great with a permanent tan and ridiculously white teeth. They think, because they’re surrounded by 'yes' men, it makes them look really cool. But it just makes them look like a dick, and that’s funny. McCreadie wears well-tailored clothes, but they aren't too cool, just a bit unselfconsciously nouveau riche. There’s a sort of swagger to the way he walks. There’s a certain 'Estuary English' quality that he has, but he’s not too much of a barrow boy. He’s more of a public schoolboy who’s tried to rough himself up a bit because it makes him feel a bit 'Jack The Lad'. He likes to feel a bit street smart. And he's quite street smart; he’s a wheeler-dealer. Needless to say, Richard McCreadie is also a very funny man, and he wields his sharp tongue like a razor. He certainly has a certain amount of wit. Someone like, for example, Philip Green does have a certain amount of wit, in his own bombastic way. You could say, if you’re being kind, that he has a certain kind of charisma that allows him a certain licence, for a certain period, to behave in a way that most people would consider unacceptable. Because there’s certainly an arrogance there, which is exposed at 'The Select Committee' meetings. The film uses the likes of Philip Green to raise the subject of this kind of exploitative slave labor that makes people rich. People involved in this world, they sleep like babies. It doesn’t bother them. Richard McCreadie is like that, the only kind of success he knows is material success. There’s a spiritual bone in his body. Richard McCreadie isn’t necessarily the bad guy, he’s just a larger-than-life example of what everyone does, which is making clothes as cheaply as possible and selling them for as much as possible, and one way to do that's to make the clothes in Cambodia or Bangladesh. It just struck us as a rich and quite simple way of looking at what's quite a complex subject, because you’re seeing it through the eyes of a billionaire who’s very hands on and who has built his business through the ’80s, ’90s and into the ’00s. In a way, Richard McCreadie represents that kind of era; how the markets work, how the world has changed, how capitalism has changed, how globalization has changed the world, and so on. McCreadie is someone who could bring together quite large, different strands of how the world has changed in the last 30 years; he’s a man of his time. And one of the attractions is that you could draw together various different strands, whether it’s women workers in Sri Lanka, or dodgy business deals, or leveraged takeovers on 'The British High Street', from the point of view of one fictional character. He's quite a colourful character for the big screen. As preparations get underway for Richard McCreadie’s party, "Greed" tells us the backstory of the billionaire entrepreneur, and does so through the character of Nick (David Mitchell), a journalist who's writing McCreadie’s biography. Nick is a kind of everyman, and he represents ‘us’, whether that’s ‘us’ in the audience or even ‘us’ as in the people who are making the film. He’s someone who's sympathetic. He's a sort of whoring himself around and has to write the adulatory biography of a terrible man. Nick is someone who isn’t morally strong. He’s not the good guy taking down the bad guy, he’s just trying to write the story of Richard McCreadie, and he’s in an ambiguous position. He’s on McCreadie’s side, and he’s being paid by him, but at the same time he doesn’t always approve of his character or his business methods. So he’s in the same position as the audience, and he sort of draws us through the story. It's clever that he’s written not as a nasty man, but as someone who’s as morally ambiguous as we all are. We can sit in judgement on this economic system, but we also have to participate in it, and Nick taking the money to write the book is an example of that. You can see why he does it and you don’t dislike him for doing it, but he dislikes himself for doing it. So that’s a good, morally ambiguous way in, rather than seeing the film through the eyes of a virtue-signalling, perfect person. He's a person who's really quite ethical but who has his morality compromised and feels bad about it. He represents a certain kind of complicity. He feels a little bit out of it and he tries to be witty, but he’s also a bit of a nerd. So that’s what he contributes vocally, but mainly he’s watching and absorbing and becoming troubled by it, because throughout the film he sees it all. So the acting challenge is to have a good reactive face without overdoing it, but also without just looking vacant. Margaret (Shirley Henderson) is McCreadie’s mother. A lot of that character is really just Margaret coming in and inventing stuff, but it's a lot of reading around the careers of successful men, especially successful men in the retail fashion business, and it seems that, often, a strong mother is a factor that connected them. Margaret as a tougher, matriarchal version of Richard, someone who's all family, about getting on, about making money. Richard is made in her image, in a way. Samantha (Isla Fisher) is McCreadie’s ex-wife. Like the mother, Samantha, the ex-wife, is also strong, at least as strong as, if not stronger than, the Richard character. Samantha and Richard are divorced, but we’re one of those couples that probably should have stayed married. We've a great relationship. Partly because they're cut from the same cloth, so to speak. Samantha is very blasé about her wealth. She’s the kind of person who’s proud of being greedy, who sees nothing wrong with being able to exploit a system and enjoys very much the spoils of luxury. She’s essentially a deeply unlikable character. It seems that not all wives of billionaires live in the shadow of their husband’s success; some of them have thriving careers of their own and bring in a hefty fortune themselves. She's the kind of girl who likes to sit on a beach on a private island, Samantha’s also someone who’s very bright, who enjoys the sport of making money, who’s interested in numbers and being rich. So that makes her a much more interesting character than just being the trophy wife. She's more interested in the exterior and how she appears than she's with what’s going on inside. She’s great company, she’s funny and she’s provocative; in the very best way. It’s very interesting, because it’s not like she’s the long-suffering ex-wife. She loves Richard, even though they’ve broken up, and he loves her. That’s a very human quality. Samantha is a very believable, real character, and actually, on a personal level, really quite likeable. That’s one thing we've noticed when we've interacted with super-rich people; they can be great fun. But just because someone’s fun, it doesn’t mean they’re not nefarious or even wicked. Presenting a more human side to McCreadie’s empire is Amanda (Dinita Gohil). She’s basically his 'PA', his right-hand woman, and she’s involved in the party planning. She uses to work for McCreadie back in one of his shops, so she started off in retail and has found herself working in the hospitality side of things for this big party that he’s having. Amanda is really hard-working, and, initially, she seems quite unassuming, but she surprises us, because, actually there’s a lot more that’s gone on in her life than we initially realized. This involves the revelation that Amanda has family involved in the overseas rag trade. We find out that Amanda’s mother used to work in a sweatshop in Bangladesh, and that there was a fire there, much like, for example, 'The Rana Plaza' fire, which was a particularly devastating fire that happened in Bangladesh in 2013, at a garment factory there. One aspect of this film that's always going to be technically challenging is how to somehow bring all these different strands together. We've to look at Richard’s early school days, then his early business career, then how he amassed a fortune and then how he avoided paying tax on that fortune, and how he managed to buy huge businesses when he didn’t have that much cash himself. The first mechanism to hold it together is a big party to salvage his reputation. The film goes backwards and forwards to look at all these different aspects of McCreadie’s career. The film needs a character that draws these strands together. A connection between the women who are making clothes for McCreadie’s business empire in Sri Lanka, who are getting paid $4 a day, and the lavish party that McCreadie, who’s made his billions from those clothes, is throwing in Mykonos. So the main character that does that's Amanda, because her mother was a worker in Sri Lanka and her uncle works in the garment trade in Leicester. She uses to work for McCreadie’s retail empire, and now she works for the company that’s putting on the party. She crosses all the different strands of the film. She's most difficult character in the film. Although "Greed" begins with a somewhat light, irreverent tone the film takes a darker turn in the final third, when Richard McCreadie suddenly starts to become accountable to the people around him. There’s a morality tale aspect to it, in a way that hasn’t happened, well, so far, in reality. It’s wish fulfilment: you reap what you sow, what goes around comes around, call it what you like. It’s surprising, it’s shocking, it’s nasty, but you don’t see it coming and you didn’t know it's going to happen before it happened. The origins of "Greed" is briefly diverted to the subject of Philip Green, once the billionaire owner of 'The Arcadia Group', owners of 'Top Shop', 'Miss Selfridge', 'Dorothy Perkins' and many more, who had been called before a 'Parliamentary Select Committee' about the collapse of one of it's biggest brands; 'The British High Street Fixture BHS'. There are similarities between Richard McCreadie and Philip Green, "Greed" should not be seen as a thinly veiled attack on one specific individual. In general, the subject of the film is inequality, the way in which free market fundamentalism has worked over the last 30 years. We’ve seen films before in the area, so it’s not as though we're thinking of this as a new area. What's slightly unusual, though, is that, despite the seriousness of the subject matter, the film uses humour to get his message across. Comedy is always a tricky term. It's entertaining, and there are funny bits in it. But when we're trying to persuade people to give us money for a film and we've to give them an idea of the film, the references we give them are films like "The Big Short", which has comedy actors in it but is not a comedy at all, and other films about business, you could say it’s like a jokey version of 'Citizen Kane', looking back on someone’s career, or 'The Social Network'. All our reference points are about how to deal with complex business issues through films that take a certain character as a central point. There's never a reference to comedy films we thought it's going to be like. Prices are constantly driven down and the only way to change that's to make rules and regulations that make a fairer system. People are just trying to get by, trying to survive, and yet they’re seeing the profits from their labor being siphoned off into billionaires’ bank accounts, where it gets parked in offshore tax havens while they've their lavish parties. Even people in the fashion industry would like the system to change, but, for now, they all work within the system. And they've to, because that’s how the system works. There’s a definite point of view, and it’s provocative. Some people will love it, some people will hate it, a few people will be provoked into thinking about stuff that they ordinarily wouldn’t think about. You believe in karma? Some people don’t reap what they sow. That’s the important thing about injustice in the world: some people behave terribly, and appallingly, and they get away with it because they’ve got good 'PR'. The thing is, success breeds success. It doesn’t matter how much of a bastard you are, if you’ve got lots of money you can make it seem like you’re not a bastard, even though you're. You can control how the argument is framed, and everything that goes to make you seem great and have great branding. 'PR' helps accentuate all the positive stuff you do, and turn the volume down on all the terrible stuff you do. There are a lot of people like that out there. People who are quite visible, but who manage their own image very well, because they've good 'PR'. They've a support network of people around them who can present them in exactly the way they want to be presented. It’s about the human cost of fashion, and we need to make more informed choices when we buy our next pair of shoes. You don’t want your shopping sprees to be moral decisions, and they shouldn’t have to be. You should be able to go shopping while knowing about the conditions that the people who made your garment are working under, how much they’re being paid, and how ethical the clothes are themselves. "Greed" isn’t just a film about the exploitation of 'Third World' labor, there are just as many victims of this ruthless brand of capitalism to be found working on the high streets of major cities, especially in 'The UK'. There are all those zero-hours contracts to think about. But we feel that there are so many other issues, even beyond the whole 'Brexit' thing, that are obfuscating more important things that need to be talked about. There are lots of issues being discussed, quite rightly. But the biggest issue confronting society is the one that is least talked about, and that's the disparity between the rich and the poor. It’s the elephant in the room. When the super-rich get together and discuss how they can solve the ills of the world, they present themselves as wanting to help mankind. But in actual fact they're partly responsible for the very injustices that they're claiming to want to help resolve. But one of the things that all these people never want to talk about, the last taboo, is taxation. No one wants to talk about that. Everyone will throw a few sovereigns at a worthy cause, for the ‘optics’. But no one will really make a commitment. These people squirrel away vast, vast reserves in offshore tax havens, and then they throw a few coins at those they regard as being needy. Everyone thinks they’re really generous people, but it’s a smokescreen. Corporations do it. Big petrol chemical companies will build a couple of schools in some African country and then say, look how nice we're, look how kind we're, then maybe throw a few coins at some environmental thing. But it’s all bullshit. People have to understand more fully the nature of the economic system they’re in can only be a good thing. Our governments in the west have become increasingly poor at making corporate power act in society’s interests, and we've been sold a line by too many governments that regulating them is impossible, that corporate power is greater than governmental power. And that’s horseshit. You only have to look at the credit crunch. The corporate power was totally enfeebled by an economic accident, and it took governmental power to save them. Governments have a nature of power that corporations don’t, and if those governments are acting democratically, they should be able to control the corporations and make them behave socially responsibly. They've that power, but only if we, as citizens, are more vigilant in who we vote for and why. It’s not going to be a quick fix or an easy change, but the more people are informed about what corporations do, and that they’re not all about the charities that they give to or any of that bullshit, what they’re doing is avoiding tax and paying a pittance to people in slum conditions, then maybe the political messages that say, we would like to change that, will gain more traction. It’s a way of looking at a lot of things that have shaped the last 30 years in a way that's wrong. Free-market capitalism and the whole ‘80s 'Wall Street' ethos of "Greed" is good. We’ve come to the stage, after 30 years of that kind of capitalism, where there are more and more people who would like to see a fairer world, a greener world. We throw away a huge amount of clothes because we can buy them again so cheaply. That era is coming to an end, and this film is definitely looking back at the end of an era. But is it the fall of the whole empire? About waste, and about whether the fashion industry is going to address these issues. The fashion industry does a lot for 'AIDS' charities and all the rest of it. But if you ask them how much they exploit people in the developing world, they’ll suddenly go all tongue-tied, because that’s their 'Achilles' heel. This film opens up a discussion about how we want to live our lives, and how much we need to consume. There have been certain successes in that area we all know plastic bags are bad now, and that plastic straws are bad. Well, let’s broaden out that discussion and talk about the voracious consumption in the clothing industry. We talk about waste, which is a good thing, environmentally, but we don’t talk about exploitation. And even if we do, it’s marginalized. Rich people are happy to talk about how green they're, but they’re not happy to talk about how much they pay their most poorly paid employees. We don’t have to accept conventional ways of thinking, perhaps we need to be more radical about how we address these things. The media always says, being radical. Oh no, that’s for lunatics. What we've to do is carry on as we're and just change things a tiny little bit, and then everything will be fine. No, that’s not good enough. You've to unleash the lions.

Our 10th anniversary special edition! Featuring the best short films of 2020 at international film festivals, AND Presenting awards and trophies for the best films selected by our juries Regular Deadline: May 22nd 2020 This year, we're also excited to be programming films and film partnerships with our 2020 partners: Firenze FilmCorti - Florence Budapest Short Film Festival Manipulate Theatre & Animation Festival The Adriatic Film Festival Sardinia Film Festival Balkans Beyond Borders Film Festival https://www.edinburghshortfilmfestival.com/call-for-entries-filmmakers/

(Release Info London schedule; February 28th, 2020, Picturehouse Central, Piccadilly Circus, Corner of Great Windmill Street and, Shaftesbury Ave, London W1D 7DH, United Kingdom, 12:55 15:45 18:35 21:25) https://film.list.co.uk/listing/1517549-true-history-of-the-kelly-gang/ "True History Of The Kelly Gang" Legendary outlaw Ned Kelly (George MacKay) leads a band of rebel warriors to wreak havoc on their oppressors in this gritty and veracious western thriller. Set amidst the grueling badlands of 19th-century Australia, legendary outlaw Ned Kelly (Orlando Schwerdt) grows up under the bloody and uncompromising rule of 'The English'. Food is scarce, survival is filled with daily strife, and every opportunity the colonizers take to make their victims feel powerless is inflicted with searing brutality. In a desperate attempt to prime him for rebellion, Ned Kelly’s mother Ellie (Essie Davis), sells him off into the hands of the notorious bushranger Harry Power (Russel Crowe), where the young bandit discovers he comes from a line of warriors called 'The Sons Of Sieve'. Fueled by his roots and a voracious appetite for revenge, Ned Kelly leads an anarchist army to wreak havoc on their oppressors in one of the most audacious attacks the country has ever seen. Based on the novel by Peter Carey, "True History Of The Kelly Gang" brings a revolutionary twist to an iconic piece of folklore. The film spans two periods of Ned Kelly’s life. Ned Kelly wants to be a better man and wants to be great. Also in the book you could feel and understand that Ned Kelly is a writer, he isn't’t just some kind of ruffian and that there's something incredibly sophisticated about him. He has enormous potential, and there's a creative side to him that could have easily seen him as our 'Prime Minister' as opposed to our most famous bushranger. It's also important to be able to transform that innocence to the eventual violent, brutal and unforgiving man. It's not going to be 'Mad Max'. It’s not going to be 'Walkabout'. It’s not going to be 'Connor McGregor'. It’s just going to be like the tiniest flicks of colours, and then you just make what you want. We’ll all make what we want. Ned Kelly has become something to a culture, and has a meaning and an identity that's tied up in the folklore surrounding him. Joe Byrne (Sean Keenan) has a kind of beautiful, charming, loyal, very Australian beauty about him that seemed very timeless. Joe is of 'Irish' background and was mistreated by 'The English'. Byrne has grown up next to a community of 'Cantonese' miners and is subsequently fluent in 'Cantonese' and an opiate addict. It’s assumes in the film that he meets Ned in prison, their shared cultural backgrounds initiating a bond. Meeting Ned is a big turning point for Joe. Joe sees something in this man that he’d seen in a lot of others around him. And while he’s an addict, he sees things really clearly. He’s a bit of a fatalist and a nihilist, while Ned is so full of hope and has these massive dreams. Joe sees that in him and is attracted to the purity of that. Dan (Earl Cave) is Ned's brother. They're almost symbiotic. They've taught each other a lot, stole horses together, got tattoos together and had to grow up in this sort of tough atmosphere with everyone hating them. The brothers that Ned and Dan would have been, if Ned didn’t go to prison. Steve (Louis Hewison) is a quiet reticent guy, and then you hear stories from the family who say they use to call him the demon when he was young. He brings out both those sides, the gentle hippie and then the side that becomes at home in a film like 'Easy Rider. The character of Ellen Kelly is complex, a mother but also a survivor. She’s somebody who’s deeply yoked to her family and has a strong sense of family. But there’s a duality in her, she’ll do anything to survive, including using her own children to do that. Ellen is such a firecracker. She’s a fantastic mother but she's a wildebeest and she has so many elements and angles to her, she’s all about life and all about death. And she loves her children and, particularly, her sons, fiercely but she's a survivor and she’ll do anything to survive. Their relationship is incredibly powerful, controlling and manipulative but a deeply loving relationship, that the mother has for her boy. It happens a lot when suddenly there are really ambitious children who want to travel or have huge ambitions, that there can be a tendency for that to be fearful for parents, to want to kind of bring those ambitions back to them for fear of losing them. That becomes a kind of potent motivation to lead to the end of the film and understand the context of this massacre and siege at the end of the film. Young Ned is somebody who yearns for something else to kind of break away from the destiny that’s mapped out for them, of a future of crime and prison; it’s a really familiar path for 'The Irish' in Australia in that period. In that story is a kind of sweetness that you’re looking for but you’re also looking for somebody who has that edge and has the possibility of what they’re going to become. Next to 12-year-old Ned it needs an authority. Harry Power is an infamous bushranger. He's the greatest bush ranger in Australia. In the film Harry Power says to little Ned 'always make sure you’re the author of your own story because 'The English' will always take it and fuck it up' and that sort ingrains in little Ned that words matter and writing matters and documentation matters. You also need a sense that he's no longer Harry Power anymore and that he's getting towards the end and that there's a kind of tragedy in that; it's feels soppy. As mentors go he’s a dangerous one but there's actually a lot of love in Harry and a lot of the things that he’s passing on to Ned are about the reality of the world. When we reach older Ned’s life, two seminal characters in his trajectory are Constable Fitzpatrick (Nicholas Hoult) and Mary Hearn (Thomas McKenzie). Fitzpatrick is a man who’s been taken away from this sophisticated land of 'United Kingdom', arriving in Australia and sort of looking around and thinking ‘my god, where am I going to get my brandy'. He's mischievous and perverse. Fitzpatrick always has attraction to Ned, which is something forbidden. He has to be a certain sort of class and authority and Ned represented to him a kind of wildness, masculinity, a rebellion and spirit that he's attracted to. Ned is curious of Fitzpatrick and there's a sophistication he admires. Fitzpatrick actually really wanting to be friends with Ned and being intrigued by that family, their closeness and environment and what they're, and also probably being quite lonely. It's through Fitzpatrick that Ned meets Mary Hearn. Mary provides moments of a sort of clarity, an if only Ned would just leave with Mary moment in the unfolding of what's heading sharply towards tragedy. Bad characters and good characters are sharing the same bed in those times. What's happening then and the difference between cops and robbers is very thin. There's genocide happening in Australia and crimes of enormous proportions committed by authority so the line of what's good and what's right is obviously a very different conversation to what it's to now. An incredible piece of landscape called 'The Winton Wetlands' are the playground for 'Kelly Selection'. It's a meeting site where hundreds of Aboriginal peoples have met and that in Kelly’s time it would have been a supermarket, providing shelter, food and water. It has a varied history environmentally, having been damned, then dried up and subsequently all the trees started dying, although it's now also an amazing habitat for flora and fauna. While currently under restoration, it presents a gothic and scarred backdrop for 'The Kellys’ home. The landscapes the characters go through are incredibly varied in the film. There's something about going up and seeing Marysville, and 'The Gang' would’ve ridden through there, the landscape is extraordinary now after the fires, and there's a tragedy about that place and a beauty about it, that seemed to encapsulate this kind of story. Australia in the 70’s and 80’s, especially on men, is really similar to the silhouette in the 1870’s. It's taking a favourite period in Australian music, and art, and fashion and combining it with the 1870’s and seeing where that sweet spot hit. That whole kind of era becomes a massive influence for the gang. You can look at them and go it’s just a punch of skaters or it’s just a young kind of punk band just starting out. All of the references are of a particular period of Australian music and art, that's extremely exciting and fortunately the four of them are really attracted to those references There's a timelessness in Peter Carey’s novel as being the attraction to the story but also the springboard for not just the visual and character references, but the wider themes that can be explored in "True History Of The Kelly Gang". The novel is the quintessential take on the overgrown myth that Ned Kelly is to this country. It’s brutal. It’s visceral. There’s kind of a darkness in the violence to it but there’s also a very strong emotional through-line that’s really clear in the book, between that journey from boy to man. Ned’s been very much portrayed in the past as a hero, and the film is interested in characters on the wrong side of the law in terms of how they got there and why. A huge part of this film is about what's true and what's not and your history and your story and what you've done in your life can be easily stolen from you and recreated. The film shows Kelly as he was in this story, both the good and the bad, and let others decide. Some people will still call him a hero, and some people will still call him a cop killer, and that’s not for us to say. You don’t really know what’s said between those walls, between those men, so you've to invent. There's been a lot in the media about terrorism and people being persecuted because of their culture and their background; where they’re from. And when you put up with that persecution long enough, you decide that that’s enough and you decide to burn the world. On the flip side of the relevance to the current world, the film points to the danger of viewing characters with today’s societal worldview.