Search Results

(Release Info London schedule; April 10th, 2019, Phoenix Cinema, 52 High Road, East Finchley, 20:30 PM) "Red Joan" Joan Stanley (Judi Dench) is a widow living out a quiet retirement in the suburbs when, shockingly, 'The British Secret Service' places her under arrest. The charge; providing classified scientific information, including details on the building of 'The Atomic Bomb', to 'The Soviet Government' for decades. As she's interrogated, Joan relives the dramatic events that shaped her life and beliefs, her student days at 'Cambridge', where she excelled at physics while challenging deep-seated sexism; her tumultuous love affair with Leo (Tom Hughes), a dashing political radical; and the devastation of 'World War II', which inspired her to risk everything in pursuit of peace. Based on Jennie Rooney’s best-selling novel of the same name, "Red Joan" vividly brings to life the conflicts, between patriotism and idealism, love and duty, courage and betrayal, of a woman who spent a lifetime being underestimated while quietly changing the course of history. Based on a true story, "Red Joan" is a small film on a huge subject. We meet Joan Stanley when she’s in her early eighties in the year 2000. She's living a happy, uneventful retirement in suburbia. She's a woman faced with a vast moral problem, a human, political, personal and intellectual problem. Her impassioned confession is the climax of the film. But over one dramatic week she and her family’s lives are shattered when 'MI5' arrest the seemingly unremarkable pensioner and accuse her of spying on her country for 'The Russians'. She's dragged out, arrested and taken in for questioning. It turns out that she went to Cambridge with a man named Sir William Mitchell (Freddie Gaminara), who has recently died and they think may be part of a 'Cambridge Spy Ring'. They believe they've found a link between Joan, William and 'The KGB'. The astonishing claims transport us from the present day back to 1930s 'Cambridge', when the young Joan (Sophie Cookson) enjoyed a passionate romance with Leo, a charismatic Russian, and the 1940s, when the gifted scientist, shocked at the devastating power of 'The Atom Bomb', vows to do what she can to make the world a better place. Young Joan is a eponymous central character in that decisive time, between being a fresher at eighteen years old and a fully-fledged scientist, approaching her thirtieth birthday. The story, really, is the interrogation of older Joan. You meet very believable individuals at a very particular moment in time and therefore can relate to their foibles, their dreams, their yearnings. Joan first starts giving secrets to Russia while working as a secretary at the top-secret 'Tube Alloys Project', which is researching the potential development of 'The Atom Bomb'. She's sent to interviews, quite mysteriously because they're personal recommendations, to work at the 'Tube Alloys Project'. It’s made very clear to her, signing 'The Official Secrets Act', that even to be interviewed is a top-secret activity. She discovers what the project involves through her connection with her boss Max (Stephen Campbell Moore), and British scientists are racing to develop the science involved before 'The Germans', carrying out similar research under Hitler. A strong theme of the film is that Joan is provoked to spy not because of a 'Communist Ideology', but because she's horrified at the bombings of 'Hiroshima' and 'Nagasaki' and wants to ensure this never happens again. If all countries have the same secrets, she feels, the world will be a safer place. What's also very much evident is that the threat she posed is disregarded because she's a woman. It's a sort of theme all the way through that women at that time are in the background, unimportant, ignored, and therefore sort of shadows who can easily become involved in espionage or who knows what else. While the film brings to life the culture of 'The Cambridge Spies', this is very much Joan’s story. She’s just a very ordinary person, living in an unremarkable house who, in her seventies was uncovered as one of 'The Cambridge Spy Ring'. She's very very good at just keeping it to herself. She has great belief in what she's doing, knew why she's doing it, and keep it to herself. Joan has a very clear line through, she’s not that interested in communism particularly, it’s just that she’s found a very gorgeous boy who's. But she actually resists all attempts to convert her. In the end what it’s about is a moral dilemma around nuclear warfare. That anything she may or may not have done is because of that, and not because of her political views. Joan is someone who's doing it for reasons of passivism, more logical reasons than idealogical. The changes that emerge in Joan’s life are reflected in the costume design. We start with young Joan in 'Cambridge', a rather naive girl with little blouses and skirts, straight out of school really. Then she gets work and that leads to her being more grown up. Joan’s character is more likeable, more empathetic. We can see her journey more, rather than as a two-dimensional communist. To understand Joan’s motivations we must see life through her eyes, and the the young Joan is crucial to the film’s success. She's a young woman whose life experiences carry much of the film. Obviously oldee Joan bookends the film, she appears all the way through in this interrogation, but the story is with young Joan and she carries us through. She goes from naive student through to mature woman, there are a couple of relationships along the way. She’s a very different person at the end of the film than the person we meet at the beginning. It feels like the young Joan is very much in the moment, and the older Joan is very reflective, looking back. It's easy to believe that she follows Leo and starts giving all of these secrets to 'The Russians' because she’s madly in love with him. But it’s really not that, she fundamentally doesn’t believe in communism like that. It’s just to make the world a safer place. Women at that time were underestimated. It’s said in the film as well as the book. The world is on the precipice of changing and she can’t quite believe they’re there. And after 'Hiroshima', being involved so closely in that, she can’t live with that. She can’t imagine any other option than to ensure that all countries have those secrets so the world can be safer. The structure is drawn to the richness of the moral dilemmas in the novel, and the complex nature of the story, in particular the romance between the student Joan and Leo, a handsome, edgy young Russian with whom she embarks on a passionate love affair. Everyone sees this film differently. Does Leo love Joan? And is he a man who can love? Leo is a fantastically complicated character. It’s about love, and duty, and business. Leo is the debonair, charming and just a little bit dangerous stranger who sweeps the young Joan off her feet as they embark on a passionate romance. We meet him at a time that his political idealism is really driving him as much as anything. He’s kind of unconstrained by society, and that’s always attractive. He’s genuinely free. He’s got the added enigma of youthful exuberance. He’s unapologetic, and that’s always an attractive quality. It’s potentially quite mesmerising, and usually self-destructive. Because of his political viewpoint and how strongly he gets behind that, he has a very intellectualised disregard for the individual. He lives what he preaches to a certain degree. Max is a physics professor and young Joan’s mentor. Leo and Max vie, in ignorance of each other, for Joan’s affections, When she begins to work in top-secret research facility 'Tube Alloys', she meets Professor Max Davis. In Joan, Max is looking for an assistant and it’s important to him that they've the knowledge and skills required to even take notes, that they’re not getting lost along the way. He wants someone who's involved, engaged. They’re engaged in something together and by doing that they've a natural ease, an affinity, a shared target. That shared passion is somehow connected beyond that. There’s no agenda at first, it’s just about working and working well. The two embark on a romance, with Max having no idea that she will later begin to share his life’s work with Russian agents. Sonya (Tereza Srbova) is a fellow 'Cambridge University' student and young Joan’s confident. Sonya luxuriantly and extravagantly shows that's she's the least trustworthy friend of all. The beautiful and exotic Sonya is another key friend who Joan meets at a turbulent time in her college life. Sonya is a student, a bit older than Joan. She becomes very quickly Joan’s good friend and confidante. Sonya has a very international background and she's kind of a citizen of the world. Russian background, Jewish, grew up in Germany. She’s a glamorous, fashionable character. She’s very spontaneous, very exciting for Joan. Nick (Ben Miles) is Joan’s son and lawyer. Joan ends up being defended by her son Nick, a 'QC' who has no knowledge of his mother’s secret life. It's unbelievably easy to relate to him, kind of instant. You put yourself into that position of suddenly, your son finding out something about you, finding out so late in life. This is his own family, the last thing that he ever even imagined. There will be a huge element of surprise maybe, to a young audience, that such a thing went on. We know of 'MI5' and 'MI6' and how vigilant they've to be. We know there must be people everywhere picking up information. But this was during a war. All the while for Nick it’s a story of great betrayal, because this is the first time he’s heard about his mother’s past. All of a sudden, in his middle age, at the peak of his career and his life, suddenly this bombshell drops and he has to reexamine his past and question everything he’s been told about his life. He has to come to terms with the fact that he has been lied to all these years. But find a way through and help his mother come out of it as best he can. 'Cambridge' is not quite a character but a significant presence in the film. Because it's set in two very different worlds and over three different time periods, it's crucial that past and present are rooted in different and authentic identities. It's not specifically about 'The Cambridge Spy Ring', it's a historically accurate piece. It's necessary that people do come out understanding more about that period in history. The film wants people to understand that these are very real moral dilemmas, and a lot of women were involved in this incredibly important work. 'Cambridge' is very important to the story. That ethos, that knowledge that there were passionate, idealistic young communists in 'Cambridge' is important to it. But almost as important is this understanding that young Joan gets into 'Newnham College'. It's completely a women’s college, so there's a segregation between the young women and men at that university, and therefore a sort of strict morality that came from that institution. Rooney’s novel, though fictional, was inspired by the extraordinary and controversial true story of Melita Norwood, a British scientist and civil servant, who gave secrets to Russia over a period of four decades through her job at a facility researching the construction of an 'Atom Bomb'. Writing a screenplay is all about structure. You’ve got the two timelines. You’ve got the present-day timeline where you’re trying to find out whether she’s a spy or not. That gives you a fantastic framing device to keep going back into the past, to unpack the story as we go along. With the present-day timeline what you've to be wary of is it’s not the same scene happening again and again. You've to drip feed into those scenes information that changes your view of the characters. You've to introduce important back-story elements. In the present time, we see the long-term repercussions of things that have happened in the past. That’s why the two timelines are so useful. That period of time involves highly charged sexual encounters, comedic situations, physical danger and nail-biting espionage. Shot on locations in 'Cambridge- and in and around 'London', the film attempts to tell a fundamentally true story in a fundamentally true way. It brings to life the culture of 'The Cambridge Spies', who passed secrets to 'The Russians' during 'WW2'. It's a fascinating tale of espionage laced with romance, danger, drama and moral dilemmas. Was Joan right to do what she did? The film asks that question and hopes that everybody seeing it will want to discuss, ponder and feel free to debate this issue. To understand how an ordinary young woman could get sucked into what many of us would call treason. How you can take an extremist view without being an extremist yourself? We’re giving a shape to the world that they’re actually occupying. What they're involved with is something that's going to change the course of world history. Or something that prevents the course of world history from going catastrophically bad. The fascination is that distinction of scale between something that6s small scale, up close and believable and something that in effect is vast.

(U.K. Premiere, May 20th, 2019, 19:00 PM) (Everyman Music Film Festival 9th - 26th May 2019, Everyman Kings Cross, 14-18 Handyside Street, London N1C 4DN) "Teen Spirit" Violet (Elle Fanning) is a shy teenager who dreams of escaping her small town and pursuing her passion to sing. With the help of Vlad (Zlatko Buric) ,an unlikely mentor, she enters a local singing competition that will test her integrity, talent and ambition. Driven by a pop-fueled soundtrack, "Teen Spirit" is a visceral and stylish spin on 'The Cinderella Story'. The film creates a modern fairytale, scored to a lush, pop soundtrack, about a quiet 17-year-old girl who finds the support and self-confidence she needs to step into her own power. Violet lives with her Polish-immigrant mother Maria (Agnieszka Grochowska) on the brink of poverty in a small village on 'The Isle Of Wight'. Her days are spent doing chores, waiting tables, and attending secondary school, where she keeps to herself. But in her free time, spent alone in her room, in the fields with her beloved horse, or at an under-attended open-mic night, Violet surrenders to song. She's a naturally gifted singer for whom pop stardom might not be mere fantasy. With her father Roger (Andrew Ellis) no longer in the picture, Violet helps out around the house, sings in the choir and works waitress shifts after school, passing her tips to her mother. Whenever she can, she sneaks off to perform at a dingy pub to a thin audience of deadbeats. It’s there that she catches the attention of Vlad, a down-on-his-luck, boozed-up former opera star who now lacks purpose in life. When Vlad hears Violet, he knows she's something special and declares himself her manager and trainer, accompanying her as she tries out for a popular televised musical talent program called 'Teen Spirit'. When a national singing competition comes to town to hold auditions, Vlad becomes Violet’s unlikely mentor and manager, accompanying her on a journey that takes the young singer all the way to the glamorous 'Teen Spirit' finals in London. Along the way, Violet learns about singing, about loyalty and about the kind of resilience it takes to find success. Vlad has his own demons, but if he and Violet can stick together as her star rises, they might just make each other better people. In the beginning, Violet is untrained. She's a good singer and you see she has potential, but she doesn’t have a lot of stage presence in her voice. Violet works for months to strike that delicate balance and to invest the singing with the requisite emotion to profoundly move the audience. The feelings start to bubble up in Violet in an early scene, when she's seen dancing alone in her bedroom to the infectious strains of 'No Doubt'. The character of Violet dovetails much of ab experiences as an artist who's still learning and evolving. Everybody imagines themselves being the best at whatever they do, reaching the tip-top just like Violet. When Violet sings, we go into her head and see the performance she imagines she's giving with outstanding lighting, while cutting to supporting singers or dancers and revealing narrative information related to the song or her. They're all stunning, and feature interesting lighting and costumes. At it's essence, "Teen Spirit" is essentially an underdog story, and it hits most of the beats one would expect to encounter. Violet isn’t encouraged to pursue her dream by anyone around her. The only person who even seems remotely interested in her talent is Vlad, and when we first see him applauding, it’s hard to tell if it's sincere. You’ll love them and root for her through the competition, but you won’t really know why. This may be by design, as one character, even questions Violet’s motives for competing in the talent show, and she doesn’t seem prepared to answer. Whether or not it’s by design that Violet’s drive is unclear, the film suffers as our main character’s agency feels empty. Violet feels underdeveloped, and so does Vlad. Much of their backstory feels rather generic, and just thrown at us as though that makes them deep. Still, by comparison to the underdeveloped story of the relationship with her mother, and, even worse, the relationship with her peers, Violet feels extremely complex. Violet runs into Luke (Archie Madekwe) at a party, then again at another one and we learn he’s in a band, and then we see her perform with the band. There isn’t any real depth, and the love interest that is hinted at feels flat and perfunctory. There are several more issues in this realm, and as the film goes farther, we’d expect to get to know Luke and the other two members of the band a bit more, but they're always kept at an extreme distance. The film imbues Violet’s dreary world with drama, capturing the lyricism of a field at magic hour or extending long beams of light against the night sky. By the end of the film, when she’s performing her climactic numbers, he sees evidence of the experience she’s accrued, a new strength and range. She’s inhabited by something quite different and it’s great to witness that curve of the performance emerge. It's an unabashed adventure in pop music. The first draft of the script from 2009 was set in Poland, with 90 percent of the dialogue in Polish. It's extremely challenging to find someone who can sing, dance, speak two languages and act. The film is an immigrant story, which serves to make the film more personal and underlined themes that were already in the screenplay. Elle Fanning performs all the singing live. Audiences will experience a sense of discovery about Fanning in this role. Most of the songs in "Teen Spirit" are detailed in the initial drafts of the script and the sequences are shot very specifically to the film’s soundtrack, which features music by 'Ariana Grande', 'Robyn, Grimes', 'Katy Perry and Taylor Swift. There's also an original song performed by Fanning and written by 'Carly Rae Jepsen' & 'Jack Antonoff'. Music is the heart of "Teen Spirit". Music creates a visceral cinematic effect. Coupled with a highly stylized approach, the result is a film that balances the ecstatic rush of pop with a more soulful undertone. Driven by a pop-fueled soundtrack, "Teen Spirit" is a visceral and stylish spin on 'The Cinderella Story'. It's unusual that a film of this scale would have such extensive lighting. It's very sculpted, visceral and visual, not in a handheld, quick-set-up way. The camera movement, framing and lighting are all very considered. Minghella has delivered a sweet, soulful and visually rich debut that will deliver the kind of audio-visual experience that you can only get in cinema. "Teen Spirit" is a big-screen pop-odyssey, a cinematic event that should leave you dancing out of the theater. Each song gets a music video-type treatment which also offers an opportunity to give us backstory and a little character developmen, although this could have been utilized a little more. The musical performances are so creative and entertaining that it makes the weak moments with the characters stand out further. You’re making two or three music-driven films at once; juggling the film itself, the entire music apparatus, and in this case, a dance component, three distinct layers that require their own preparation and execution. It’s a bigger swing, but it’s also much more fun. The film confesses to a fondness for female-driven European synth pop and the vision for bringing it to life is truly unique. It's a very specific balance of naturalism and formalism. People underestimate the power of pop, but the film has an innate understanding of what makes for a timeless, evocative pop anthem.

The Last Captain tells the story of Jekelfalussy(Piller) György, better known in the west as George Piller. He was probably the greatest saber fencer of his era. After he retired, he became one of the greatest fencing coaches of all time. Under his guidance, his Hungarian Teams were undefeated at World Championships and the Olympics for two decades. But the Hungarian Uprising and subsequent Russian smashing of the revolution brought that to an end. George Piller fled Hungary and started over in the United States.

Alejandro González Iñárritu is no stranger to directing unique and critically successful films. There has been Babel (2006), for example, an ambitious and very human drama which completed his Death Trilogy. He then found success with the foreign language film Biutiful (2010), a touching look into a man’s demise from prostate cancer. The Revenant (2015), Iñárritu’s first release after Birdman or (The Unexpected Virtue of Ignorance) (2014), was also acclaimed, garnering Academy Awards for Best Director and Best Cinematography. Yet still, above these all, flies Birdman. His fifth feature film is, without a doubt, his best; a film full of cinematic delight, powerful lead performances, and a punchy social commentary. Much like Iñárritu’s previous films, there is a distinctly humanistic feel to Birdman. The character’s struggles all seem real and possible, making the emotional impact of the film that much more hard-hitting. A lot of this is down to the actors’ performances. It is such a stellar cast list that one goes into the film knowing that their performances will be top of the range and film-enhancing. We have Michael Keaton as the once famous, now washed up, actor Riggan Thomson, who is trying his hand at Broadway after making his name in the Birdman films of the 1990s. Keaton’s wacky and wonderful powerhouse performance is backed up splendidly by Emma Stone as Thomson’s daughter and recovering drug addict. Edward Norton, too, lends his hand brilliantly as an acclaimed yet arrogant Broadway actor; there are also eerily accurate moments from Norton’s character akin to the sexual inequality and predation that has come to light within Hollywood in years since the film. These three actors, as well as the supporting cast, bring to the table humour and naturalism. We feel their very real struggles as if they were our own. We are captivated by their monologues, the camera sweeping to close-ups of their faces in their most intimate moments. We are, whether we like it or not, very much involved in each of their lives. Now if you have read anything about Birdman, it has more than likely included a reference to the unique cinematography of the film. The two hour-odd film seems to be filmed in just one continuous take. It isn’t, because that means it would most likely still be in the filming stage, but it really, really seems to be. Of course, Iñárritu’s directorial influence is there to be seen, but the brilliant mind of cinematographer Emmanuel Lubezki is what drives this style. There is not a single moment for breath or rest for the audience, as the camera sweeps beautifully throughout the theatres, bars and streets of Broadway for two hours. Not that you would want a rest, because it just so joyously delivered. Birdman, simply put, is a satirical triumph. Iñárritu comments brilliantly on film and theatre of the modern day, on Hollywood, on Broadway, on the actors who take to the screen and stage and the struggles they bring with them. It is a weirdly wonderful film, complete with a disorientating score and some hallucinations from Riggan Thomson thrown in for good measure. He painfully longs for his moment in the spotlight of the ‘90s, when he was the Birdman, the king of superhero movies. It is, all at once, a heart-wrenching and comical cinematic masterpiece that cannot and should not be missed.

We start with a beautifully lit underwater shot, seemingly of an ocean floor, as Alexandre Desplat’s gentle score floats effortlessly to us. We move with the camera into the hallway of an apartment block, then into the front room of a lady’s apartment, the lady in question asleep on the sofa, floating herself along with all her belongings as still the water submerges the setting. The beauty of this shot, of the setting, of the colour, of the score, could be described for pages and pages. In terms of style and direction, The Shape of Water (2017) is one of the strongest of the year. The Academy so too agrees with this; Guillermo del Toro picked up the Oscar for Best Director. The Shape of Water however is not a perfect film, and in fact it is not even a great film. It is stylish and pretty, but it lacks any real substance and is guilty of muddling along with its clichéd and predictable plot right to the very end. It would not be surprising if it turned out del Toro plucked his characters, the majority of them at least, from a stock character book. There is the ultimate baddie who shows no decency ever, for reasons unexplained. There is that one who is bad at first (although never as bad as the ultimate baddie), but then becomes kind of good along the way. You have the friend of the protagonist, who is quite simply just a nice person but never becomes anything more than that. The actors all deliver their parts well, but the characters simply support the predictable nature which is all too apparent in del Toro’s film. Sally Hawkins and Richard Jenkins give the best performances, and unsurprisingly play the most well-rounded and realistic characters. The former is, as you will know, the lead role, a mute cleaner by the name of Elisa working at a secret government laboratory. She ultimately becomes romantically involved with an Amphibian Man who arrives at the laboratory after being captured from the Amazon River. Hawkins is masterful in her delivery. There is a scene when she is describing her feelings for the Amphibian Man with frantic hand gestures and grimaced facial expressions, and it is this scene that lives long in the memory and emotionally leaves a mark. You see her isolation in the world and the hope that the Amphibian Man has given her. Her neighbour and confidante, Giles, is similarly isolated in society due to his homosexuality; this is engrained only deeper after a particularly vile experience at the hands of a diner waiter. This theme of isolation, of being different to “the norm”, is one of the bright parts of this film, but it is often explored in too shallow a way. Scenes such as Elisa describing her feelings are, unfortunately, far and few between. Del Toro has created worlds of fantasy and fascination a number of times previously – his first feature film, Cronos (1993), gifted us a wonderful world of horror and intrigue. The Shape of Water has imagination behind it, undoubtedly, but it struggles to meet the heights of previous films. Even arguably Pacific Rim (2013) had more depth to its imagination than del Toro’s latest release. The Shape of Water is sadly a long way behind del Toro’s finest film, Pan’s Labyrinth (2006).This film was beautifully shot, as The Shape of Water is, but it also had emotional impact and an original fantasy story set to the brutal backdrop of the Spanish Civil War. The Shape of Water has many strengths and excels in telling a stylised story, but it struggles to be much more of that. Del Toro is clearly a great mind within cinema, and is deserving of his place among the industry’s most original and innovative directors and writers. This ultimately cannot disguise his underdeveloped and often underwhelming latest release.

(London Film Festival, October 11th, 2018, Picturehouse Central, 18:15) "Lizzie" "Lizzie" is a psychological thriller based on the infamous 1892 axe murder of 'The Borden Family' in 'Fall River', Massachusetts. The film explores Lizzie Borden’s (Chloë Sevigny) life, focusing on the period leading up to the murders and their immediate aftermath, and reveals many layers of the strange, fragile woman who stood accused of the brutal crime. As an unmarried woman of 32, and a social outcast, Lizzie lives a claustrophobic life under her father’s Andrew (Jamey Sheridan) cold and domineering control. When Bridget Sullivan (Kristen Stewart), a young maid, comes to work for the family, Lizzie finds a sympathetic, kindred spirit, and a chance intimacy that blossoms into a wicked plan, and a dark, unsettling end. This film is about America’s 115 year old classic unsolved crime. The what's a given. The who and the how badger our brains for a solution. Well, for some anyway. It's less a who-dunnit than a how-dunnit. The scene of Lizzie Borden's trial for the murders of her father and stepmother was a spectacle unparalleled by any previous American murder case. Reporters from all over 'The United States' flocked to 'Fall River', Massachusetts, to witness the best show in the country. Local reporters fortunate enough to have found employment in Bristol County sent exclusives to papers around the world. Well known columnists arrived with their entourages and took up conspicuous seats in the courtroom. Suddenly a mill town which had been of interest only in their newspaper's business sections became universally known through extended front page exposure. Similarly, a woman whose typicality was her most distinctive feature became notorious, and her trial, a cause crlbre. For 'Fall River' and most of America, the murders became emblematic of the perils of foreign immigration, social disorder, or feminine transgression. In contrast, feminists used the trial to call for a truly representative jury system which would enable women like Lizzie Borden to be tried by a jury of their peer. Over one hundred years later, the enduring popular fascination with 'The Borden' mystery and it's central enigmatic character convened a second inquest. Rather than looking for answers in a detailed analysis of the social context, the film invents fictitious characters or invest historical actors with new characteristics and imagined psychologicalor even neurological states. Indeed, the implications of Lizzie Borden's guilt remain sufficiently disturbing decades after the crime that even authors who believe she committed the murders nonetheless feel compelled to provide medical explanations for her guilt and her ultimate irresponsibility. Regardless of whether they embrace or eschew such scientific, rational explanations, all commentators seeking the definitive solution share the dilemma of Borden's contemporaries: reconciling the public image of the exemplary Miss Lizzie with their vision of a murderess. Unfortunately, they also respond by uncritically replicating nineteenth-century class and gender norms in their own representations of Borden. Instead of placing Lizzie Borden and the murders of her father and stepmother in the context of their lives in 'Fall River', the film describes the case against a generalized backdrop of dislocated and dehistoricized social experience. Lizzie Borden is a dark spark of inspiration in our attempts to terrify one another. The film explores the backstory to understand her in both a historical and psychological context, to explore the framework of her potential motivation, and, if she did in fact commit these murders, to question how such dangerous impulses might begin to manifest in someone. She was a sociopath. She was a broken soul forced to do what was necessary. The film brings the audience very close to Lizzie and her life, to put them in the room with her so that their assessment of her circumstances would feel almost first person rather than removed and dispassionate. To that end the film places an emphasis on Lizzie’s everyday routine, and the stillness and claustrophobia of her home, allowing the narrative to unfold with measured restraint and an escalating sense of dread. As a result, there's an intentional awareness of the camera that, at times, lingers in uninterrupted takes allowing the viewer's eyes to wander within the frame, observing details that might otherwise go unnoticed; encouraging introspection and the uncomfortable feeling that you’re invading the character's privacy. It's in the subtle, menacing, manipulation of the ordinary that our truest fears are revealed, when the circumstances, though awful, are grounded in realism.

(London Film Festival, October 11th, 2018, LFF Cinema, Leicester Square, 19:30) "Colette" After marrying Henri Gauthier-Villars (Dominic West), a successful Parisian, Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette (Keira Knightley) is transplanted from her childhood home in rural France to the intellectual and artistic splendor of Paris. Soon after, Henri convinces Colette to ghostwrite for him. She pens a semi-autobiographical novel, about a brazen country girl named 'Claudine', that becomes a bestseller and a cultural sensation. Colette and Henri become the talk of Paris, and their adventures go on to inspire additional 'Claudine' novels. Colette's subsequent fight over the creative ownership of these books defies gender roles and drives her to overcome societal constraints, revolutionizing literature, fashion and sexual expression. Colette is a pioneering writer who goes on to become a cultural icon in France and inspire generations of artist. The film illuminates the passions and ambitions that drove Colette to blaze trails as one of the most celebrated authors of her time. Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette is a young woman from the provinces whose life changes after she becomes engaged to a wealthy man of letters from Paris, Henri Gauthier-Villars. After their wedding, Colette is thrust into the metropolitan life of Paris in all it's finde siècle glory. She tries to adapt to her new bourgeois life but her confidence in the marriage is shattered when she learns that Henri is a philanderer. She confronts him and returns to the country in disgust, but Henri woos her back with promises that in the future their marriage will be more of a partnership. Soon after their return to Paris, Henri presses Colette to write a novel about her country schoolgirl days. She pens a novel entitled 'Claudine At School', about a feisty, savvy young woman, 'Claudine', who's essentially the first literary incarnation of the modern teenager. Initially unimpressed with her writing, Henri declares the book too feminine and stashes it away. It's only after they fall on hard times that he rediscovers the manuscripts and manages to get them published under his own name. 'Claudine' is an immediate sensation and soon becomes the most popular book in all of France. Henri uses the success to create a line of ancillary merchandise; 'Claudine Cigarettes', 'Claudine Perfume', 'Claudine Soap', and 'Claudine Dresses'. He creates a brand. In turn, Colette and Henri effectively become the first modern celebrity couple; the toast of 'The Belle Époque'. But at the core of their relationship, the dark secret of the book's true authorship smolders. Upon meeting Georgie Raoul-Duval (Eleanor Tomlinson), a wayward Southern belle full of flirtatious charm, Colette explores her attraction to women and embarks on a passionate affair with Georgie. Henri's own interest complicates matters when he begins to see Georgie behind Colette's back. Justice is served when Colette writes the next 'Claudine' novel, penning a thinly-disguised account of the entire event, including Henri's betrayal, for the world to see, and to gossip about. At the premiere of the theatrical version of 'Claudine', Colette meets Mathilde de Morny, 'The Marquise De Belbeuf' (Denise Gough), a non-conforming aristocrat who wears men's clothes and embraces a masculine identity. They form a relationship and, emboldened by 'De Belbeuf's' example, Colette challenges Henri, fighting for ownership of her creative voice and ultimately her freedom.   Here's a woman well ahead of her time, well-remembered for her beloved novels 'Chéri' (1920) and 'Gigi' (1944). Colette is of a time and mindset where rules were being broken and she's part of challenging convention and opening up the world. Colette questioned social mores, sexuality, gender. She's a game-changer. There's also a lot of wit and warmth present in the story of how Colette loved Henri but became her own woman. She makes life decisions that were astonishingly radical, Going onstage is a way of claiming her voice. She exposed a breast in the play flesh at a time when women were still debating whether to show some ankle. Colette is fearless. Colette is coolness. She can steal people's hearts if they discover her. Henri has a sort of rambunctiousness, confidence, and famous charm. He's not a great guy, but he also has to convey a lovability and an intellect. There's one grooming component which Henri never lost sight of. Mathilde de Morny, 'Marquise De Belbeuf' is brave and self-actualizing, not really craving the spotlight. She becomes a quiet but powerful presence in Colette's life who showed her love. Mathilde s brilliant and is at the forefront. Colette's mother, Sido, (Fiona Shaw) has consistently challenged gender conventions in her work. The audience needs to understand that she realized she'd produced a daughter who's so different and has such great potential. The celebrated couple of Colette and Henri occupy a thriving and vibrant fin de siècle world of salons and music halls. He's a showman like Malcolm McLaren, figuring that the more outrageous they're, the more the public would lap it up. For a long while, he's quite successful betting on that. Colette and Henri lived on the brink of modernity. He senses that and has a very strong impulse to capitalize on it. The cost to that's, a woman's being exploited. Henri is a leech and a chauvinistic manipulator. He's very tyrannical. You've to not hate Henri in order to comprehend why Colette stays with him as long as she does. They can behave horrifically and yet there's a charm and humor which means they can get away with it; at least for a while. Colette addresses a marriage that becomes, at it's core, exploitative, while also acknowledging the complexities of the relationship. The film concentrates on the truth of these two, on what drew them to each other and what their fuel was together. As with many relationships, things exploded and there's debris. Each derived a lot from the other's company. There's a great creative urgency to Colette and Henri's relationship. Colette enters into the union of a teenager with an older man; what's so dramatic is, how and when she will emerge from it; fighting for agency and independence. Their marriage ran the gamut; love, hate, tenderness, perversity, mentoring, and rampant exploitation. Much of it played out in the public eye, so in many ways Colette and Henri functioned as modern celebrity couples do. To that end, while Henri may have lacked the creative writing talent of Colette, he's a highly innovative marketeer. He sees great commercial potential in 'The Claudine Stories', and turned them into a brand, with a wide range of merchandise. The film assesses Henri as an impresario. He plays his part in the theatre which is Paris at the turn of the 20th century, when it's culturally the center of the world. He knows their personal life is fair game; he embraces scandal, and understood how to manipulate publicity.  Colette changes seismically but not melodramatically. Henri changes, too, to slightly broken; but things are happening to him, whereas with Colette she's active. Henri is of his time, and Colette gained the confidence to retaliate against his misogyny and laziness. He gets left behind by changes in the world and society. But the action taken against Henri comes not so much from society as from the woman who could not be put down and stopped; it's not only Henri but also the structures of the patriarchy that could no longer contain her. Henri and Colette's relationship is not just them being at home in their apartment. These are two people who are affecting the world, and it's affecting them. Colette's break-up with Henri and develops a relationship with Mathilde De Morny, 'Marquise De Belbeuf', a lesbian who adopted male dress and attitudes. That,works narratively and conceptually, for Henri and Mathilde to impact one another more directly; two different variations of masculinity coming face to face.  Here's a thrilling story, and one that's still so relevant. Colette is a very well-known artist, yet the real story of what she went through is something not well-known. The film regards her marriage to Henri, who's quite a character himself. Their relationship came at a pivotal time, the beginning of the modern age when there was a tectonic shift happening in gender roles; women were demanding more power in all areas of life, and men were resisting with all their might. All of this crystallized for Colette personally and professionally in that marriage. It's a female-driven narrative, about a woman who's incredibly important in terms of the history of women's literature and politics. The film recreates Paris during the rich and remarkably eventful era of 'The Belle Époque'. So when Colette first goes to the salon in Paris she's taking it in and seeing everything, and the staging and camera moves are very much inspired by Ophüls. When you're in the front of the theatre, it's Paris. When you're in the backstage area and on the stage looking one way, that's Marseilles. Finally, when you're walking through the foyer, it's Brussels. It's like a 'Rubik's Cube'! Through it all, Sidonie-Gabrielle Colette has been a beacon. She just kept going; she broke barriers and stayed true to her artistic voice. Her life is a story in itself, and that stories can change the world. The film reintroduces audiences to someone who was very much on par with today's 'Time's Up Movement'. This was a woman who overcame oppression and claimed her voice; the parallels are powerful. People will see the strengths of now reflected in someone who spoke up for herself and for being free. That women still are battling; the statistics in film are depressing, and a sexism is very much there. Feminism is back on, but there's a long way to go. We're going to now look at history slightly differently. The story in "Colette" happened before 'The Two World Wars', yet it gets forgotten as it gets pushed further back into history and time moves forward. These are big themes, the struggle of the under-represented, and the disempowered being heard. Women have started to seize some power; the story of who holds the power and how that power causes a story to be written in a certain way is what's happening right now. Women are too often starved of seeing themselves in all their brilliance and all their flaws onscreen. "Colette" is an example of exactly that, but from 100 years ago, and still able to resonate strongly.