Director: Abby Kohn, Marc Silverstein (Contains mild spoilers) If you take into account the reviews on Rotten Tomato (32%), Empire (2/5), Metacritic (47%), IMDB (5.0/10) and many others, it would be fair to say that this film has not set the world on fire. It probably hasn’t even lit a match. But with all these reviews annihilating Amy Schumer’s I Feel Pretty, is it remotely possible that there is someone out there who has enjoyed watching this comedy? Is it possible that these reviews have got it all wrong? The Good: The Storyline/Themes and Ideas - I Feel Pretty follows Renee Bennet (Amy Schumer) being constantly mistreated or looked down upon from others due to her ‘plus-size’ body shape. Due to this, her confidence is at an all time low and so registers for a Spin Cycle Class in the hope to build up her self-esteem. During the class, she violently falls on her head, and once awakened she eventually sees herself in the mirror and sees herself as beautiful, not even recognising her own skin even though she looks exactly the same to those around her (and us the audience). The film explores the ideas of insecurities (both female and male), self-esteem and self-confidence, and the idea that beauty does not always mean automatic happiness which is represented by the character Mallory (Emily Ratajkowsky), a fellow Spin Class participant whose gorgeous looks makes Renee feel superfluous, but in the later stages we find out that Mallory herself has insecurities and problems of her own. The film also asks the question about where the line is between being confident and being arrogant. After miraculously gaining confidence, Renee’s life starts getting better. She gets a new job, she gets a new boyfriend, Ethan (played by Rory Scovel), and eventually gets a role as Vice President at the cosmetics company she receptions for. But Renee starts treating her friends and others the way that she was badly treated at the start of the film and is quickly ignored and phased out by them. So in the end, Renee questions who she really is and has a revelation that self confidence has always been inside us and that confidence is about being comfortable in our own skin rather than trying to mimic what society believes beauty is. I Feel Pretty has reminisce of What Women Want, Shallow Hal, and Big (which the film references), but still manages to stay fresh and relevant in today’s current political climate. The Laughs: Regardless of what many reviews say, this film made me smile and laugh. Once Renee believes that her body has miraculously changed for the better, a whole load of misunderstandings take place setting up many comedic situations. In particular, the laundry scene where Ethan asks what her number in the queue is, Renee genuinely believes that he is asking for her phone number and gives it to him. Also the bikini contest scene, where Amy Schumer pulls out all the stops to show off her curvaceous body in a short denim shorts and front tied shirt were hilarious (albeit being slightly cringing). The Bad: Amy Schumer: She wasn’t terrible, and it is clear that Schumer gave it her all. But she portrayed the new, highly-confident Renee in such an exaggerated, over-the-top way that it seemed a little contrived compared to the former self. If she just reined her performance in just a little bit, then the protagonist may well have been a little less annoying and a little bit more enjoyable to watch. Other characters: I wanted to see more screen time with Aidy Bryant, Busy Philipps, Michelle Williams and Tom Hopper. I enjoyed all their performances, but their characters could have added more comedic moments and a bit more substance to the storyline. My biggest criticism is Grant, played by Tom Hopper, whose role confused me a lot. The film seemed to have set up Grant as being the ‘bad guy’. He constantly goaded his sister Avery (Michelle Williams), he seemed to turn up in places where he wasn’t meant to be (on Avery’s airplane, in Renee’s hotel room) and so gave us a suspicion that he was inconspicuously up to something. But in the end the only role he played was to unsuccessfully tempt Renee in having a romantic fling and so was neither really liked nor disliked. More Oomph to the Storyline: The resolution to climatic problems Renee faced towards the end seemed to have concluded quite quickly. In comparison to Amy Schumer’s Trainwreck, where her character is almost in the same predicament, the resolution took its time to resolve Schumer’s anxieties and family and love issues. By doing so, we truly sympathise with her and understand her doubts and misery. In I Feel Pretty, she wins back her friends so quickly that there was really no emotional impact to her downfalls and sufferings. Also, when Renee did become a ‘bitch’, (she completely mistreated an older lady who turned up at her work and humiliated her friends in front of their dates) she was only one for about five minutes, so again, like Tom Hopper’s character, we neither really disliked her at any point which I think the film wanted us to do. The Verdict In all honesty, the film really wasn’t as bad as some reviews portray it to be. Yes, the storyline is so predictable, but some films are not always there to be groundbreaking. Should you spend your money and go see it in the cinema? Probably not. But if you do come across it, you should be pleasantly surprised on how entertaining it is and unlike most rom-coms it is unique in that the storyline and underlining themes is saying something that is actually worth hearing. Rating: 6/10

Director: Rian Johnson (Contains Mild Spoilers) I have never been a huge fan of any of the Star Wars episodes, but I have always appreciated how groundbreaking the first films of the franchise were back in the seventies and eighties. The consensus for the mid-2000's revivals is that they were abysmal, but like most 'western' societies these days regarding opinions on certain matters, there seems to be a division about how great these latest Star War movies really are. Most loved the nostalgic feeling that 'Force Awakens' brings, whilst others, like myself, thought that nostalgia was a polite way of saying that the film didn't bring anything new and just copied the same old ideas that came before, such as the underlining story of the Death Destroyer (ok it's a lot bigger now, but so what?). There were interesting questions like, 'why did Finn turn good?', "why is Rey so powerful?", "who is Snoke?". Any exploration of these questions could have potentially elevated this average film to a great one. Instead, many audiences who loved the film concentrated on the visual aspects rather than the storyline, script, and characterisations. But this is a review about 'The Last Jedi', and the point I am making is that when audiences are grateful that a movie is better than what has come before, that does not mean that the movie itself is great, and when audiences say a movie is great when in fact it is nowhere near greatness, i.e. 'Force Awakens', then the film makers are going to say, "O.K. audiences don't care about storyline, or themes, or character significance, they just want to see Star War visuals that remind them of the good old days". This is obviously an exaggeration, but there is consequential truth to this when you watch the recent 'Star Wars: The Last Jedi'. Firstly, there is no character development from 'Force Awakens' in this film whatsoever. Who is Snork? Who is Rey really, and why is she so Powerful? Who are her parents? In conjunction, new characters felt pointless, particularly the forgettable Asian girl, Rose. As a British Asian, I am highly disappointed that this character is such a bore. Secondly, there are so many odd plot lines that make no sense. Why wasn't Po (the pilot) told the evacuation plan? This would have saved the trouble of Po leading a rebel force against the leader with purple hair. Why did that lady with purple hair have to stay behind in the big ship? When she was left alone all she did was stand around and do nothing, plus, surely they could have made a droid push any buttons if needed. When they were evacuating, why didn't the enemy spot them? You could argue they were too far away too be seen, but when they eventually fired at them, they seemed to hit a small ship every time. Why did Finn and the forgettable Asian girl Rose go to that gambling planet? They didn't achieve their mission, so that plot had no effect on the storyline whatsoever. Again, if they were told they would be evacuating to the nearby planet they wouldn't have gone to that planet in the first place (and could have saved us thirty minutes of screen time, but more on that point slightly ahead). If Luke didn't want to be found, why did he leave a map of his location in 'Force Awakens'? Admiral Leila used the force to return to the ship from outer space, but why, when the door opened, no one was sucked out into space? If there is no gravity in space, how do space bombs drop? SO MANY UNANSWERED QUESTIONS!!! To make things worse, this film is over two and a half hours long!!! And if you really think about what happens in the film, nothing really happens. The big ship is stuck in space because they ran out of fuel, Rey is stuck on an island, and the only thing that does happen (Finn and Rose sneaking off to a gambling planet) turns out to be completely irrelevant to the outcome of the story. Two and a half hours long!!!! This storyline would be suffice, and even entertaining, for a 40 minute Star Trek T.V. episode, but for a full length film? I don't think so. It wouldn't be fair not to say nice things about the movie.  The visuals and cinematography were great. The interactions between Rey and Kylo Ren were dramatic and compelling.  Daisy Ridley who plays Rey did a much better job (her mouth less-resembled Keira Knightley). But that was it for me. So, if you are reading this, please, do not judge a film by its visuals alone.  Do not let nostalgia become the reason why a film is a good film.   If you tell film makers that their average film is a great one, then all that will lead to is a pile of mundane, soulless cinema, hence, "Star Wars: The Last Jedi".  Expect more in your films.  As a paying customer, you deserve it. Film Rating: 4 out of 10 P.S. If you are a fan of Star Wars, I highly recommend the animated series Star Wars Rebels.  It is full of interesting developing characters, a well thought out storyline, and music and visuals typically seen in the movies. See, I'm not a Star Wars hater really.

Upgrade is a science-fiction movie which follows Grey Trace, a man who becomes paralyzed and has been implanted with an experimental technology which allows a hyper-intelligent AI to control his body. It explores the dangers of technological advancement as well as the more interpersonal, emotional facets of grief, revenge, and power. When you're writing about technology and AI, there's an extremely thin line between refreshing and cheap. UPGRADE is that line. It has wobbles on either side, but it mostly traverses a wonderfully stylistic if unoriginal narrative that is elevated by the stellar craftsmanship at hand here. The writing, for the most part, I was very okay with. The story is convincing, bouncing off all-too familiar plot beats to set up the delicious blend of technological thriller and body horror revenge movie. The two genres bounce off each other very well, providing some fresh insights on a somewhat worn out concept of futuristic technology with some nice balancing between tones. Leigh Whannell keeps everything moving very quickly, the pacing extremely fitting for a movie like this. The direction is solid throughout, the action pieces hyper-stylistic with works beautifully with the premise. The duality of Grey's initial hesitation with STEM's monotonous, danger presence is played out very well in these moments, particularly during the first big action sequence. I'm certainly looking forward to whatever Whannell chooses to tackle next. The performances are all efficient, from what should be Logan Marshall-Green's star-making performance. He shows a variety of range with this turn, with shades of Tom Hardy popping in and out throughout, at least that was the vibe that I got from it. The supporting players do their jobs well, but special mention must be given to Simon Maiden as the voice of STEM. Playing off the infamous HAL in every way but without directly impersonating him, Maiden provides a gentle, delicate baseboard for a quietly lurking presence with serves the film very well in its later acts. Some of the dialogue I had an issue with, basically everything that the character of Fisk says in this entire movie is weak and doesn't do a lot to ameliorate his already lacking characterisation. I wish it had gone through another edit because it stood out like a sore thumb. It's a shame because the rest of the writing was really quite engaging. I also didn't care for how the third act plays out - I really liked the tone of the ending, but the 10 minutes before that provide absolutely no pay off and I would have liked to have seen something different done to set up the ending in a less expository way. But those are minor gripes in something I very much enjoyed!

(Release Info London schedule; November 24th, 2018, Curzon Soho, 11:00) "Disobedience" A woman returns to her 'Orthodox Jewish Community' after the death of her rabbi father and stirs up controversy when she shows an interest in an old childhood friend. In a 'Jewish Orthodox Synagogue' in Hendon, the frail Rav Krushka (Anton Lesser) collapses whilst giving a sermon. As funeral rites commence in London, the Rabbi’s exiled daughter Ronit (Rachel Weisz) is living her life as a photographer in Manhattan. During a photo shoot she's told by 'The Brooklyn Synagogue' of her father’s death; wounded by the news and in a vulnerable state, she gets drunk in a local bar and sleeps with an undetermined man. Ronit flies home to London where she feels out of place in 'The Orthodox Jewish Community' she left behind. She's greeted at the home of Dovid Kuperman (Alessandro Nivola), a son figure to the Rav, who's taken aback by the unexpected return of his childhood friend. Her welcome inside the home is hostile from those in the community gathering in the Rav’s honour. Her aunt Fruma Hartog (Bernice Stegers) greets her more openly, though the air is frosty between Ronit and her uncle Moshe (Allan Corduner). Ronit is both upset and angry that she was not informed of her father’s illness and that her father’s obituary claims he was childless. Despite tension surrounding Ronit’s sudden departure in the past, Dovid invites her to stay with him and his wife. Ronit is shocked to discover that he's married to their former best friend Esti (Rachel McAdams), now a teacher at an Orthodox girl's school. It's uncomfortable between the two women; a complicated past is clearly hanging over them. The next day Ronit visits her father’s grave. After further prayers at their home, Dovid, Esti and Ronit go to a dinner at the Hartog house with Rabbi Goldfarb (Nicholas Woodeson). Ronit tries to talk to her Uncle about selling her father’s house, but he tells her now is not the right time for such a topic. Conversation turns to Ronit’s successful career as a photographer and Goldfarb's daughter Rebbetzin (Liza Sadovy) questions why she goes by Ronnie Curtis (Adam Lazarus) after seeing one of her photos in a magazine. Esti, quietly joining in the conversation, states that women change their names all the time when they get married and lose their own history. Everyone is silently shocked at Esti’s controversial comment. Rebbetzin continues questioning Ronit’s life in New York and asks why she's still not married, as it’s the way it should be for a woman. Ronit disagrees, calling marriage an institutional obligation and if she had stayed in the community and been married off, she would have killed herself. Everyone is shocked by her outburst and Ronit, blaming her jet lag, excuses herself to go home. Dovid, upon Esti’s request, leaves to walk her home. Ronit breaks down to Dovid, hoping her father knew she truly loved him. Dovid, struggling against the rules of his religion, tries to comfort his childhood friend without touching her. Ronit visits her uncle Hartog at his wigmaker’s shop to continue the discussion of selling her father’s house, but is informed by Hartog that the Rav left the house and all its contents to 'The Synagogue'. She leaves and soon runs into Esti outside a supermarket. They visit the Rav’s house together, a rundown mess full of medical equipment, it is not so much the house that Ronit wanted, but for her father to acknowledge her in his will. Esti admits that she does not want Ronit to leave again; past feelings are reignited and they kiss, at first timidly as Ronit pulls back, and then passionately. Ronit retreats once more, confused about her feelings. They leave the house and Esti confesses that she had called 'The Brooklyn Synagogue' to let Ronit know of her father’s death. She tells Ronit that she married Dovid, a man she doesn’t love romantically but respects, as she was mentally unwell following Ronit’s sudden departure and married their best friend upon the Rav’s suggestion. As they relax into each other’s company and kiss again, they're interrupted by Hinda (Clara Francis) and husband Lev (Mark Stobbart) and are unsure how much they saw. Esti rushes home, tense; she almost embraces Dovid but their marriage still lacks the passion she has with Ronit. At school, Esti is summoned to see the headmistress Mrs. Shapiro (Caroline Gruber) where Hinda and Lev are waiting to confront her. Allegations about Esti and Ronit also plague Dovid when he's asked by 'The Synagogue' to take on the Rav’s work. Ronit waits for Esti at the school gates, where Esti tells her about the formal complaint Hinda and Lev have submitted against her. Upon Ronit’s suggestion, they escape the close knit community and head into central London for the day. Ronit and Esti continue to be conflicted in their attraction to one other; Esti feels guilty and is trying to lead a good life in line with her faith, but cannot help but desire her former lover. They go to a hotel where they make love, completely at ease and euphoric in each other’s company. They talk about how Ronit’s father first learnt of their relationship all those years ago. Esti returns home late at night, where Dovid is waiting in their bedroom. He tries to get close to her but his yearning to be intimate with his wife is rebuked once again by a confused Esti. Nauseous the next day, Esti begins to wonder if she's pregnant. Dovid confronts Esti about Mrs Shapiro’s accusations and she admits what happened between them. Dovid’s anger almost turns violent as he releases his frustration at his wife’s inability to embrace their life together. Ronit, having overheard the argument, tries to persuade Esti to leave her husband, but Esti struggles to come to a decision. They both try to convince each other, and themselves, they're happy in their lives. Unable to cope with the current events, Dovid seeks refuge in a quiet Synagogue library. The atmosphere is tense when he returns home for dinner with Ronit and Esti. When Ronit announces that she has booked a flight back to New York that night, Dovid seems relieved and quietly asked his wife what she plans on doing now. Ronit and Esti share a difficult goodbye, both unable to share their true feelings. Esti accuses Ronit of taking the easy option by leaving, Ronit storms out the house and Esti slams the door behind her; both heartbroken at the recent events. In the middle of the night, Esti leaves the house and returns to the hotel room with a pregnancy test. Waking up at the airport the next morning, Ronit receives a panicked phone call from Dovid saying Esti is missing. After trying to calm him down, she continues to check into her flight, but later decides to leave and help Dovid in the search for her. Returning home after failing in their search for Esti, Ronit is still angry that Dovid didn’t tell her of her father’s illness. Esti returns from hiding and, having heard everything, announces her pregnancy. Dovid is joyous, believing a child will solve all their marital problems, but Esti instead asks for freedom for her and her child. She was born into the community and wants to give her child the freedom of choice she never had. Dovid is speechless and Esti feels guilty for crushing her husband’s dreams of becoming a father. Ronit and Esti attend the Hesped at the Synagogue, intimidated by the judgemental looks they receive. Esti tries to make peace with Dovid, but he ignores her. Moved by the temple’s sacred atmosphere, Ronit asks Esti to be with her in New York. They clutch hands as Dovid takes to the podium, where he struggles to deliver the official speech on the Rav’s passing. Seeing Ronit in the crowd, he instead contemplates the notion of freedom and choice, a topic that the Rav spoke about in his final sermon, and grants Esti the autonomy she has requested. Dovid declines 'The Synagogue' position and abruptly leaves the Hesped. Outside, overcome with emotion Esti and Dovid hug. Ronit watches on in the distance until Dovid extends an arm and the three friends have a long heartfelt hug together. Next morning, Ronit prepares to leave for the airport. She bids a quiet farewell to Dovid outside his bedroom and goes to see Esti, who has slept on the sofa. They say goodbye; it seems Esti has decided against joining Ronit in New York. As Ronit’s taxi pulls away down the street, Esti runs after her and the pair share a long goodbye kiss, promising to remain in contact. An emotional Ronit visits her father’s grave one last time and takes a photo, achieving a sense of closure over his passing and the recent events. Ronit is this modern, free spirited woman who has run away from her origins. Esti has stayed in the community but has run away from her true self. By letting Ronit know of her father’s death, Esti not only allows Ronit the opportunity to reconnect with her origins, but also calls her own destiny; knowing this is her last chance to be set free. And there's this other important element of Dovid, the Rav’s spiritual son and natural successor. The days of mourning allow all these passions and repressed feelings to come out and a new order is established. During the years, Esti has become a master in disguise, hiding behind wigs and manners. But deep inside she’s a desperate woman trying to reconnect with who she's. Even though Esti is navigating through a lot of complex situations, there's something very stable about her that allows the character to be strong and fragile at the same time Ronit and Esti are the same person divided in two. One escaped and became free, the other stayed and embraced the religion; but both paid a big price. Ronit is living with her guilt that she has erased her father from her own life after he disowned her. When she left, she chose not get in contact with him. There's this regret of being too late to forgive each other. To find forgiveness and peace with a parent before they die is incredibly important to carry on with your life. A part of her story is about how you can leave where you’re from, but you can’t really leave it behind; you carry it with you wherever you go. You think you're free living your life, but you need to find closure on certain things. For Ronit not to be contacted about her father’s illness, she’s denied closure to come and say goodbye which is very painful. Ronit questioned the religious laws; her free liberal thinking is immensely dangerous to the tiny closed community. There are so many rules and laws and Ronit questioned them hard and was seen as a rebel and anti-authoritarian as a result. It's a love story between all three of them and how their relationships evolve and their lives are affected by these days of grief. Esti is a gay woman who's in a loving heterosexual marriage. In her religion, homosexuality is considered a sin, but she believes in god so she’s trying to do the right thing by her marriage. She's in a lot of psychological pain because of this decision and Ronit’s return releases all her desire to be free. At the same time, she doesn’t view her life as a prison because she loves Dovid as a dear friend. Dovid is an innately conservative and spiritual man, who was Ronit’s father’s favourite student. Growing up, Ronit was jealous of their relationship because they could sit around talking about Judaism for hours, which didn’t appeal to Ronit. So there’s always been a bit of sibling rivalry between the two of them, but Dovid is a decent, morally good man. Even though the community is warning him about the trouble Ronit could bring, he knows she is mourning her father and should be involved. When his decency is tested in a very serious way, he discovers an existential spirituality outside any given doctrine, and Alessandro has really tapped into that and the sense of righteousness that you need play a Rabbi. At a young age, Dovid's father saw a quality and a connection with god in Dovid which could help bind the community together in a way that he had, so he became his pupil. Dovid’s adolescence would have been spent with this man, which is how he came to be so close to Ronit and her best friend Esti, who he might not have known otherwise because young men and women are kept quite separate in 'The Orthodox World'. After Ronit left, he became adopted by him as his only child so the situation is difficult for everyone. The man was essentially his father. His death at the beginning of the script really sparks of this confusing situation where she comes back to mourn him and there mourning him like a father. Dovid represents someone who has committed his life to his religion in a very intense and profound way, and has to reconcile those beliefs against his sense of goodness and his love for the people he's closest too. It really explored that dilemma for him in a detailed, complex and beautiful way. Dovid and Esti have a loving relationship built on deep friendship and full of respect. When Ronit left so suddenly, Esti was destroyed and Dovid was there to pick her up, so she’s very grateful to him for saving her life in some ways, but she might still be with him out of certain obligation and gratitude. She's living a life she thinks is good enough by ignoring her sexuality and making the choice to be with Dovid. Esti is a real believer in Judaism and being a good Jewish wife and member of the community, it’s a belief that lives deep inside her. So to have her sexuality deemed not acceptable in her community creates an inner struggle for her. For the most part, she believes she's happy but doesn’t realise she’s cut off this major part of herself. It’s difficult for Esti to have Ronit return and not be able to openly comfort her, she's very self conscious about how she acts and respectful of Dovid as they are the pillars of the community. She also feels the real sting that she left, not just her but Dovid as well. They're a great group of friends that only had each other and when Ronit left, it was a real betrayal to both of them. But somewhere deep inside, Esti knew that things needed to change, which is why she gets the message to Ronit that her father has passed; her return is the catalyst for Esti to revaluate her choices. This film is based on Naomi Alderman’s 2006 novel ‘Disobedience’. What really grabs about the novel is the theme of transgression in the modern world where there's almost nothing taboo anymore. The term disobedience means very little unless you find the right community to set it in, like the small 'Orthodox Jewish Community' in North London. If you find a story of transgression within an ordered old fashioned society, you've a great universal drama that anyone can relate to. What responds most in the film is how utterly human these characters are with all their flaws and self-doubt; their forgiveness and their disobedience. We all have a fear of family, as well as a love, and we want to honour the complexity of love and loss in her book. "Disobedience" is a drama of love and the fight for acceptance against the confines of the regimented 'Orthodox Community' in North London. We’re going through a war in which only certain relationships are considered legitimate and who draws the line where and with which authority. This is a story about characters that are willing to change and evolve, but to do so they've to go through very rigid structures and that confrontation resonates with what we’re going through nowadays as a human society all over the world. The 'Jewish Orthodox' background is of course very important but what’s really going on in the film, in a certain way transcends that particular cultural specificity. The heart of the story is very universal. These are people who are full of passion and affection for each other. Sometimes 'The Orthodox' is perceived like a hostile community, ruthless in it's judgement of the outside world. Life is always presenting you with situations that aren’t easily resolved. So ideally people will walk away without easy answers; the best stories are the ones that aren’t packed. Hopefully people will walk away having had their opinions and preconceptions about certain life challenged. The film explores the theme of personal freedom and what it means to follow your own path, it's a story that has an incredible amount of hope in it. "Disobedience" is a very intense journey. The characters are going through a certain turmoil that defines the film and makes it oscillate between different tones. The story explores the whole emotional spectrum of Ronit, Esti and Dovid. They feel very real, very close. You feel like you're sitting at the dining tables and lying in those beds with the characters; Even though we might not know much about the very secretive world of 'London Jewish Orthodoxy', the film generates a very intimate, strangely familiar feeling. It's a story about confused human beings interacting and trying to do the best they can against a background of fixed conceptions. This is a story about characters that are willing to change and evolve, but to do so they've to go through very rigid structures and that confrontation resonates with what we’re going through nowadays as a human society all over the world, where the old paradigms seem to be either obsolete or insufficient.

"On Chesil Beach" It's summer 1962, and England is still a year away from huge social changes; 'Beatlemania', 'The Sexual Revolution' and 'The Swinging Sixties'. We first encounter Florence Ponting (Saoirse Ronan) and Edward Mayhew (Billy Howle), a young couple in their early 20s, on the day of their marriage. Now on their honeymoon, they're dining in their room at a stuffy, sedate hotel near 'Chesil Beach'. Their conversation becomes more tense and awkward, as the prospect of consummating their marriage approaches. Finally, an argument breaks out between them. Florence storms from the room and out of the hotel, Edward pursues her, and their row continues on 'Chesil Beach'. From a series of flashbacks, we learn about the differences between them, their attitudes, temperaments and their drastically different backgrounds, as well as watch them falling deeply in love. Out on the beach on their fateful wedding day, one of them makes a major decision that will utterly change both of their lives forever. "On Chesil Beach" is a powerful, insightful drama about two people, both defined by their upbringing, bound by the social mores of another era. "On Chesil Beach" is a gripping, heart-rending account of a loving relationship battered by outside forces and influences first formed in childhood, in a society with strict, inflexible rules about uniformity and respectability. Florence was born into a prosperous, conservative family in a neat, organised home presided over by her overbearing father Geoffrey (Samuel West), a successful businessman. Edward comes from a contrasting background. His father Lionel (Adrian Scarborough) is a teacher, while his art expert mother Marjorie (Anne-Marie Duff) is brain-damaged after an awful accident; their home is informal somewhat chaotic and closer to nature. Florence is a talented, ambitious violinist with a string quartet; Edward has graduated from 'UCL' with a History degree and aims to become an author. They married as virgins; two very different people, but deeply in love. Only hours after their wedding they find themselves at their dull, formal honeymoon hotel on 'The Dorset Coast' at 'Chesil Beach'. They dine in their room, and their conversation becomes stilted and nervous. The consummation of their marriage is fast approaching, and while Edward welcomes the prospect of sexual intimacy, Florence is scared by it. The tension between them boils over into a heated argument as Florence feels repelled by Edward’s advances. She dashes from the room, out of the hotel and on to 'Chesil Beach', with Edward in pursuit. On a remote part of the beach they've a blazing argument about the profound differences between them. One of them makes a startling decision that will have life-long consequences for them both. In a series of flashbacks, the film emphasises the differences between Florence and Edward, the underlying tensions and circumstances that contributed to that crucial moment on their wedding day. Other scenes illustrate what happened to these two people in subsequent decades and how their lives were shaped by that dramatic stand-off on 'Chesil Beach'. In the forefront, Florence is a violinist. She’s reserved, not much into any kind of fashion. She’s a girl who probably went to a university in a dormitory of girls with like- minded backgrounds. Her mother Violet (Emily Watson) is of a certain age, so she would never be high-end fashion; she’s kind of settled in the mid-1950s. So, the influence on Florence is from her mother; she's never a fashionable young girl, but nicely dressed and interested in music. The clothes worn by Florence and Edward also hint at the difference in their social circumstances; Edward looks not very well looked after, a little frayed about the edges. He seems to be in the same jacket all the way through, whereas she changes a lot; usually something nice from department stores. Money isn’t a problem for her family, the Pontings. Even though he's from a family without much money, Edward is bound by a sense of respectability, typical of this early-1960s period. He’s followed the constraints of wanting to be like his father, who’s a teacher. Most men of that time wore jackets and ties. Florence’s ‘going-away dress’ needed to be something special, and to make a statement in visual terms. There are still signs of hormonal adolescence in there for sure, but with Edward, a lot of that anger comes from a righteously indignant place. So, if he or someone he cares about has been wronged, that’s the point at which his anger or rage will rear its ugly head. So, there’s this real dichotomy in the story, and it feels like Edward is at loggerheads with the world in which he finds himself. If their wedding day had happened even a couple of years later, things might have gone better for Florence and Edward. They’d have been more able to talk about things. They’d have had a lot more facts to go on. With the two of them the film wants to move them forward from the 50s into the 60s. The film shows this is their height of fashion. Like the new modern man and wife together; on the beach. Ian McEwan’s 'On Chesil Beach' is among the most acclaimed British novels of this century. Published in 2007, it was short-listed for 'The Booker Prize', garnered glowing reviews and became a best-seller. But as often happens in the film world, it took a long time for the book to make the transition to the big screen. There's a simplicity of narrative and a clarity of emotion about it. It's a portrayal of a young woman at a particular time, and what that meant for her; defining her creative ambitions and her sexual being, her own self. And it’s clear how these two young people are affected by the time they live in. McEwan’s novel is a highly specific work in many respects. The year in which most of the story takes place, and in which Florence and Edward are married, is 1962, just before the dawning of a new youth culture and a sexual revolution that would sweep the western world. And the book’s main geographical location is 'Chesil Beach' itself; an extraordinary place like no other. It was just on the cusp of the 1960s, so it was a time that was crucial both for fashion and for this story. This was pre-teenage revolution. 'The Beatles' hadn’t quite happened yet. Girls still dressed very much like their mothers and boys like their fathers; that's to say, conservatively. 'Chesil Beach' (‘Chesil’ is derived from an Old English word meaning ‘shingle’) has been designated a site of special scientific interest (SSSI); it's fossil-rich and important to wildlife. It’s also very cinematic, and the most cinematic part of all turns out to be also the most inaccessible. It’s separated from the mainland by a lagoon, and it goes out on a long spit of land seven to nine miles long. The physicality, and the relationship the beach has to the land and water around its so peculiar. It’s essentially a strip of land that juts out into the water and it’s kind of isolated. There’s something about that coastline, and the beach itself feels untouched, untainted by human hands. It’s the closest you can get to something 100% natural. Looking out over that beach, it can be tempestuous, it can be serene. But even in it's serene stillness there’s something very disconcerting. That encapsulates the human condition quite well. Even in it's stillness and absence of anything, there’s something quite disconcerting about it, and about our existence. One of the great thing about this script is that it reveals two central characters that are both sympathetic, but also flawed and limited by the circumstances they've grown up in. Film is the ideal medium for showing interior life because the camera can pick up nuances of thought and subtext, and the big screen reveals them. The main visual idea is of two people trapped by the time they’re living in, and the sense that they’re living in a world not of their own making. Music is very important in the movie, as both characters’ identities are grounded in their musical taste. Early 60s Rock n’ Roll and chamber music performed at 'Wigmore Hall' in London. The film tackles the issue of social pressure being put on young people, no matter what era they grew up in, to be or to behave in a certain way. The story has a very specific sense of place and time. One side of the movie is about a particular time; the moment before the liberal values of the sixties kicked in. The other side is more universal; the challenge of true intimacy, first sexual encounters, and how one bad decision can shape your whole life. These questions are as alive for contemporary audiences as ever. This film gives you a new perspective on our parent's generation. We now live in a time of a toxic nostalgia, where many people think that the past was a better, simpler time to live in. If you look at the emotional lives of many people born in the first half of the twentieth century and the emotional repression that was the norm in the UK, how traumatised many people were by the war and the hardship they suffered; it was not so easy. We're now little more sympathetic to what that generation had to deal with, how strong they're to survive it and what they sacrificed along the way. Audiences will take away from this story a sense of how dangerous it's to react to difficult situations rashly, and how fortunate we're to live in a time when we can be more open about our feelings. Repression of any sort is harmful. Learning who we truly are makes us more integrated human beings and more able to make wise choices for ourselves and those around us.

The Hurt Locker is a 2009 war-drama film surrounding a squad of soldiers assembled in Iraq who are perturbed by their new man - Sergeant William James, a wildfire and an expert in defusing bombs. This is just an exquisite piece of filmmaking. Everybody involved is at the top of their game. Bigelow's direction is so tonally and atmospherically perfect for this movie (and the subsequent thematically-linked movies she would go on to make). If there's one thing Bigelow does better than a LOT of other directors, it's building tension and seeing it payoff in a satisfying way. FULL props to Miss Bigelow for this achievement in directing. Jeremy Renner hit his peak with this performance and it's hard to think of him putting in work that's better. He challenges that with 'THE TOWN' and years later, 'WIND RIVER' but 'THE HURT LOCKER' remains his most complex, enthralling character and performance to date. His provocative, erratic Sergeant James is as wild as you would expect, but Renner manages to deliver periods of restraint, where we see his quieter moments, something another actor might have chosen to load with a quiet rage, but Renner's ability to pull back, even for a second, is invaluable to the character work. I also have to mention Brian Geraghty's sensitive, compelling work as Eldridge here as an addendum, because his performance has always been overlooked and I strongly support more love and attention for it. A lot of that effort is achieved by Mark Boal's screenplay, which is superbly written and packed with some good dialogue, characters, and some lovely storytelling through action set pieces, which combine themselves beautifully with Bigelow's abilities. Even though this may not be seem to be a writer's film, it most certainly benefits from the tightness of the screenplay. The documentary-style cinematography from Barry Ackroyd was a bold choice to take for this move, as were the abundance of hand-held shots. But when you're shooting and the framing the frenetic energy of war, Ackroyd proves to be right, as his informal frames and shots capture everything through a seemingly ordinary lens, painting these soldiers as real as any another person so that their more inaccessible struggles, such as defusing bombs and looking out for insurgents, become emotionally-charged, tense moments that make the spine tingle. And where would this film be without the criminally overlooked score for Marco Beltrami? There is some lusciously effective sound design in this movie and it works to prolong the tension and amplify the payoffs, but Beltrami's score explores a mixture of themes and motifs, from the more dynamic expressions of war to the softer, more emotional effects of the battle. It's a beautiful score that I still listen to almost ten years later.

/05/23/23/ Picturehouse Central, 6:15 pm Fulham Road Picturehouse, 8:00 pm "Master Gardener" "Master Gardener" follows Narvel Roth (Joel Edgerton), the meticulous horticulturist of Gracewood Gardens. He's as much devoted to tending the grounds of this beautiful and historic estate, to pandering to his employer, the wealthy dowager Mrs. Haverhill (Sigourney Weaver). When Mrs. Haverhill demands that he take on her wayward and troubled great-niece Maya (Quintessa Swindell) as a new apprentice, chaos enters Narvel’s spartan existence, unlocking dark secrets from a buried violent past that threaten them all. "Master Gardener" is a potent tale of a man tormented by his past as a white supremacist gun-for-hire, which captures the racial tensions of contemporary America. Although not initially envisaged as a trilogy, "Master Gardener" marks the culmination of a tryptic of films that began in 2017 with "First Reformed". Like "The Card Counter" (2021) before it, "Master Gardener" is a bold new take on a man in a room narratives, where a lonely figure, wrestling with his past and hiding behind his day job, waits for something to change. The character first evolved with "Taxi Driver" (1976), which was an outgrowth of the existential hero of European Fiction. Each chapter of the trilogy concerns men who are facing existential crises, living lonely lives, hiding behind their day jobs, whether as a reverend, a card player or, as in the case of "Master Gardener", a horticulturist. At the heart of "Master Gardener" is Narvel Roth. He's someone who has a bit of Robert Mitchum about them, who you wouldn’t want to get into a fight with at a bar. It looks like that 1950s American physique, we've seen before with "Warrior" (2011). Narvel, like so many leading men, is a loner. He’s meticulous in his duties, carefully tending the grounds of Gracewood Gardens, a grand house owned by the wealthy dowager, Mrs. Haverhill. When Haverhill’s much-troubled niece, Maya arrives at Gracewood, Narvel finds himself caught between these two women, as his past, present and future collide with dramatic force. Whether it’s being a gigolo ("American Gigolo", 1980), or a drug dealer ("Light Sleeper", 1992), or a gambler ("The Card Counter", 2021) or a gardener, it’s about finding a metaphor. Gardening is a particularly metaphor, both positively and negatively. The films is alluring to a flashback Narvel has when he remembers a white supremacist saying it’s their job to rip out the weeds. But it's equally through gardening that Narvel finds redemption. It all comes back to that man in the room. It starts out with gardening, much like how "The Card Counter" started out with gambling. But this is only the start of the creative process. Why is this gardener such a recluse? From there we remember about the Witness Protection Programme, and again you ask the question, why is he in the programme? This mutes to the idea that he's a gun-for-hire for white supremacists. The story must follow a logic. Asking these questions, means his isolation becomes completely understandable. As his handler tells him, you’ll never be free from this shadow, which is echoed when he says that he wears it on his skin every day in the form of tattoos. Whilst bearing some similar narrative techniques to previous films, "Master Gardener" detours from what has come before. You must create a different social ambience with the film, and then start moving the characters around slightly. Here you not find new wine for your skins. Whilst the framework of the story is akin to previous man in the room narratives, the way the film manipulates and puts a spin on ideas is what leads to such stories. With "Master Gardener", there's the central notion of the triad, whether it's sex, race, and gender, or the character triad of Mrs. Haverhill, Narvel, and Maya. Here you've a man caught between two women, one old enough to be his mother, the other young enough to be his daughter. This is the first time since "Taxi Driver" that we see two women in one of these stories. What was once deemed acceptable on screen has changed dramatically. With this in mind the film wants to tell the story in a way that reflects contemporary society. We no longer accept the idea that a 55- year-old man and a 25-year-old woman is a perfectly normal arrangement. In the film, Maya is in her mid-20s, and Narvel is in his late 40s, whilst Mrs. Haverhill is older than them both. These age gaps to lean into the unease of the film. The age gaps of the characters to add to the unease of the situation. Rather than avoid these complex moral issues the film wants to explore these themes in the narrative. Age, race, and gender make for a good narrative triad, where all the corners of the triangle meet in different ways as they explore the subject matter. "Master Gardener" is a film where age, gender and race collide. This final chapter in the trilogy echoes the message of redemption through love. Across the course of the three films, the man in the room character does not offering new, intriguing perspectives on his tales. All three men find redemption, but often at a price. The intentionally ambiguous ending of "First Reformed" left audiences questioning whether Toller is alive or dead by the film’s end. In "The Card Counter", William Tell finds redemption, but his brutal acts lead him to be incarcerated. "Master Gardener" offers a different, more hopeful perspective, reinforcing the idea that the only hope these existential antiheroes have, is to be found in love. Written by Gregory Mann

God is great. God is powerful, yeah. But even more so, God is all-knowing. And that is what makes him scary as shit. Do you understand what I’m saying? This remake of the movie “Super Fly” from the 70s, with Ron O’Neal as Priest, isn’t really my favorite kind of film. There’s already a multitude of this genre of movies. The so-called blaxploitation. Perhaps the older films sketched a better picture of the Afro-Americans whose future wasn’t too rosy. Because of discrimination and racist measures, the possibilities to succeed in life were reasonably limited. Getting involved in criminal activities was therefore self-evident. But I’m sure it wasn’t as flashy and groovy as in this movie. So you can expect to see some nice, expensive sports cars. Golden teeth and golden automatic guns. Leather coats covered with fur and shiny gold necklaces. Decadent parties where dollar bills are thrown around as bread to the ducks. A shitload of scantily clad ladies with a nicely shaped, vibrating butt. A lot of rap music (even at a funeral) and Yo-yo-yo-Bro show off. And of course the expressions “nigga”, “bitches” and “hoes” are frequently used in a conversation. In short, everything that can be seen in a rap music video. Hey, he does a Marge impression. The film wasn’t really convincing. The only scene that made me hope for a mega-cool gangsta film, full of uncontrollable violence and big talk, was the one at the beginning where Priest (Trevor Jackson) confronts the rapper Litty with the fact that he still needs to pay him a large amount of money. This was such a moment that I love in a movie. The calm and at the same time threatening attitude Priest exhibits there is entertainment of the highest level. He reminded me a bit of Shaft but this time with an absurd looking hairstyle. It’s very similar to the hairstyle of Marge Simpson. Unfortunately, from here it went downhill. Time to retire. Not only did Priest’s hair look ridiculous, but his omniscience and how easily the whole mess is being solved was a bit exaggerated. The story of the street-boy Priest who, after years of selling drugs comes to the decision to call it quits, isn’t very original either. He wants to hang up his dealer-robe because diving away from bullets that are fired at a short distance, isn’t that easy anymore for an elderly person. They want to pull off one last deal (and this at the expense of the person who has taken care of him all his life) and then he and his two wives can buy a luxury yacht and retire. Yep, it’s not a good idea to mess with a Mexican drug cartel. The fact that he uses a Mexican drug cartel for this, says enough about his credibility. No matter how rational he takes care of his affairs, this proves there’s a shortage of well-functioning brain cells. I’m not familiar with the drugs scene, but I do know that the members of such a cartel aren’t softies to play with. Before you know it, you’ll be hanging decapitated somewhere under a bridge or you can admire the fauna and flora of a river with your feet in a block of cement. Just an average movie. And even though it looks visually professional sometimes (apparently the budget was considerably high), there are so many downsides in this film that it’s almost impossible to take it seriously. Perhaps that was the intention. The chases looked ridiculously amateurish. The scarce fight scenes looked average and felt old-fashioned (even the sound effects didn’t help). Trevor Jackson manages to play the cold-blooded drug dealer, but otherwise, his character is so clichéd and two-dimensional that it seems pretty ridiculous. Not to mention his employees. And the most hilarious are the two corrupt detectives and the mother of Gonzalez. If you need a textbook example to explain the word caricature, then they are the most suitable subjects to do this. Superfly? Far from. No, for me this movie wasn’t a success. Are you looking for something to fill up your free time? Well, this flic is useful for that. However, the only exciting thing in the whole movie was the shower scene. Even though it felt like it was a compulsory act to fill up the movie with. It really didn’t impress or surprise. In short, the film wasn’t really “Superfly”. My rating 4/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

To utilize a tesseract… all you need is to tap into the right frequency. You just need your mind. I’ve never tried L.S.D. in my life. But while watching this confusing and psychedelic-looking movie, I thought my wife used some exotic spices in my dinner I’d just eaten. After a while, I still didn’t know what this movie was about. It’s something about space traveling with use of the 5th dimension where one moves through the universe by using just his mind. Mr. And Mrs. Murry (Chris Pine and Gugu Mbatha-Raw), two scientists, worked on this for years and are convinced it’s possible. Until one day Mr. Murry actually disappears without a trace and leaves his family behind. What? Mrs. Which, Mrs. Whatsit and Mrs. Who? And before they know it, three eccentric-looking, fairy-like women show up. They are called Mrs. Which (Oprah Winfrey), Mrs. Whatsit (Reese Witherspoon) and Mrs. Who (Mindy Kaling). The three are a sort of space police who heard a cry for help and moved quickly through the universe to the spot where Meg (Storm Reid), daughter of Mr. and Mrs. Murry, lives. And together with her brother Charles Wallace (Deric McCabe) and Calvin (Levi “Better watch out” Miller), Mr. Popularity at school, they’re off on a rescue mission. Tv makes women look chunkier. Look at Oprah Winfrey what a movie does. This rescue mission leads them from one obscure and bizarre place to the other. From the colorful planet Uriel, where Mrs. Whatsit turns into a fluttering carpet with a face that looks like a gigantic sprout after she has conversed with a whole bunch of flying flowers. And they talk in color. For real? Yes really. Next, they arrive in a gloomy, dark world covered with clouds, with strangely stacked rock formations. Worlds with immensely sheepish creatures on stilts. And a spreading black smoke called Camazotz. Apparently, this cloud represents evil. And it’s spreading rapidly in space. And all this can be seen in the company of a huge, giant Oprah Winfrey. Whether this has been done intentionally to justify her body weight or it’s described like that in a book by Madeleine L’Engle, where this film is based on, I really don’t know. But it looked absurd anyway. Wasn’t it a bit exaggerated? “A wrinkle in time” is a fantasy movie, with a gang of children on an adventure in deep space. It reminded me sometimes of Wonka’s chocolate factory where every room was a new surprise as well. Only this film is not the same as its other Disney predecessors. Even though every Disney production is clearly aimed at a younger audience, there was always a bit of magic that appealed to adults as well. To be honest: I always have and still can enjoy a Disney movie. Well, this is the first film of them where I can’t agree with that fact. I was really annoyed at certain moments. The cacophony of colors and the absurdity of places where they traveled to, felt really exaggerated. The moralistic messages are a bit exorbitant and theatrical. Sometimes it was a bit too obvious. Or did the makers feel the need to give the youth of today an educational kick in the pants to draw their attention to those certain values in life again? A lesson about good and evil. And furthermore, being different doesn’t mean that you are an outsider and that it’s not normal to be scorned by others. Big spectacle. No, this Disney film wasn’t my cup of tea. I even thought it was just plain boring. Despite the fact the cast is filled with some famous stars, the acting itself was sometimes even laughable. Even a bonding with the characters was missing. So I really didn’t care in the end whether they would be catapulted through the universe or not. The only one of the three cosmic goddesses who could charm me was Reese Witherspoon. And that because of her brutal attitude and a big mouth. Maybe fans of the book will be excited while watching this film. If, however, it was the intention to proclaim the message about goodness and equality, it might have been better if they didn’t make a spectacle out of it. My rating 2/10 Links: IMDB More reviews here

Yardie, based upon the book of the same name, is James Bond’s…sorry Idris Elba’s directional debut. It focuses on a young man who tries to escape his troubled past on the streets of Kingston, Jamaica, to London; only to remain on the same path that led him there in the first place. When he was a young boy, his peaceful older brother was gunned down by a ‘supposed’ member of a rival crew. It led D (Aml Ameen) to want revenge against the killer, only to find him on the streets of the East End where his old flame, and mother to his current child currently lives, in peace, away from the bloodshed.  I love Idris. He’s a brilliant actor and his performance as Stringer Bell in The Wire is the only reason I carried on watching it. I know, controversial, but christ that show is slow and tedious. As a director, well Yardie didn’t cut it for me. There were a lot of good things about it. The mise-en-scene was brilliant, in every scene I felt like I was in Jamaica in the 70′s, or Hackney in the 80′s. The music, the sets, the costumes were brilliant. King Fox, for example, just oozed class throughout the film. I was convinced by that. I just wasn’t convinced by the story. I wasn’t gripped. There seemed like a lot of ideas that put together, just created a complete jumble of nothing. At certain points in the film I thought to myself ‘ooo this is like City of God’ ‘oooo this could be Scarface’ ‘ooo this could be 8 mile’ ‘oooo this is could be This Is England’. But it didn’t pack a punch like these films did. I was disappointed that it felt like this, and this could be due to the trailer. A trailer that featured music that was prominent at the time the film was set, about a young man trying to find his way in the world, set in England and with action scenes. You tell me that isn’t a City-Of-God-8-Mile-This-Is-England-Scarface mash up and I shouldn’t get my hopes up about that.  📷Originally posted by dancebang The two lead actors were wonderfully chosen for the film. D (Aml Ameen) was very charismatic and lead the film superbly. Whilst the narrative was full of exposition, the acting was brilliant. Yvonne (Shantol Jackson) as the mother of his child and girlfriend was beautifully cast. She drove her scenes with the passion and emotion that she produced. She is a wonderful actress and she deserves to be in much more because in Yardie she was sublime. The worst thing for me about this whole thing though was the casting of Stephen Graham as Rico, one of the villains in the film and the drug dealer based in London. Stephen Graham is one of my favourite actors. As a character actor there aren’t many who come close to him. He deserves to be A-List. But my god what was going on here. I’m not annoyed that he was in the film. I’d cast him as anything. Working class hero. But throughout the film he put on a Jamaican accent, it wasn’t a bad accent but he kept flicking between this and the cockney accent because of Hackney. Now I was confused as to why the Jamaican accent was needed. I didn’t know if it was because he was trying to fit into the Jamaican community in London so he could get their respect and trust. He had Jamaicans working for him, who respected him, who at no point looked pissed off with him. Or if the character was culturally appropriating their lifestyle. By flicking between the two he is undermining them. But again, they were never any scenes where the other Jamaican characters looked pissed with him. I think it ruined the whole scene. He was much more menacing just doing the cockney accent. I cringed whenever the Jamaican accent was used. 2/5 Unfortunately as much as I was looking forward to it, and as much as I was hoping it would be amazing, it wasn’t. This could be down to the story not being originally written by Idris. There’s always a conflict when using an adapted screenplay. I hope and I’m sure we will see more of Elba in the director’s chair. There are far too many white, university educated film directors churning out the same pile of Hollywood crap. I want stories by a director from a working class background, I want stories from the Nigerian family, I want stories from the Muslim community. We need stories like Yardie to entertain, and more importantly, educate us. Just hopefully the next film from Idris is more entertaining than his first. p.s I really hope Idris doesn’t become the next 007. And not because I’m a right-wing gammon. But because he’s too good of an actor to be tied down to such a dead franchise. For sure he’d make it exciting. He’d bring it to life and bring the charm back to it. But he’s too good to be stuck as Bond. I wouldn’t complain if he was, I’d rather it be him than Tom Hiddleston or Henry Cavill or *insert another generic middle class name here*

The London Short Film Festival 15th Anniversary is on from 12-21st January 2018. It’s such an exciting programme this year. In terms of specific events, there's a 15th Anniversary event called We Dare To Fail that really highlights the impact that LSFF can have on feature-film directors careers. Films like God’s Own Country, The Greasy Strangler, Berberian Sound Studio, The Levelling, Prevenge, Couple in a Hole, Spaceship, Gone Too Far, True West, Nina Forever represent great British films from the last few years, and there’s a retrospective event looking at the early works of the uncompromising auteur feature-film directors behind these features (for example Francis Lee, Alice Lowe, Hope Dickson Leach etc.) who all showcased shorts at LSFF at the beginning of their careers. There are early-career performances and cameos from the likes of Michael Fassbender. There’s also Brexit Shorts: Dramas From A Divided Nation which has been put together by The Guardian and Headlong Theatre, and they've teamed up to mark the one-year anniversary of the controversial decision to leave the EU. They’ve commissioned a host of prominent scriptwriters and well-known actors (including Maxine Peake, Abi Morgan, Kristen Scott Thomas, Penelope Wilton…I could go on!) from each of the UK regions have been commissioned to highlight the nation’s growing divisions in their area at a moment of seismic political change. LONDON SHORT FILM FESTIVAL ANNOUNCES 15TH ANNIVERSARY PROGRAMME “PICTURES SNATCHED OUT THE FRAME” WE DARE TO FAIL: 15 YEARS OF LSFF CELEBRATES FESTIVAL’S LEGACY AND IMPACT ON BRITISH FILMMAKING (2018 FESTIVAL RUNS 12-21 JANUARY) Feat. William E Jones, The Final Girls, Radio Atlas, Cookie Crew, She Rockers, Barbara Hammer, Dawn Shadforth, Simon Ellis, Christine Molloy, and Joe Lawlor LSFF Inaugural International Short Film Jury: Lucile Hadžihalilović, Katie Jarvis, Lili Hartwig London Short Film Festival (LSFF) announces its full 2018 programme, screening over 500 UK and international short films over 10 days, from 12-21 January 2018. Celebrating its 15th year, LSFF is a vital moment in the UK film calendar, a beacon of inclusive and ground-breaking film-making from a diverse range of backgrounds. The Festival will show a huge selection of UK and international short films across music, culture, and politics. The 15th anniversary content includes We Dare To Fail, a strand that screens the early LSFF entries from uncompromising auteur filmmakers. There will be shorts shown from Francis Lee (God’s Own Country), Hope Dickson-Leach (The Levelling), and Alice Lowe (Prevenge). The celebratory retrospective will also feature shorts from the directors behind The Greasy Strangler, Berberian Sound Studio, Couple in a Hole, Spaceship, Gone Too Far, True West, and Nina Forever. There are also early-career cameos from the likes of Michael Fassbender and Danny Dyer when their stars were rising. Brexit Shorts: Dramas From A Divided Nation marks the one year anniversary of the divisive decision to leave the EU, with new short films from notable scriptwriters and actors in response to the referendum. A panel discussion with Jess Gormley and Noah Payne-Frank (Guardian), and Amy Hodge (Headlong Theatre) will be followed by a performance from one of the actors in the films. Screenwriting and acting talent involved in the shorts, include Maxine Peake, Abi Morgan, Kristen Scott Thomas and Penelope Wilton amongst many others. Other highlights from the programme include trailblazing films from Iranian poet Forough Farrokhzad (in partnership with MUBI), video artist William E Jones’ reclaiming of police surveillance footage of the gay community in 60s Ohio, and LSFF’s own With Teeth artists premiering newly commissioned experimental AV work. Ngozi Onwurah is the first Black British woman to have a feature film released in UK cinemas (Welcome II The Terrordome,1995), and there will be a legacy screening of her rare works, for which Ngozi will be in attendance. Pioneering lesbian filmmaker Barbara Hammer will be answering questions following a screening of her films. There will also be a retrospective of Dawn Shadforth’s music video back catalogue, looking at the work of pop doyennes Kylie Minogue, Bjork, Sugababes, and Peaches. Other music video events include a new visual project from Domino, in celebration of their long association with LSFF. A brand new competition strand to celebrate the 15th anniversary is made up of six programmes, all of which exemplify the Festival’s commitment to diversity and continual audience development. The 36 selected films take in migration, prejudice, survival and the darker side of family life, and dissect everything from the entertainment industry to reality itself. The esteemed international short film jury includes French filmmaker Lucile Hadžihalilović, international short film festival curator Lili Hartwig, and Fish Tank actress Katie Jarvis. Each LSFF 2018 Competition programme will screen twice, at Curzon Soho and Rich Mix. As always, the core of LSFF is the New Shorts section; programmes of short films selected from 2500 open submissions into the Festival, with popular, returning slots from Funny Shit to Leftfield & Luscious, from Lo-Budget Mayhem to A Winter’s Matinee of Romantic Films, alongside new themes around identity, visibility and relationships. LSFF will screen films at important cultural landmarks in London's film community, including the ICA, which has hosted LSFF every year since it began. New venues for 2018 includethe Rich Mix in Shoreditch; Regent Street Cinema Curzon Soho, the Rio Cinema in Dalston and the BFI Southbank. The industry programme will take place entirely at its new home at MOTH Club in Hackney. 2018 will also showcase new With Teeth projects. LSFF’s long-term short film commissioning fund, aims to become a solid support base for the most exciting emerging cinematic voices and auteurs, supported by Arts Council England National Lottery Funding. Tash Tung, Kim Noce and Zoe Aiano, will premiere newly commissioned experimental work that uses a range of unconventional AV techniques to enhance and communicate beautiful and nuanced stories. As a champion of diverse and inclusive film, LSFF continues to see a huge contribution from women, LGBT and BAME filmmakers, and in a Festival first will introduce a programme led by and for the D/deaf community. With an established network of sponsors and supporters who help champion the Festival, LSFF strives to become more accessible and inclusive with the support of the BFI and Arts Council England, both awarding funds from the National Lottery. LSFF is also proud to have been awarded the Screen Diversity mark of good practice for meeting the BFI Diversity Standard, which recognises the Festival’s commitment in this endeavour. Detailed highlights from the full programme are below: LONDON SHORT FILM FESTIVAL 15TH ANNIVERSARY The festival celebrates its 15th year in 2018 with a retrospective of the early works of auteur directors who all showcased short films at the festival at the beginning of their careers. With films like God’s Own Country, The Greasy Strangler, Berberian Sound Studio, The Levelling, Prevenge, Couple in a Hole, Spaceship, Gone Too Far, True West, Nina Forever representing great British films from the last few years, by uncompromising auteurs, who have all screened early works at London Short Film Festival. We Dare To Fail: 15 Years of LSFF looks at pieces by the directors of films including Francis Lee (God’s Own Country) and Alice Lowe (Prevenge), amongst many others. Filmmakers will be in attendance, and the event will be hosted on stage by LSFF co-founders Philip Ilson and Kate Taylor. Alongside BAFTA winners Simon Ellis and Joe Lawlor & Christine Molloy (The Desperate Optimists), we bring an incredible selection of shorts back to this very special 15th anniversary screening. This impressive collection of shorts come from: FREE SPEECH The Blaine Brothers 2004, 6 mins LITTLE CLUMPS OF HAIR Jim Hosking 2003, 12 mins WHAT THE Simon Ellis 2004, 7 mins WHO KILLED BROWN OWL? The Desperate Optimists 2004, 10 mins A METAPHYSICAL EDUCATION Peter Strickland 2004, 3 mins SHAME Tom Geens 2006, 4 mins LADIES IN WAITING Hope Dickson Leach 2005, 7 mins STICKS AND BALLS Alice Lowe / Jacqueline Wright 2007, 4 mins TIGHT JEANS Destiny Ekaragha 2008, 9 mins KIDS MIGHT FLY Alex Taylor 2009, 7 mins MAN ON A MOTORCYCLE John McClean 2009, 12 mins BRADFORD HALIFAX LONDON Francis Lee 2013, 9 mins POLITICAL The Guardian and Headlong Theatre have teamed up to mark the one-year anniversary of the controversial decision to leave the EU, with Brexit Shorts: Dramas From A Divided Nation. A raft of prominent scriptwriters and well-known actors from each region were commissioned to highlight the nation’s growing divisions in their area at a moment of seismic political change. A mix of noteworthy names across screenwriting and acting are involved in the shorts, with scripts and stories from Maxine Peake and Abi Morgan, playwrights David Hare and Gary Owen, and actors including Kristen Scott Thomas, Meera Syal, and Penelope Wilton amongst many others. The screenings will be followed by a panel discussion with Jess Gormley and Noah Payne-Frank from The Guardian, Amy Hodge from Headlong Theatre and a live performance from one of the actors in the films. MUSIC Dawn Shadforth: Spinning Around takes a look at one of the most quietly prolific music video auteurs of the 90s, Dawn Shadforth, who has created visuals for the likes of Kylie Minogue, Björk, Sugababes, and Peaches. A Q&A with Dawn and special guests follows. This year there’s a celebration of 15 years of LSFF and Domino, working together, It’s All Good!, is an evening of music videos, DJs, giveaways and surprises. Domino have created and curated music videos from a wealth of directors since LSFF’s inception, and this event will see the introduction of new visual projects. To celebrate the legacy of of women in British rap and MC-ing, Home Girls: Live sees LSFF team up with contemporary performers who are currently raising the bar in a scene dominated by men. The closing night party will feature a special guest appearance from Hackney-based Paigey Cakey, and special guests TBA, in a homegrown London-centric talent event. Home Girls: From Cookie Crew to Now, takes stock of the representation of female hip-hop artists over the decades, from the swim-suited video vixen to the in control and hyper sexualized. Cookie Crew, Wee Papa Girl Rappers and She Rockers burst onto the scene in the 80s and 90s with a self-defined, powerful onscreen image. A panel discussion with members of the bands, and key industry figures will follow. LGBTQ LGBTQ content this year is led by long time LSFF collaborators New Queer Visions. The first film programme, Don’t Look Back In Anger, looks at the nature of hate and positivity, with touching stories about queer characters dealing with ups, downs, and everything in between. This is accompanied by Medium Rare, a programme of medium length shorts exploring the mixed-up mind of an impressionable young man. In partnership with MUBI, Radical Softness Through A Haptic Lens is a retrospective of the works of Barbara Hammer, feminist filmmaker and one of the pioneers of lesbian film, and Chick Strand, avant-garde documentary filmmaker. The films examine the idea of ‘radical softness’, the power that can be found in in being both abrasively feminine and openly vulnerable, through a soft and kinesthetic style of filmmaking. Following incredibly rare screenings of Superdyke and Soft Fictions, there will be a Skype Q&A with the legendary Barbara Hammer. Also in association with MUBI is Cruelty and Crime, a showcase of the key works of American writer Chris Kraus. From feminist readings of Antonin Artaud to Cold War sleeper agents, via dominatrices and New York City crime scenes, these films are filled with humour, sexuality, abjection, metaphor, allusion, an insatiable curiosity and a Dadaist sense of provocation and absurdity. A collection of 1962 police footage documenting men cruising in a public toilet, was reworked and re-presented by William E Jones as a separate work, Tearoom* in 2007. The experimental video art project shows how surveillance is used as a blunt tool of oppression. The footage shown was eventually used as evidence to prosecute the men of sodomy and public deviancy. Prior to the screening LSFF will also be showcasing Robert Yang’s game The Tearoom, a cruising simulation made in direct response to the film. On release the game ran afoul of the censors and so in a bold piece of satirical provocation Yang replaced all the penises with guns. The game was then successfully passed uncut. Additionally we also welcome filmmaker Sam Ashby, who will present a newly commissioned work in response to Tearoom, and artist Prem Sahib for a post screening discussion of the themes highlighted in the work. *18 - contains scenes of real sexual activity. BAME When director Julie Dash created the groundbreaking Daughters of the Dust in 1991, a multigenerational tale of black women from the Gullah sea islands struggling to hold on to their culture, little did she know that 25 years later her work would be held up on the world stage thanks to one of the music industry’s most influential artists: Beyoncé. Given the subject matter and the detail paid to the cinematography, Dash’s film provided an obvious touchstone to inspire Beyoncé’s vision in Lemonade. 2009’s Taqwacore: The Birth of Punk Islam refers respectively to ‘taqwa’ and ‘core’, a synthesis of an awe-inspiring consciousness of Allah, and a hard-core punk music style, and a fusion of Muslim and American culture. A panel discussion, Muslim Punk and the New Subculture, hosted by filmmaker Hammad Khan asks what happened to Taqwacore, and questions how class, race, and gender are tied to Muslim resistance to Trump and Brexit. Hammad Khan’s Anima State is arguably the most important film to come out of Pakistan in decades. As we approach the 70th anniversary of the country’s independence from British India, it is an uncomfortable, in-your-face examination of the country’s violence, to its apathy, to its refusal to recognize its moral corruption, in every single facet of Pakistani society. Pioneer of Black British cinema Ngozi Onwurah’s body of work weaves autobiographical narrative with astute socio-political observation. As the first Black British woman filmmaker to have a feature film released in UK cinemas we celebrate Ngozi’s legacy with a screening of early works and panel discussion in Ngozi Onwurah: Shorts. A rare 35mm screening of Welcome II The Terrordome will also show at the festival. The House is Black, a screening of the only known film by one of Iran’s greatest 20th century poets Farough Farrokazad, depicts an isolated community of lepers living in Northwestern Iran, and is soundtracked by a reading from the poet herself. There will be a reading of her work, translated into English, and The Oberhausen Archive have kindly donated a 35mm print of the film. CULTURE The festival will open with Adrena Adrena’s Movements of A Nebulous Dawn, supported by Arts Council England. This is a one-off audiovisual collaboration, with a 360-degree nebulous orb defying the conventions of theatrical presentation, as musicians perform in-the-round beneath multiple circular projections created by Daisy Dickinson. An improvised live set will see a constantly changing and evolving set of guest musicians from Faust, Wire, Boredoms and other experimental, electronic and progressive bands.  Julian Hand, who directed the 2018 LSFF trailer, will be projecting psychedelic visuals using coloured liquids and slides. This year’s festival sees a first for LSFF, with a premiere screening exclusively for D/deaf audiences, curated by LSFF’s Deaf Young Programmer Zoe McWhinney. Save The Date, a selection of archive and contemporary short films, brings stories about D/deaf culture and experience to the screen. The screening, at BFI Southbank, will be fully supported by BSL interpreters, and films will include BSL dialogue, and/or subtitles. The Final Girls Present: The Witching Hour is a screening of two of the original 1970s documentaries that showcase the continuing, cultural obsession with witchcraft and the occult. Secret Rites is a pseudo documentary illustrating a series of initiation rites for a novice witch, while The Power of the Witch is a rarely-seen documentary featuring interviews with the King and Queen of the witch craze, Alex and Maxine Sanders. The Final Girls will host a panel discussion following the screenings. An in-conversation event around the works of the cult sci-fi author, JG Ballard: This Is The Way, Step Inside, explores the writer’s 20th century preoccupation with the machine vs. the 21st century obsession with the digital towards an anthropological take on disembodiment, honing in on how Ballard perceives both the body, and the human condition. The panel is made up of filmmakers Jason Wood, Simon Barker and Harley Cokeliss, with Ballard scholar Dr. Jeanette Baxter. Radio Atlas: Risk is an award-winning platform for subtitled audio from around the world. A place to hear inventive documentaries and aural art works that have been made in languages you don't necessarily speak. This intimate event premieres documentaries which explore the thin line between freedom and risk, taking the listener to unexpected places, with a Q&A discussion with Radio Atlas founder Eleanor McDowall. INTERNATIONAL As the international film strand enters its fourth year, a programme of four screenings brings together some of the most unique voices in fiction, documentary and experimental filmmaking. LSFF have shorts from all over the world, with entries from China, Cuba, Slovenia, and Mozambique, to name a fraction. The festival is becoming a key player on the festival circuit when it comes to showing high quality and well-curated international short film. WITH TEETH With Teeth is a bi-annual commissioning award from LSFF, supported by Arts Council England, aimed at embodying LSFF’s core principle of championing contemporary artists moving image works, diverging from more traditional avenues of funding to nurture diverse and unconventional independent short filmmaking. Following the second round of awards from the commissioning fund, the With Teeth Premiere will showcase the works of the three recipients of this year’s grant, Kim Noce, Zoe Aiano, and Tash Tung. Their films use experimental methods, including Your Mothers Are Mine! a projected live animation by Kim Noce observing the complexities of the mother daughter relationship. A multi-screen fiction explores the multiplicities of the image and female domesticity by Tash Tung in Unknown Pleasure. Zoe Aiano presents a wild and delicate documentary of a life spent communicating with the dead, in Imam Pesnu. INDUSTRY EVENTS This year’s industry programme sees experts from across the industry offering their words of wisdom on everything from getting your film funded, to engaging audiences. There’ll be contributions from Channel 4 Random Acts, BBC3, Noisey, and Bechdel Test Fest; Director of VR and New Media at Raindance Mária Rakušanová, will be sharing her expertise in ‘AR You Feeling It?’ and Alexander Karotsch of Fringe! Film Festival will be there to discuss ethical responsibility in ‘Let’s Talk About Sex’. All LSFF 2018 Industry events take place at MOTH Club, which has been turned into the festival’s day time Industry hub. As well as tips on funding, and what commissioners are looking for, the talks and discussions cover everything from driving feminist change in cinema, depicting sex on screen, how to manage the relationship between filmmakers and progammers, and an insight into how new AR technologies are being used to drive stories and emotional responses.

(The UK and European premiere of "Mary Queen Of Scots" will be on Monday, December 10th, 2018 at 'Cineworld Cinema', Leicester Square, London, 7pm). UK release on January 18th, 2019. (Release Info New York City schedule; December 5th, 2018, The Paris Theatre) "Mary Queen Of Scots" A Queen who lost three kingdoms. A wife who lost three husbands. A woman who lost her head. 'Mary Queen Of Scots' (Saoirse Ronan) spends her childhood in France and is meant to become also 'Queen Of France'. However, her ailing husband dies and the young widow returns alone to Scotland, a country devastated by war. Elizabeth I (Margot Robbie) has just become 'Queen Of England', for Mary she's like a twin sister to whom she can open her heart. Mary weds again and gives birth to an heir to the thrown. Her second husband, Lord Darnley (Jack Lowden), proves to be a weakling. When Mary finds the love of her life, 'The Earl Of Bothwell' (Martin Compston), she has Darnley murdered and marries Bothwell. Horrified by this deed and the blind passion that motivated it, both the nobles and the people of Scotland spurn her. To avert a bloody battle, Mary is compelled to give up her beloved Bothwell. In desperate straits, she turns to Elizabeth I for help. In response, 'The Queen Of England' imprisons her. After 19 years spent in a golden cage, Mary finds release at last; Elizabeth I sends her to 'The Block'. From the day she was born, Mary Stuart’s hand in marriage was coveted with such rough wooing that her mother sent the five-year-old 'Queen Of Scotland' to France as the betrothed of Dauphin François (Adrian Lester). Mary and François grew up almost like siblings at 'The Luxurious French Court' and were married when Mary was 15. Elizabeth I was crowned 'Queen Of England' at the same time. Mary reaches out to her cousin Elizabeth I, as if she were a trusted twin sister to whom she can open her heart. And yet, urged on by 'King Henry II Of France' (Kadiff Kirwan), she also lays claim to 'The English Throne'. Shortly there after, upon the death of Henry II, François and Mary become 'King And Queen Of France'. Mary’s reign as 'Queen Of France' comes to an abrupt end after only a year, upon the death of the sickly François at the young age of 16. Having lost her claim to 'The French Throne', 18-year-old Mary decides to return to Scotland. She accepts her fate with courage and determination. Life in Scotland is very different from what she has been accustomed to; the climate is rough and the customs are coarse in a country beset by poverty. In addition, Mary is confronted with the extremely explosive situation of a nation divided between 'Protestants' and 'Catholics'. As a Catholic, she faces the hostility not only of 'The Protestant Leader' John Knox (David Tennant) but also of her brother 'Earl Of Moray' (James McArdle) and she's reviled by her people as an unmarried French whore. She finds consolation and support in the four companions of her childhood, 'The Four Marys', in Rizzio (Ismael Cruz), 'The Puppeteer', who becomes her political confidant and advisor, and in 'The Earl Of Bothwell', the only Scotsman, it seems, to respect her. But Mary is a survivor. The royal blood in her veins lends her the strength to brave her opponents. She wants to unite her people; tolerance is her highest priority. So much so, that she even hazards the blatant hatred of her adversaries. It soon becomes clear that Mary must have a husband. Even Elizabeth I takes action by recommending her own lover, a suggestion indignantly rebuffed by Mary. In fact, having fallen in love with another Englishman, handsome Lord Darnley, she proudly defies Elizabeth I and her brother Moray by rashly deciding to get married. Ambitious, zealously anti-Protestant, refusing to be reined in by 'The Queen', Darnley rapidly proves to be a grave menace to the already precariously balanced relationship between 'Catholics' and 'Protestants'. Whatever faith Mary, now many months pregnant, may still have had in Darnley evaporates when he allies himself with Moray and has her confidant Rizzio brutally murdered before her very eyes. Mary is devastated. Skilfully masking her feelings, she successfully persuades Darnley that she has forgiven him but turns her back on him, the moment she has him under control. With a heavy heart, she entrusts her son to one of 'The Four Marys', to protect him from Darnley’s wayward behaviour. In the meantime, even Moray has become wary of him and warns Mary that he must be kept in line. Learning that Bothwell has been seriously injured, Mary realizes that the word friendship alone no longer applies to her feelings for 'The Loyal Earl'. The inevitability of her love for him sends her spiralling into despair and she too falls ill. She senses that she will pay for her passion with her life. Bothwell and Mary have recovered; they stand face-to-face at long last. Mary succumbs to her feelings; after the first night spent with Bothwell, she throws all precaution to the winds and chooses to remain with him. At the baptism of her child, she's quivering with excitement because Elizabeth I has announced that she will be present. The time has come for the sisters to embrace. They will meet in person for the very first time. But, once again, Mary's hopes are dashed. Elizabeth I has sent a deputy with the gift of a golden baptismal font. Despite her profound disappointment and rage, Mary still feels bound to Elizabeth I by unfathomable ties. Darnley, now suffering from syphilis, does not attend the baptism. In his stead, Bothwell is there at the table next to Mary. Moray and Bothwell make plans to eliminate Darnley. Mary does not get involved but neither does she interfere with their plans. Shortly afterwards, the house in which Darnley is being cared for goes up in flames. Mary, already pregnant with Bothwell's child, struggles to simulate shock and dismay. Only a few weeks pass before she decides to marry Bothwell. Aghast at this deed driven by blind passion, the nobles and the people turn against her. The people demand that she punish Bothwell; even Elizabeth urges her to do so. Mary cannot bring herself to take action against him. Her love for Bothwell is too great; she's too happy with him. Moray abandons her; he and his entourage depart for Italy, far removed from the impending catastrophe of a civil war. Bothwell has recruited an army but it's ranks are daily dwindling. Royal jewellery is melted down to pay the soldiers. On the morning of the battle, the hopelessness of Mary’s situation is patent. Vastly outnumbered by 'The Army Of The Lords', she's asked to surrender and dismiss Bothwell. She has no choice; there's no other way out. She sends Bothwell away. While gazing after him, the blood runs down her between her legs. In utter despair, Mary appeals to Elizabeth I for help. 'The Queen Of England' responds by having her imprisoned, ostensibly for murdering Darnley, but actually in order to eliminate a legitimate contender to 'The English Throne'. After 19 years in a golden cage Mary finds salvation on 'The Block'. Mary's youth in France is important to understand the luxury of the surroundings she grew up in. It shows the contrast to Scotland, the poor, war-torn country that she voluntarily chose to return to, after her first husband died, not because she's homesick but because she's their legitimate 'Queen'. She feels she has the right to marry the man of her choice and to mete out less punishment than called upon by custom. Above all, there so one objective that she pursues with bewildering tenacity, she wants to unite 'The English Crown' and 'Scottish Crown', effectively uniting England with Scotland, 'Catholics' with 'Protestants', and ultimately herself with her cousin Elizabeth I So intensely does Mary embrace this extremely personal idea of unification that she's blinded to political and social realities and incapable of considering the consequences of her actions. The uncompromising pursuit of her inner goals, however, don’t seem to lead to a more fulfilled life or greater freedom. Instead her freedom is increasingly curtailed and she's more and more isolated. Her inner drives prove fatal to her goals. Socially ostracized, ever more lonely, we see Mary in solitude, straying about in empty halls and courtyards. Crazed she gallops across fields, compelled to follow the same path, desperately seeking a way out. The smaller Mary's world becomes in her confinement, the more it revolves only around her. Here, a third stylistic device comes into play; Mary's thoughts, moods and emotions begin to acquire shape through the imaginary presence of her 'counterpart', the absent Elizabeth. Mary interiorizes 'Queen Elizabeth' and makes her part of herself to such an extent that one might even say she has become her alter ego. The letters she writes and never sends to Elizabeth are now soliloquies and the omnipresent portrait of 'The English Queen' in her chambers turn into mirrors. Although the real Elizabeth never accepted any of Mary's repeated invitations to visit Scotland and despite 'The English Queen’s' attempt to bridle Mary by choosing a husband for her, Mary persists in her vision of Elizabeth as a kindred soul, who empathizes with her state of mind. The puppet show, both as a product of Mary's imagination and as a skit staged for the public by her confidant Rizzio, adds an additional insight into Mary’s perception of her relationship with Elizabeth. The puppets are moved by only one puppeteer and are incapable of being anything but enemies. Never does Mary's antagonist react directly, never do we learn whether Mary’s opinion is shared by her English rival. And we realize that the end is inevitable, to Mary being executed makes sense emotionally; there's no other way out. In the final scene, she turns to the camera and addresses words of farewell to her cousin Elizabeth. Mary and Elizabeth relationship is crucial to the film. There's no separate, self-contained Elizabeth in the film; she's essentially part of Mary, almost like her shadow. In that respect she's an inner figure, especially since Mary never saw her. She has only portraits and reports and formal diplomatic relations. Both women suffered an exceptional fate. Elizabeth went directly from prison to 'Queen Of England'. Mary went from 'Queen Of Scots', and briefly 'Queen Of France', to prison. Both have a strong will and a horde of nobles hovering around them and trying to tell them how to rule. Mary is the more old-fashioned queen but the more modern woman; Elizabeth is the manager and unable to bear children. They both knew that there's a woman on the same island, struggling with similar problems. They're related and at the same time rivals since Mary, influenced by her French relatives, has laid claim to the English crown as well. Their relationship is always very ambiguous and Elizabeth is the most important person in Mary's life. The presence of Elizabeth and Mary's longing for her sister’s real presence are vital to the narrative of the film and it’s embodied in the combination of Mary’s inner voice and the puppet shows. You can interpret their relationship classically; two Queens who are very close, who are in conflict and never meet. Her life takes a dramatic turn in a very short time. The film shows the beginning and end of her life. But also psychologically as Mary's inner struggle with her own being and who she's. That's very important, so it's a constant struggle to figure out how to do that without having to retell the whole story. The film focuses on those two dramatic, eventful years in which she falls in love with Darnley and precipitously marries him, witnesses her confidant Rizzio being murdered before her eyes, does nothing about the conspiracy against Darnley and finally marries Bothwell. It's like a volcano, with one explosion after the other, and it's just too much to weave into one storyline. Dramaturgically, therefore, the film treats the events like earthquakes that start out being barely perceptible and then suddenly erupt. Along with Mary, we're suddenly faced with unexpected situations. Having lost everything, including the crown, she can no longer face Elizabeth as an equal in rivalry, so that life has become meaningless. The end of 'Mary Queen Of Scots' once again reveals the extraordinary nature of this historical figure; even in death, she remains true to her inner logic and her own will. "Mary Queen Of Scots" instantly conjures opulent costumes, bloody battles and passionate love affairs. Mary Stuart’s story exerts an enduring fascination. She has been the subject of countless theatrical adaptations; she figures in series that immerse us in the life and times of her age. Her story has been interpreted time and time again; it has been examined from untold perspectives. It tells of a 'Scottish Catholic Queen' who considers herself the rightful 'Queen Of England' and is executed at the age of 42 by 'The Protestant Queen Of England' after years of political intrigue and imprisonment. The contradictory judgements and reactions provoked by the drama of Mary's life in her own time are still the subject of speculation today. Crucial to the film is the inner life of this historical figure. Mary intuitively struck a chord in us as someone we can relate to not in terms of her blue blood but because of her personality. It's not about a specific culture or country. She's a European heroine caught between 'Catholic France' and 'Protestant Scotland'. We're presented with the psychogram of a woman torn by ambivalence and driven by passion, a psychological treatment that reads Mary as a modern figure. The film gives us an intimate insight into a woman who does not conform, who has an iron will and steadfastly refuses to bow to conventions and expectations, a woman who does not yield to social pressure but answers only to herself and her own inner laws. She actively embraces the responsibility entrusted to her as 'Queen', boldly making decisions and taking action in a male-dominated world. With indomitable, emancipatory will, she confronts the powerful lords around her, never doubting the strength of her authority as a woman. Following the advice received from her stepfather, Henry II, in 'The Gardens Of The French Court', she tries not to succumb to her feminine instincts and her friendliness. With her deep, guttural voice, she leaves no doubt about how she perceives her role as 'Queen'. She's not obsessed by power; on the contrary, she's almost naïve and childlike in the unremitting pursuit of her ideals. Mary is neither a saintly heroine motivated by her Catholic faith to do good, nor is she an ambitious Queen obsessed with power. She's shown as an independent spirit, who obeys her own inner drives. Mary Stuart is a woman whose true life experience is compressed into the briefest of moments, for instead of being able to act out an entire life, she said confined to the ardent space of a single passion. Operating on several levels and employing several means, the film concentrates first and foremost on Mary's physical presence. In long takes, we're given time to read and understand the expressions on her face; defiant, stubborn, flushed with emotion, but always intense, open and communicative. We see her wildly galloping through a raw, forbidding landscape, horse and rider fused into one. On another level deserted landscapes suddenly appear, mirroring Mary's state of mind. The camera moves at eye level through foggy, bleak scenery redolent with surrealist symbolism. A single, dirt-spattered horse, the edge of the ocean, convoluted paths through labyrinthine undergrowth and fade-ins of complete blackness echo 'The Queen’s' moods and emotions. The genre hasn't really moved forward in any way over the past 30 years. The film generates a cinematographic feel for the era, which means, for instance, using lots of natural light, light candles or daylight, or gentle camera work with a handheld camera shooting at eye level. A preindustrial narrative style where we watch the characters and rest on their faces just a little bit longer to capture the full effect. We see traits in Mary and that aren't terribly en vogue anymore today. She’s looking for something unconditional. We live in an age where the focus is on getting a return on your investments. That doesn't interest Mary; she throws herself into life with a passion. That's a quality that has been overshadowed in an age of totally connected, postmodern individuals. The archaic nature of being human is important in developing her character. It's not surprising that we hear less about Mary today than about her adversary Elizabeth. Elizabeth is like a modern manager who has sacrificed her personal life for the greater good because of her love of the people. Mary figured prominently in 19th-century literature and music but she has never really come into her own in contemporary cinema. There are a number of TV series about Elizabeth in which Mary plays a supporting part. She represents values that we need to defend because they're fundamental human qualities: profound, unconditional commitment instead of concentrating on the quantifiable results of everything we do.