Search Results

Now to finally review my Number 1 favourite film of all time. There is a reason why Shame is my favourite film and takes my number 1 spot, but I’ll get onto that later.  First a little summary of what the film is about.  We follow Brandon who is a sex addict living in New York. Portrayed by the brilliant Michael Fassbender. The film is a character study into the mind of a sex addict and the effect it has over the person in general. A study shows that sex addiction can have negative impacts on the person it's affecting. Either in social, financial and work life. A sex addicts main thrive is to constantly pleasure and feed there need. Releasing endorphins in the brain. The way this inflicts on there life in general is by the means to fulfil that addiction. Financial wise, they waste their money buying porn and paying for prostitutes. Work wise it can inflict on their job. If they are caught watching or having porn at work it is bordering on being fired. In social life it can impede on their relationships. A sex addict will struggle to maintain a romantic relationship with a partner. Ever needing to feed their desire will strain their relationships.  Now sex addiction on a whole is a very touchy subject to work on. I should know, I wrote and directed a film on the cause and effect of Sex addiction and child abuse. 'Where Demons Hide'.  The research was long and tedious. Finding people who would openly talk about their addictions was very difficult to ascertain. Only by going to AA meetings and talking to therapist did my actor portraying a sex addict find the reality of the addiction.  However my film was set in the UK, I experienced first hand the struggle that the crew of Shamehad in finding the correct source material and research. That's why Shame is based in New York as apposed to the UK. People in New York were more willing to open up and talk openly about their addictions in order for the crew to tell a realistic story and representation of the condition.  Anyway, what has all of this got to do with Shame?  The character of Brandon portrays all of the aspects that the effects of Sex addiction has on you. He watches porn at work and nearly gets caught. However he has such a good relationship with his boss that it's passed off. His boss knows that being with and around Brandon allows him to pick up girls, so he brushes the whole thing under the carpet. Brandon's social life is affected. He tries to start a relationship with a co-worker, but because of his addiction and how he is used to sex with hookers, he can't get little Brandon to work. This doesn’t help his self-esteem over his whole situation either. Above all Brandon's personal life is inflicted. When his sister comes to stay at his flat Brandon has to cope with his addiction conflicting with his chance to have a normal life. His sister coming to stay really kick-starts his desire to rid himself of the addiction. But like with any addiction, the withdrawal is the hardest part. There is a brilliant sequence near to the end of the film titled Unravelling, which really gets into the mind-set of the withdrawal effect and how it messes with your mind, conflicting your thoughts and your actions. Unravelling your life until your unsure of what you must do.  Now I mentioned this was my favourite film. You might find it weird how I can re watch a film about sex addiction over and over again. That's because it's more than a film about sex addiction. It's a character study. It's a film that gets down to the very roots of what makes us human. Why our actions affect others. The what if's. The looming question to what could my life could be like if I just decided to act?  Shame really expresses all of that to its audience. Not just with Brandon, but all the other characters in the film. They have believable traits that relate to Brandon's state of mind. His sister is the part of Brandon that want's to break free and have a normal life. His boss is the part that want's him to continue and indulge in his desire. Even the city of New York feels like a character in this film. It feels alive.  If you notice when watching Shame there is a sense of power to the locations that Brandon is portrayed in. His apartment, his work place, the hotel room he hires and the restaurant where his sister sings. They’re all high up above the city. What this suggests to me is a metaphor of how the addiction affects Brandon. A feeling of Highness. The addiction makes him feel high and feel in power. By being positioned high above the city this gives that power of being above other people. It's where he feels in control. However when he is below on the streets this is where he is less in control. On the subway where we start the film, he see's a woman on the train and tries to follow her and ends up loosing her. He runs along the streets in order to vent off his addiction. Most of the Unravelling sequence takes place at street level. And above all he breaks down emotionally at the docks. The street level is where the addiction is not in his control. New York feels alive because of this very reason.  The cinematography is beautiful. Steve McQueen is an artist. And Sean Bobbitt really expresses this art style. By having shots linger and hold on situations and characters really draws you into their state of mind and brings reality and realism to the scene. It makes you more immersed in what is going on and makes you connect more with what you are viewing. The way Steve McQueen and Sean Bobbitt chose to portray New York was a brilliant decision. Actually going out and identify what colours New York actually holds and expresses really helped bring the city to life. By far one of my favourite pieces of the film is the Soundtrack. There are only 3 pieces of scored music by Harry Escott. Tracks titled "Brandon", "Unravelling" and "End Credits" These pieces of music are so powerful they really help convey the essence and the message of what the film is about. The choice to use the Goldberg Variations by Glenn Gould was also a fantastic choice. Having classic music as powerful as that really helps express Brandon's state of mind. And let us not forget Carey Mulligan's brilliant and moving performance of Frank Sinatra's 'New York, New York'. Now in my mind I would say that this film is a cinematic masterpiece along side Mr. Nobody. However that's solely my opinion. My preferred films are Drama and films that focus on character study. This may not be the film for you. It's defiantly not one to watch with you parents. But it is a film that has heart and above all has a message. A message that is not to fear the unknown. If you have an addiction that is affecting your life, don't shut people out. Let them help you fight it. Because of that message, this is why Shame is my favourite film.

After having hearing only the good stuff about the fan film with Nathan Fillion, known as the actor born to play Nathan Drake of the 'UNCHARTED' game series, I had finally come to submit to my own curiosity. The film is 14 min long, and features Nathan Fillion of 'Firefly' and 'Castle' fame (his immense popularity within fandom-community not withstanding) takes on a well fitted role of Nathan Drake, a known explorer, historian and thief in style of Indiana Jones, but funnier. Nathan, along with his long time partner in crime, Sully, are once again on a hunt for yet another sea-fairer treasure - with Drake once again finding himself captured by an opposing side, needing to get out of the situation with secrets and himself in tact. Right off the bat I can say that the production value, is very much in tact. Yes, you can see hole in the budget - the security guards are remarkable in their non existent acting and every now and then the set is a bit bare - and yes, the secondary roles are incredibly stiff in their delivery. However, the editing is crisp. It is Clear. It is artistic and yet not painful, for example character reveal of Drake is both typical but not obnoxious. I did not feel like shouting "I know whom he is!", as I usually do with these type of cuts. When the sets do have significant to the story, they are well lived in and have good attention to detail, as far as props are concerned. The one action scene (a staple of the games) is done both in the spirit of the games but in Drake himself. Nathan Fillion, true to form, does a great job filling the shoes of Drake as the character, as well as North Nolan, the actor voicing him in the Naughty Dog series. Steven Lang off 'Avatar' and 'Don't Breath' is both character accurate in bringing Sully into live action, yet spicing him with his own on-screen charisma. The same cannot, I repeat CANNOT be said for the secondary characters! The secondary acting painful to sit through, and the corresponding info-dump is not helping the situation. At all. Except for El Tigre. El Tigre is awesome. But, in full seriousness unless you are an actor yourself, I don't know weather you would notice in the first place. Let me know, because I honestly don't have a clue. Finally, my evaluation of the motion picture: The film is well maid, well edited and well shot. The principal actors are delivering their characters and their line delivery, the action is well done (considering the budget) and the throwback to the game play is well welcomed. Also, it's for free on YouTube. I'd say it is well worth 14 minutes of you life. Especially if you love 'UNCHARTED', or Nathan Fillion. Final verdict: watch it, it's for free. UNCHARTED - Live Action Fan Film (2018) Nathan Fillion You can fins this on: YouTube

Rating: 4.5 out of 5 Song of the Sea is by far one of the most beautiful films I've ever seen. It holds emotion in its backgrounds and wonderful colours. Most have never seen animation like it. Song of the Sea holds an element of wonder combined with sadness. It shows both the loss and gain of hope within a character's facial expressions. For example, when Saorise (one of the main protagonists, the selkie) falls ill - they manage to include lines, implying that she's tired. The way this is animated can suggest this is for children, including that the protagonists are only six and (roughly) ten or eleven, but it is not a children's film. The film battles with issues that most children would not be able to comprehend. Added to the Irish folklore, it's overwhelming. The film forces you to pay attention, just so you understand what is going on. It shows us what is beyond our imaginations. Some even suggest research before you watch it, which is a valid point to make. Characters have their own muse, with the father (Conor, voiced by Brendan Gleeson) having sadness, Saorise (voiced by Lucy O'Connell) has a muse of temptation. She struggles to hold back from the ocean, she finds it difficult to stay by her brother; forcing him to tie her by a leash. Ben (voiced by David Rawle) has an ongoing theme of envy, jealous, for his sister. Feeling as if she's praised more, being spiteful towards her for a long duration of the 93 minutes. Furthermore, the emotion. It can sometimes be difficult to convey such feelings within a voice and a drawing. There is a certain scene where Conor is in a pub, drinking a Guinness (adding to the ongoing Irish theme), and you can see his inner torment. Not necessarily from himself but from the lighting of the pub. It's dark, golden light reflecting off some places but not massively. It's dark enough to tell us that he's grieving, black lights connoting it heavily. Saorise is mute. She can't speak. All of her emotion, sickness, is conveyed through her face. For an animator especially, it's difficult to show how she feels within a scene. The storyline relies completely on her. Song of the Sea is execellent in showing her joy when she's swimming with the seals. Her eyes hold wonder and hope within them, it's incredibly clever. Ben, however, speaks as much as he can. Coming across as incredibly spiteful towards a lot of people, seeming very irritating. We learn that Ben is extremely envious of his sister, feeling as if she's more than he is. On her birthday, he's extremely rude towards Saorise and his grandma. The grandma, in fairness, isn't too nice herself. There is one thing that kept me from giving this a full five stars. Song of the Sea has plenty of unexplained plot-holes. At the end, the people and I who watched it had mountains of questions we wanted to be answered. For those with little to no explanation of Irish folklore, we don't understand how or why their mother leaves and why Saorise falls extremely sick. Overall, Song of the Sea is a brilliant watch. It's exceptional at showing the struggles of, even after six years, a grieving family and unexplained disappearances of their mother. For those who have expereinced losing a parent, not even from death, it shows the upset and gives a soft, delicate, punch to the heart. It is certainly not a children's film. It holds issues close that today's kids would not grasp. With visual aspects conveying emotion greatly, Song of the Sea smashes your expectations of thinking it's an animated children's film. It tackles myths and real issues in a way animation has only done a few times.

(Release Info London schedule; December 23rd, 2019, Hackney Picturehouse, 270 Mare St, London E8 1HE, United Kingdom, 20:30) https://www.picturehouses.com/movie-details/000/HO00010390/ip-man-4-the-finale-plus-q-a "IP MAN 4" Mixed martial arts superstar 'Ip Man' (Donnie Yen) is back for the final installment of 'The Ip Man Universe Franchise' in "Ip Man 4: The Finale". 'Ip Man' reprises his role as the legendary 'Wing Chun' master in the grand finale of the revolutionary martial arts series. Following the death of his wife, 'Ip Man' travels to San Francisco to ease tensions between the local 'Kung Fu' masters and his star student, Bruce Lee (Danny Chan), while searching for a better future for his son Ming (Jim Liu). From the action visionary behind "Kill Bill" and "The Matrix", witness the heroic sendoff to the saga that inspired a new wave of martial arts movie fans. Donnie Yen ignites the screen in a return to his iconic role of 'Ip Man', the real-life 'Wing Chun Kung Fu Master' who mentored Bruce Lee. A kind father, a gentle and caring husband, a just and involved citizen. 'Wing Chung' legend 'Ip Man' is a brave and righteous national hero and martial arts master who has impacted an entire generation. A 'Grandmaster Of Wing Chun' from 'Foshan', 'Ip Man' spent his heydays in Hong Kong. He survived 'The Japanese' invasion of China and endured the injustice of colonial Hong Kong but still managed to defend Chinese dignity through martial arts. Not only is he a highly respected martial artist but also a family man devoted to his wife and children. After his wife’s death, he and his son gradually grew apart. While looking for a school in America for his son, he encounters racial discrimination. The injustice faced by overseas Chinese prompted him to take on the responsibility of a martial artist once again. A 'Tai-Chi' expert who emigrated to San Francisco with his father as a young man, Wan Zong Hua (Wu Yue) has started a new life abroad and has put up with years of racial discrimination and injustice. He set up 'The CCBA' in Chinatown to unite and help fellow overseas Chinese. But when Bruce Lee defies the rules of Chinatown and starts teaching martial arts to foreigners, enmity developed between Wan Zong Hua and 'Ip Man'. The grandmasters also failed to see eye to eye on the issue of national spirit. When 'The U.S.' Immigration gives him undue trouble, he decides to fight back. Deeply influenced and inspired by 'Ip Man', Bruce Lee is an arrogant and gifted boy, a practitioner pursuing perfectionism and a rising star. In addition to 'Wing Chun', he also practiced other martial arts styles and is actively promoting Chinese martial arts. He invites 'Ip Man' to watch him perform at 'The International Karate Championship' in America. He starts teaching martial arts to foreigners and published manuals on Chinese martial arts in English. In doing so, he offenders 'The CCBA' but he receives endorsement from 'Ip Man' regarding his martial arts philosophy. The film uses 'CG' techniques to revive Bruce Lee on the big screen. All rights are generally divided between his surviving brother, Robert Lee, for the work Bruce Lee completed before his marriage; and the late Linda Lee Cadwell, Bruce Lee’s widow, for the work that Bruce Lee completed after his marriage. Bruce Lee remains to be 'Master Ip Man’s' most accomplished disciple, and the film presents the best visual representation of Bruce Lee for this installment of 'The Ip Man' films. Hartman Wu (Van Ness) is a 'Chinese-American' officer of 'The U.S. Marine Corps'. He takes an interest in Chinese martial arts after reading Bruce Lee’s book. He becomes Bruce Lee’s protégé and wants to incorporate Chinese martial arts into the hand combat training of 'The Marine Corps'. But his white supremacist commanding officer Barton Geddes (Scott Adkins) is repulsed by the idea and caused a series of conflicts between east and west cultures. He arranges for 'Ip Man' to fight Barton to prove that different cultures have their own merits. As hand combat instructor of 'The U.S. Marine Corps', Barton is a white supremacist who subscribes to 'American Imperialism'. He vehemently stopps Hartman from bringing Chinese martial arts into 'The Corps' and orders Collins to defeat the representatives of different martial arts sects and mercilessly beat up Wan Zong Hua as a manifestation of white supremacy. When he personally takes on 'Ip Man', he finally got a taste of his own medicine. Outsourced 'Karate' instructor for 'The U.S. Marine Corps', Collins Frater (Chtis Collins) is a firm believer that karate is invincible and sneers at Chinese martial arts. On Barton’s order, Collins shows up in 'Chinatown' on 'Mid-Autumn Festival' and defeats the representatives of different sects. He’s ultimately defeated by 'Ip Man'. Practiced by 'Ip Man' in the film and in real life, 'Wing Chun' is initially derided as only being suitable for girls. They change their tune quickly, however, after seeing the ferociousness with which 'Ip Man' effortlessly defeats opponents. Accounts on the origin of 'Wing Chun' differ, but the most common version names southern 'Shaolin' nun 'Ng Mui' as it's founder. While visiting 'Foshan' in 'Guangdong' in the late 'Qing Dynasty', 'Ng Mui' came across 'Yim Wing-Chun', the beautiful daughter of a tofu vender who was often harassed by local gangsters. To help her defend herself, 'Ng Mui' then taught her select moves that were suitable for girls. Being a talented learner, 'Yim Wing-Chun' soon gained a grasp on the essence of the moves. She developed a series of moves for practice and named them 'Wing Chun'. Developed as a method of self-defense for women, 'Wing Chun' is a practical school of boxing characterized by it's tall and narrow stance, relaxed softness, and directness of action in contrast with the low and wide stance and high-impact moves of other schools. Toward the end of the reign of 'Emperor Jiaquin', 'Master Yim' married 'Leung Bok-Sau' and taught him all she had learned. Leung eventually taught 'Wing Chun' to 'Wong Wah-Bo' and 'Leung Yi-Tai' on a boat in exchange for the manual of the six and a half point pole, which has since become an essential weapon used by 'Wing Chun' practitioners. 'Wong Wah-Bo' passed his 'Wing Chun' skills to 'Leung Chun', a respected local doctor with a very good reputation, extensive social network, and a passion for martial arts. Despite his wide exposure in martial arts, he was hardly satisfied with his skills until he learned 'Wing Chun' from 'Wong'. Recognizing the superb tactics and mastery of power and stance in 'Wing Chun', 'Leung' put his heart into it and mastered 'The Siu Nim Tau', 'Chum Kiu' ('Seeking Bridge') and 'Bil Jee' ('Darting Fingers') forms, as well as wooden dummy boxing, the six and a half point pole, and eight slashing knives. He also put 'Wing Chun' to practical use and gave local bullies and gangsters a hard time. 'Wing Chun' became well-known in 'Lingnan' as a result, while 'Leung' acquired fame as 'The King Of Wing Chun'. However, being a philanthropist, 'Leung' spent most of his time on his medical practice instead of 'Wing Chun' teaching, and only 'Chan' and 'Leung Bik' learned 'Wing Chun' from him. Although the legend was known by many, it was only practiced by a few and was therefore regarded as a mystery. Living in 'Chan' village in 'Foshan', 'Chan Wah-Shun' worked as a money changer in his youth and was known as 'Money Changer Wah'. He frequently visited Leung’s clinic for work and eventually became 'Leung’s' pupil and learned the essence of his art. After the death of 'Leung', more and more people approached 'Wah' for guidance on 'Wing Chun'. 'Wah' then quit his work as a money changer and concentrated on 'Wing Chun' teaching. He was the first 'Wing Chun Master' to establish his own wushu school. Apart from boxing sequences and individual moves, 'Chi Sau' ('hand-sticking') is another important element of 'Wing Chun' that requires extensive training to master. One-on-one coaching is required and 'Wah' was obliged to keep only a few pupils and charge expensive rates. Therefore, most of his pupils were boys from rich families and 'Wing Chun' acquired a reputation as boxing for rich boys. Among 'Wah's' pupils were 'Ng Chung-Sok', 'Ho Hon-Lui', 'Lui Yu-Chai', his own son 'Chan Yu-Gum', and 'Ip Man', his last pupil, who would eventually turn 'Wing Chun' into one of the most popular Chinese martial arts. 'Ip' joined 'Wah’s' wushu school at the age of seven. Then an old man, 'Wah' was very fond of the boy and taught him with great devotion. After the death of 'Wah', 'Ng Chung-Sok', his first pupil, took very good care of 'Ip' and continued to guide him in his practice. After three years of hard work, 'Ip' had learned the essence of 'Wah's' skills. Relocating to Hong Kong to pursue his studies, 'Ip', then 16 years old, met 'Leung Bik', the second son of 'Leung Chun'. 'Ip' then studied under 'Leung Bik' for three years. It proved a great opportunity for him, and Ip saw great advancement in his skills. Upon his return to 'Foshan', 'Ip' supported the cause of justice with his expertise in martial arts and once again brought great fame to the art of 'Wing Chun'. However, with the invasion of 'The Japanese', 'Ip' fled with his family and did not have a chance to teach. After 'The Sino-Japanese War', 'Ip' revisited Hong Kong and settled down to teach 'Wing Chun'. After painstaking scouting, he found a teaching job at a restaurant employees union on 'Tai Nam' street in 'Sham Shui Po' with the recommendation of his friend 'Li Man', and took up a career in teaching. Well-educated in western science and reason, 'Ip' taught 'Wing Chun' in a scientific manner, stressing the importance of logic, line, and angle of attack, control of force, and psychology, among other things. He also abandoned the traditional way of teaching and encouraged learners to look further than specific moves and instead try to grasp the essence, and strike as their hearts pleased. Ip taught differently according to the abilities of each pupil, ensuring each of them learned efficiently and developed their own talents. The art of 'Wing Chun' flourished with 'Ip’s' new way of teaching. Unlike many other teachers, 'Ip' encouraged his pupils to engage in combat with outsiders in order to understand their own weaknesses. This helped spread the name of 'Wing Chun' throughout the city and attracted many talented young people to 'Ip’s' school. The late kung fu superstar, Bruce Lee, who introduced Chinese martial arts to the world, was one of them. 'Ip' spent a lifetime teaching 'Wing Chun' and many of his pupils enjoyed great success, gaining enormous fame for the art of 'Wing Chun' in Hong Kong, Taiwan, and 'Southeast Asia'. With his invaluable contribution to the development of 'Wing Chun', 'Ip" came to be regarded as one of the greatest masters by 'Wing Chun' practitioners. From a method of self-defense for women, 'Wing Chun' developed into a powerful practical combat martial art over several decades, and from it's origin in 'Foshan', it has established fame and a keen following in different corners of the world. Highly regarded around the world, it's now the most popular form of 'Chinese Wushu' among foreigners. There's an agreed account on it's origin and development; founded by 'Yim Wing-Chun', the art took roots in the hands of 'Leung Chun' and blossomed under 'Ip Man'.

The phrase “refusing to refuse to look” comes from a study done by Brigid Cherry in 1999 that debunks a theory put forward by Linda Williams in the ‘70s that says that women refuse to look at the screen because of the horrific sight that horror movies provide. Williams wasn’t completely wrong when she said women didn’t like looking at their own victimisation and over sexualisation on screen, but that doesn’t mean that we need “to hide in our boyfriends’ shoulders” – as she claimed -, or that we can’t stand to look at gore and violence. The horror genre has always been controversial, and its duality comes from the fact that horror texts can be used in different ways. Whilst in the ‘70s and ‘80s horror was used to secure traditional roles within society and to warn teenagers of the dangers of sex and drugs, by killing off those characters who would indulge in one of those two, by a machete, a hook, a butcher knife, a trident, whatever was the killer’s weapon of choice; now, the horror genre is being used (once more) to shine a light on social issues, such as racism, mental health, and sexual freedom. To confuse a bit further, the role of women in horror presents an even more problematic perspective. Again, during the ‘70s and ‘80s female characters were represented as one dimensional characters that had to endure rape in never-ending scenes (I Spit on Your Grave, I’m talking to you) and overly horrific and unnecessarily nude death scenes, but now they are finally gaining their due respect. In the last years, the horror genre has become the only genre to treat women and men as equals – the amount of horror films with a female leading character is superior to any other genre. Women went from victims to survivors to protagonists and one of the main reasons for that evolution might be because of the chunk of attention given to the genre. With the rise of feminism and sexual revolution in the ‘70s, women started to look at films and look at the way they were being represented in the narratives, and thus the Feminist Film Studies was created, aimed solely in studying the place of women in films, both behind and in front of the camera. And due to the strong attention given to horror genre by academics, it didn’t take long for the genre to gain focus by the feminist film theorists. Feminist Film Studies was divided in two main paths – those films that were analysed by a feminist lens, and those that were made by women. With the attention centred in the role of female characters on screen, theorists begun to realise that the female characters weren’t really that important for the narrative as they didn’t drive the storyline forwards, instead they followed the male character who in turn, was the one to give meaning to the story. Female characters had one purpose: to be looked at. They were prizes for the male hero, they were the dames in distress who waited for her rescuer, and they were the ones who needed to be straightened (literally) after being corrupted by the lesbian vampire. Even the death scenes were different amongst female and male characters – the male characters would usually die with one blow or their death would occur off screen, whereas the female characters would have a longer death scene, with multiple stabbings, often in their naked and bloody bodies. With the conception of the Final Girl, the role of the female character started to gain recognition, and because the Final Girl would be the one in the end to resist all of the killer’s attempts in killing her, it became understood that she was strong and resourceful. But then the duality strikes again and the idea that the Final Girl reinforced the concept of “good girl lives, bad girl dies” was put forward. By analysing the reasons behind the survival of the Final Girl – the only one who didn’t have sex or didn’t use drugs – and how she survived – after a lot of screaming and the help of a male rescuer – the idea of the Final Girl became, like everything in the horror genre, hazy. Nevertheless, the recognition of the Final Girl’s recurring trope in horror films is important to understand the history of female characters in horror films, and with time, it helped to turn the genre on its head, by reappropriating the term as a feminist one. Scream was one of the first films to subvert horror tropes and create strong female characters that, above all, are human - three dimensional and flawed. The female characters in Scream are different in every sense: there’s the Final Girl who is strong and fights with the killer, many times killing them (becoming a slasher film to give the importance to its characters who survive each instalment, instead of having always the same killer and different victims); there’s the fame-seeking Journalist; the killers, the best friend, the sexy one, the nerd, but whichever their characteristic is they are never there for the sole purpose of being killed. They matter – they are lovable in their own screwed up way, they are defiant, which means that even though they die, it is not without a fight. After Scream, horror films have been challenging and changing themselves, but more recently, a film that shuts down the “sex=death” trope is It Follows that, with a female protagonist, provides a simple answer to survival: to have sex with as many people as possible. As important as it is to have the role of the female characters evolved, the growing presence of women behind the camera is helping to shape the genre. Women are writing themselves and they are creating believable characters, lovable and hated ones. They are showing that there isn’t one way to portray women because there isn’t one WOMAN, there are multiple identities and each needs to be recognised in cinema. Female filmmakers have long complained about the lack of role model for girls in horror films, throughout the years women have been silenced in film but now they are shattering the walls they were put into and breaking them alongside box office records (within and outside the horror genre). But the amazing thing about horror is that it allows filmmakers to create the unimaginable, and with that freedom comes endless possibilities for female characters. Women filmmakers are creating stories that are well known to girls, they are writing their own fears and giving a voice to expose the dangers of patriarchy and oppression, and they are also breaking taboos generally associated with girls, such as violence, pregnancy, open sexuality and professional/personal agency. To valid these advances, the films are being praised by critics and audiences, they are winning awards and ranking in “top films” lists. This is not a surprise because women have been fans of the genre since its beginning, and they are horror enthusiasts, thus they are familiar with the tropes of the genre. And therefore, by knowing what works and what doesn’t and by re-evaluating their place in the genre, they are able to create relevant films. In addition to the filmmakers and the characters, the fans should get their own appreciation since because of them and their hunger for new stories, festivals aimed at women filmmakers, as well as a whole month focused on women in horror are being created and allowing filmmakers to grow and explore more and more. A list of (some) filmmakers who have ventured or are venturing in the horror genre, and deserve recognition: Julia Ducournau, Kerry Anne Mullaney, Tara Subkoff, Ana Lily Amirpour, Doris Wishman, Jen and Sylvia Soska, Mary Harron, Katie Aselton, Jennifer Lynch, Kimberly Pierce, Sarah Adina Smith, Alice Lowe, Leigh Janiak, Karyn, Xan Cassavetes, Lynne Stopkewich, Stewart Thorndike, Marina Sargenti, Jennifer Kent, Kathryn Bigelow, Mary Lambert, Jovanka Vuckovic, Laura Lau, Amy Holden Jones, Claire Denis, Ursula Dabrowsky, Ann Turner, Tracey Moffatt, Donna McRae, Elisabeth Fies, Emily DiPrimio, Danielle Harris, Jackie Kong, Emily Hagins, Ingrid Jungermann, Anna Biller, Axelle Carolyn, Ruth Platt, Kate Shenton, Rachel Talalay, Shimako Satō, Stephanie Rothman, Katt Shea, St. Vincent, and Roxanne Benjamin.

(Curzon Home Cinema, Available 24 September) "Gagarine" Youri (Alséni Bathily), 16, has lived all his life in 'Gagarine Cité', a vast red brick housing project on the outskirts of 'Paris'. From the heights of his apartment, he dreams of becoming an astronaut. But the plans to demolish his community’s home are leaked, Youri joins the resistance. With his friends Diana (Lyna Khoudri) and Houssam (Jamil McCraven), he embarks on a mission to save 'Gagarine', transforming the estate into his own starship; before it disappears into space forever. The huge, red-brick 'Cité Gagarine' housing project, boasting 370 apartments, was built in the early sixties in 'Ivry-sur-Seine', one of the communist municipalities that formed a red belt around 'Paris'. At the time, highrise buildings were shooting up in order to clear the slums on the outskirts of 'The French Capital'. In June 1963, Yuri Gagarin, the first man in space, came to inaugurate 'The Cité' that bore his name. Within decades, however, these collective utopias had become neighborhoods that were often stigmatized and slated for sweeping urban renovation. In 2014, the decision was made to demolish 'Cité Gagarine'. The inhabitants were gradually rehoused, leaving 'Cité Gagarine' as an empty shell. The families left, taking their stories of lives of toil, migration, hope and disappointment with them. On August 31, 2019, the demolition machines moved in, watched by the former inhabitants. The film was shot on the cusp of the actual demolition of 'The Cité Gagarine' housing project in collaboration with it's residents in 'Ivry-sur-Seine'. One day Yuri Gagarin came to inaugurate the project in the sixties. A completely surrealist scene, with the first man in space returning from his mission and winding up in a housing project on the outskirts of Paris. You see the new inhabitants eyes, their outsize hopes of this place and this man. The cosmonaut and the building are symbols of hope and progress. That footage opens the film. The film.wants Youri to be impregnated by that, steeped in that heroic past, so that his space dream is born out of his home. Symbolically, the building is his mother’s belly, which he refuses to leave. It feels like there are two main characters in the film; a teenager and a building. Youri, the teen, and 'Gagarine', the building, are in a non-stop dialogue with one another. His parents Gérard (Denis Lavant) and Marie (Meta Mutela) moving into the housing project before his birth. Youri was raised there and developed an imagination the equal of the massive highrise. The prospect of it's disappearance means, for him, the death of his childhood memories and dreams. It also means losing his beloved community. The film gives a positive vision of a place and generation that are often caricatured. Youri loves his neighborhood. For him, 'Gagarine Cité' is not an outdated utopia, it’s his present, and the soil of his future. Leaving means losing everything: abandoning his family and his imaginary world. So he takes up resistance to alter the perception of the place and people, it’s as if you chose duality. Everything about Youri has another side, loner but always connected to people, attached to the past, but steeped in hyper-modernity. Youri is balanced. Roots in the housing project, but head in the stars, constantly navigating between dream and reality, between the place’s past and present. Like when a love affair comes to an end, as the prospect of demolition loomed ahead, there's a spurt of activity throughout the project. The film witnesses the inhabitants unfurling their wings. We discover a deep-rooted sense of community that the film infuses into the protagonist. It’s Youri’s family, it’s Houssam, his best friend, it’s Fari (Farida Rahouadj), a neighborhood activist who looks out for tenants around her, and it’s lots of people from one window to the next, who are connected, and whose lives echo up to Youri on the roof through the chimneys. He's full of very restrained love for them. What Youri is experiencing is tough. He symbolizes excluded youth, hurt by that abandonment, and withdrawing in on itself. Part of Youri’s struggle with growing up comes from his circumstances sapping his confidence. Youri sees his home as a spaceship. It's not.too sterile or clinical, but alive, grimy, and organic, because Youri builds the capsule with found objects. He goes through deserted apartments, collecting things the tenants left behind, anything that might come in handy. Each object is repurposed to become part of the capsule. It’s riffing on this idea of Youri walking a high wire between celestial bum and astronaut. Once again, life informed art. Despite the building’s scheduled demise, he tries to keep it alive at all costs. When he gives up, other forms of life step up. In the capsule, there are all kinds of plants. The vegetable world takes over. Through them, the visual and aural universe evolves into something more aquatic. A lot of noise disappears, replaced by sounds that are transformed, becoming increasingly strange until they disappear. Sound does not travel in space. The idea is to follow a trajectory that starts with roiling reality and moves toward silence. Telling a story of life up to the ultimate moment of Youri’s ejection from his building into the cosmos. There, in the vacuum, there's no sound. Symbolically, a journey in sound from life to death. Youri is a loner but not alone. Women play an important role in the film, and a very different role than the one usually accorded them. Through them, Youri accesses technology. The example of Diana springs to mind. Like Youri, Diana wants to understand how things work. That guides her. Compared to him, however, she has a very practical and concrete vision of things. She’s a mechanic. She can fix anything. The character of Diana comes out of something that struck us very forcefully. At the foot of 'The Gagarine Tower' blocks, there are Roma camps stretching out. Vertical and horizontal planes that never intersected. There are no points of crossover between those two worlds. The film witnesses an encounter between two people from those two places. Two characters rejected by society, who nonetheless affirm themselves by fabricating their own world and their own tools. 'Gagarine Cité' has now been demolished. It exists only in the film. The film is also a tool of remembrance, bearing witness to the architectural vision of the period, and above all to the people who brought the place alive. They're everywhere in the film, in visual and sound archives, on screen and behind the camera. The film shows that the building is important but in the end what’s left is the people. Their relationship to the place endures whatever happens. That’s what the film.captures and convey. Holding out a mirror that reflects the beauty and complexity of those lives. Politically, it’s urgent to revisit how people see this bountiful and diverse younger generation, which is often portrayed with negative images, as having no future. Those clichés do a lot of damage. They must be torn down! Grandparents, their children and grandchildren; three generations and multiple views on life and a single location. When you demolish a place, you destroy family histories. Magical realism is everywhere in France. The tempo of the directing is driven by that balance between realism and oneirism. The magical dimension allows the film to approach reality and it's violence from another angle. Introducing a form of magical realism facilitated the creation of a back-and-forth between the real and the imaginary, and navigation between the collapse of the character and the building and zero-gravity. We believe in the power of images to sway people’s visions of themselves. It’s what opens up imaginations.

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.

/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