& London Film Festival Preview

Drugs On ScreenJeremy Teicher Interview

ContentsOctober 2012

September Features

Page 4: Another Day In Paradise: Drugs on Film

Page 9: Weapon Of Choice

Page 12: London Film Festival Preview

Page 15: Jeremy Teicher

Reviews Section

Page 21: The Campaign

Page 22: Untouchable

Page 23: Lawless

Page 24: Looper

Page 25: Paranorman

Page 26: DreddRegulars

Page 3: Editor’s Note and Contributors

Page 27: Things To See

Contributors Editor’s NoteWelcome Back to PictureShow Magazine

PictureShow Magazine is entering a new era, as we gain new writers and our regu-lar writers become more confident we are

creating more interesting and better articles each month. This month’s article Another Day In Paradise takes a less reactive and

more contemplative look at Drugs in Cinema.

Throughout October we will have repre-sentatives at London Film Festival, by far the most ambitious thing we’ve ever at-

tempted. If you’re around and see us look-ing young, naive and very excited then do say ‘Hi!’ We have created our top ten of

the fest for you on p12.

We’ve interviewed Jeremy Teicher, direc-tor of Tall As The Baobab Tree who will be coming to the UK soon to introduce his film at the festival. Find the interview on p15.

Joshua HammondEditor-in-Chief

EditorsJoshua Hammond: Editor-in-Chief

joshua@pictureshow-magazine.comDale Pearson: Editor

dale@ pictureshow-magazine.com

WordsJoshua Hammond

Cal HudsonBen Ostell

Dale PearsonJosh Sutherland

Owen Seth

OnlineFind us at

pictureshow-magazine.com

Like us on facebook

Follow us@PictureShowMag

ANOTHER DAY IN PA RADISE

Does drug portrayal in cinema keep us under the influence?

CAL HUDSON

Often featured in the British Board of Film Classifications warnings regarding films, drug use, substance abuse and hard drug use is a key motif in many of the films we play to see today. But why the warnings? What is this propaganda that filmmakers are subjecting us to? Are the BBFC afraid that direc-tors are trying to entice us into the good life of sex, drugs and rock ‘n’ roll (who isn’t jealous of Johnny Depp and Benicio Del Toro in Fear and Loathing in Las Vegas)? Or is it a warning: steering us clear of the dangers of narcotics in much more subtle and enjoyable way than those high school government information videos ever could? Let’s have a think. However, in looking into the way drugs are used within films, we’ll try to steer clear of the obvious. I promise there’ll be no “having watched Trainspotting closely, I don’t think that Danny Boyle liked heroin addiction too much” or even “Requiem for a Dream tells us that if you don’t want to lose an arm, don’t do drugs” (can Jared Leto even survive a film intact?). But no promises. The two faces of drug use: recreational and pharmaceutical shouldn’t be forgotten (or confused), but are both considered in-discriminately here.

DYSTOPIAWhere better to start than with the master of open-ings himself: Stanley Kubrick. That vertiginous aerial tracking shot en route to the Overlook Hotel which opens The Shining, the clinically impersonal head shaving which pre-empts the rest of Full Metal Jacket, and Humbert Humbert’s wistfully obsessive monologue regarding his favourite ‘nymphet’ in Lolita. Setting the scene was clearly important to the late Kubrick, and was not a venture to be entered into lightly. Which is why it is so surprising that although drugs are not an important theme- or indeed even a theme at all- in A Clockwork Orange, the idea of recreational narcotics is prevalent throughout Alex DeLarge’s introduction. In the oppressive, futuristic setting of the Korova milk bar, surrounded by his droogs, Alex introduces us to his favourite drinks: moloko plus vellocet, (velocity, synonymous with speed?), synthemesc (synthetic mescaline), and drenchrom (adrenochrome). He then tells us that “this would sharpen you up and make you ready for a bit of the old ultraviolence”. This intrinsic link between drug-taking and violence- used only a couple of minutes into the start of the film-

is both quite revealing as to the attitudes of 1970s Britain regarding drug taking; and an interesting mechanism used to further alienate the audience from the character of Alex. DeLarger than life, in a not too distant but far from familiar future, fuelled by drugs and bent on vicious beatings and rape (certainly not somebody to take home to your Moth-er): this is a narcotic using youth in an Orwellian nightmare. This link between futuristic dystopian set-ting and freely available recreational drugs is very reminiscent of the writer experimental drug user Aldous Huxley. In his seminal novel Brave New World (referenced heavily throughout Demoli-tion Man), the use of the fictional drug soma is encouraged: to relax and pacify the population, and allow individuals escape from the drudgery of everyday life. And although this is quite different from its purpose of creating fear and alienation in A Clockwork Orange, the idea of the futurescape being so casually laden with readily available recreational narcotics is quite similar. It is worth noting that Huxley himself explored hallucino-genic drugs (and even described and analysed his experiences in Doors of Perception; a book- well worth a read- which lent its title to a certain band fronted by a certain Mr Morrison.) Equilibrium, however, takes the idea of induced pacifism much further than can be seen in

Huxley’s work. Christian Bale’s ‘cleric’ John Pres-ton is one amongst a population controlled by the drug Prozium, which removes all emotional feeling and response. Seemingly a much more serious statement regarding drug use than Kubrick’s, it is Preston’s accidental halting of drug use which sets him free and renders him awake to the wonders of the world. We all remember the scene in which the emotionally faltering cleric is reduced to tears by his first exposure to music. In total antithesis to Otto’s immortal utterance of “I don’t need drugs to enjoy this... Just enhance it” in The Simpsons, the message seems to be that NOT using drugs not only enhances experiences, but is the only way to allow enjoyment. Considering the obvious link between ‘Pro-zium’, and ‘Prozac’, however- as well as its pre-scribed nature- this message seems to be focused much more on the use of the pharmaceutical, rather than the recreational. Upon reflection, this film could be taken as a cleverly veiled statement decrying the behemoth that is modern pharmaceu-tical companies, but we may be on thin ice here. If one must be taken, I would hazard that blindly following instruction, and taking prescribed medi-cation is a dangerous and life altering game: and that a knowledge of consequence gained through free will is sometimes the most necessary evil.

SUBURBIAThe dangers regarding unquestioning use of pre-scription mood-altering medicine is by no means a topic unique to Equilibrium. In Zach Braff’s won-derfully quirky (yet powerful) 2004 film Garden State the theme of his main characters dialogue with drugs plays throughout, with varying conse-quences. Braff’s main character Andrew Largeman (parallels with Mr. DeLarge anyone? Just me?) un-dergoes a similar transformation to Bale’s Preston, the ‘waking-up’ from a lifelong drug induced stu-por to suddenly realise the joys of living. Although unlike Preston, he also dabbles in recreational use: namely with marijuana and ecstasy. Either because of his uncomfortable familiarity with being under the influence, or perhaps his discomfort with the setting, he remains curiously detached throughout his experiences- until seemingly enjoying an alco-holic ‘buzz’ towards the end of the film. Whilst the film is quite clearly Braff’s klaxon like warning about the dangers of reliance and de-pendence on brain-numbing drugs for emotional stability, it also goes a little deeper. One party scene set in a friend’s mansion portrays drug in-duced escapades which, thanks to some excellent cinematography, manages to be both exciting and haunting. This is representative of the duality

of drug taking within the film, which not only help and enhance; but also suppress and inhibit. This is shown through Largeman’s friend Mark, who is numbed,-not through mood stabilisers- but mari-juana: the drug which also represents his freedom. Few symbols of freedom are stronger than Ricky Fitts’ government-grown marijuana, G-13, and the profound effect it has upon Lester Burn-ham in the 1999 classic mid-life crisis film Ameri-can Beauty. On the face of it, after smoking pot Lester (played brilliantly by Kevin Spacey) loses his job, estranges his wife and daughter, obsesses over an underage girl, makes large, frivolous purchases and starts work at a fast food restaurant (not to mention dies). Sounds like an anti-drugs campaign film. But, quite clearly, this would be a very glib analysis. Lester’s introduction to Ricky and his free flowing confidence signify something which is total-ly alien to Lester, and reminds him of a time when “all [he] did was party and get laid”. The freedom of expression and willing-ness to chase his goals catalysed by this reintro-duction to marijuana is overwhelming and the message seems to be that drugs are good. Mr. Burnham becomes more assertive and self confi-dent, gives up the job he hates, buys his dream car and becomes a totally different person. Rec-reational drugs make us better people right?

Until we dig deeper. Let us not forget that it is Lest-er’s dealer-customer relationship with Ricky which, via several misunderstandings and misdemeanours, results in his death. So could it be another example of the dualism shown in Garden State: or that drugs set us free, but we have to pay a price? I imagine from the smile on Kevin Spacey’s blood-spattered face that it is a price he thought was worth paying.

AgateophobiaFrom one violently powerful climax to another, we have the marijuana scene in Shane Meadows’ awe-some mirror of 1980s skinhead Britain, This is Eng-land. For those who don’t know the story (spoiler alert), the film centres around a young boy experi-encing the divisions caused within skinhead culture by racism and white supremacy. The plot peaks when aforementioned innocent child Shaun, violent criminal and pro-antagonist Combo and a couple of others buy some marijuana from Milky and have a gathering. Milky- being the only black skinhead- and Combo- the white supremacist- bond whilst intoxicated, and Milky begins to describe himself and his family life. Caught in a sudden fit of jeal-ousy, Combo beats Milky mercilessly whilst Shaun is forced to watch. This link between violence and drugs is far more blatant than the implied and subtle nature of the opening scene of A Clockwork Orange. The sudden and dramatic switch between seeming rec-onciliation and aggression is one of the most com-pelling yet barbaric moments in cinematography, lending strength to the message itself. But what

is that message? The happenings seem to tell us firstly that marijuana is a positive influence, then, suddenly reverses to a negative one. This possibly plays on the link between frequent marijuana use and insanity, but, more likely, is a message about people rather than narcotics. Throughout the film Meadows seems to be telling us that it is people that are dangerous. Not ideals, not subcultures, not drugs. It is people that are violent, that hate, and that commit crime. I feel like that would be my only logical conclusion to this article. Having explored the use of drugs in films through various genres, settings, characters and ideologies; and the only constant seems to be the inconsistencies of the message. Drugs (much like in real life) are used in cinema to enhance. In A Clockwork Orange they enhance the fearfully alien character of Alex, in Equilibrium we have them as a tool to enhance the feeling of freedom experienced by the cleric when he escapes the shackles of the fascist state and many things in between. There is a balance between positive and negative as well, ranging from the obvious walk through hell of Trainspotting to the fun experiences of Adventureland. Whilst the BBFC may warn us about ‘Hard Drug Use’, the audience’s concern should be about the people involved, and what drug use says about them rather than any messag-es about the substance itself. Overall, the portrayal of both pharmaceutical and recreational drugs in cinema is very tastefully done, and surprisingly im-mune to any accusations of propaganda.

Perhaps the Daily Mail would disagree.

Weapon of Choice

What is it about the bow and arrow that makes us quiver with excitement?

JOSHUA HAMMOND

From Hawkeye to Katniss Everdee, from Princess Merida to Gretel the Witch Hunter the weapon of choice for our on screen heroes has been a bow and arrow. While the bow may be synonymous in tinseltown with Robin Hood after numerous Holly-wood adaptations of the myth, its symbolic roots lie even deeper in Greek mythology. With the rise of female action heroes using a bow and arrow and its connotations with Diana the Huntress, this weapon can be seen as a symbol for female em-powerment. When discussing the bow and arrow as a Hollywood prop, it is hard to avoid the iconic fig-ure of Robin Hood. Though frequently mocked and joked about, Robin Hood’s popularity has outlasted that of many heroes. The most recent Hollywood ad-aptation of Hood’s story racked up a considerable $320million at the box office regardless of Russell Crowe’s wonky accent. Though PictureShow has a considerable love for Alan Rickman’s incarnation of the Sheriff Of Nottingham, and that Douglas Fairbanks had played him on screen before, the definitive cinematic Robin Hood has to be Errol Flynn’s. Flynn’s use of the bow and arrow became iconic, creating not just the character of Hood but a template for archers on screen. Cinematic arch-ers are incredibly deadly, but they aren’t on the ground throwing punches and bits of spinal column

on a battlefield, and while it may be historically inaccurate to suggest that Archers were the sniping sharpshooters of their day they are represented on screen as being elegantly deadly. There is an elegance and an intelligence to using a bow, that can’t be found with any other weapon. Think back to just over a decade ago and the massive popularity of Legolas from Peter Jackson’s Lord Of The Rings series threw Orlando Bloom into the spotlight. While his pallid complex-ion and flowing locks made it incredibly easy to identify him on the many battlefields, his popularity was in part down to the fact that he was detached and a deadly archer, remaining above the grime of a battlefield. In stark contrast to those wielding axes, broadswords and clubs, Legolas’ cool use of the arrow meant that he was a beacon of serenity on a screen full of Orc brains. While Hawkeye has only made two appear-ances in the Marvel Cinematic Universe so far (he was in Thor, trust us), his new legion of fans has seen a significant growth. While this may be in part due to the popularity of actor, Jeremy Renner, it definitely has something to do with the use of a bow and arrow in such a technologically advanced set-ting. If this summer of sport has proven anything to us, it’s that there is still something to admire about the skill involved in hitting a target perfectly.

Next to Iron Man, with his plasma cannons and Thor with his other worldly hammer, Mjolnir, Hawkeye looked like a man with a talent unlike anybody else’s. His superpower wasn’t cooked up in a lab, inherited from an ancient bloodline of the Gods, or built using the considerable re-sources of a massive Weapons manufacturing fortune. Hawkeye stood next to Black Widow and the members of SHIELD as non-super superheroes. It remains to be seen whether or not DC’s Green Arrow will ever make it to screen, but with such a run of successes for archers on the big screen and the looming presence of a Justice League film and the imminent release of the CW’s Arrow televi-sion series from Warner Bros it wouldn’t be such a leap to make. The Hunger Games exploded onto the cin-ematic landscape this March, and while many de-tractors may have chastised its lack of conviction, political message and “hunger” it was praised for the use of an empowered female lead that easily outsmarted and outfought her male opposition. As you may have gathered form the promotional material that is most likely littering your local Tesco or HMV, Katniss’ preferred weapon was a bow, and she was rather good with it too. The parallels between a character like Katniss and the mytho-logical figure of Diana is undeniable. Katniss isn’t

the only hero this summer who used a bow to devastating effect, Princess Merida, lead of Pixar’s Brave (see last month’s issue for review) frequently used a bow rather than a sword or a spear. Archery is a hard talent to master, without the proper research into technique, an actor can look like a real rookie when they don’t know what to do with the strings. However, recent develop-ments in computer generated imagery means that arrows always hit the spot. In Lord Of The Rings, Legolas’ arrows were completely CGI and the benefit of an animated character such as Merida is that her technique can be absolutely flawless, thanks to the talented animators at Pixar. So no longer do directors have to wait for someone to become adept at a skill that very few people utilise these days, they can just ensure that they appear like deft archers through computer wizardry. The image of the bow is a favourite of directors and for good reason. It allows for beauti-ful shots of bowstrings pulled close to our protago-nists face, the long reaching arms of the bow can frame the entire figure of our hero for great visual effect. That it is so beautifully utilised on the big screen make a true cinematic weapon.

THE PICTURESHOW PREVIEW

OUR TOP TEN FILMS OF THE FEST

JOSHUA HAMMOND

End Of Watch - Official Competition

As part of the Official London Film Festival Competition, End Of Watch will certainly come under some serious scrutiny. End Of Watch is a brutal thriller starring Jake Gyllenhaal and Michael Peña as two police officers in Central Los Angeles. The two work around rules and regulations to ensure they get results, but their risk taking ways soon mean they are marked by drug cartels. An aggressive portrayal of the seedy underbelly of LA with engaging perfor-mances from Gyllanhaal and Peña.

Beasts Of The Southern Wild - First Feature Competition

Behn Zeitlin’s debut feature has been making waves since its first showing at Sundance Film Festival in January. It has already been released in the United States but has yet to be seen over here. The story revolves around a young girl called Hushpuppy who lives with her father, Wink in a fictional town in southern America. Hushpuppy has to fend for herself when her father falls ill and a massive storm begins to batter her home town bringing ancient spirits from the depths of the polar ice caps.

West Of Memphis - Documentary

The trail and incarceration of the West Memphis Three is one of the darkest blackspots on the American justice system’s rap sheet. After the brutal murder of three young boys in Mem-phis, three teenagers were sent to prison for life without parole for the crimes. However, after further research the evidence used in court appeared somewhat flawed. West Of Memphis follows the huge campaign to set the ‘West Memphis Three’ free involving Eddie Vedder, Johnny Depp and PictureShow Interviewee Henry Rollins.

Laurence Anyways - Love

While London Film Festival’s Love Gala does have its fair share of more traditional love stories, Laurence Anyways is certainly not traditional. Starting in the early 1990s Laurence Anyways tells the story of a middle aged teacher who chooses to have a sex change, while his loving partner appears ok with the transition, their relationship soon begins to show signs of stress. Spanning a decade and clocking in at over 2 and a half hours, Laurence Anyways is an engaging and thoroughly indulgent piece of cinema, in the best possible way.

While PictureShow has been largely good for getting it's readers the inside information from a few local but influential film festivals, the writers have never embarked on a mission as vast as the one that will be detailed next month. PictureShow is going to the London Film Festival with a bag of popcorn in one hand and our lovely shiny press pass in the other. After the first issue, the writers of PictureShow decided that our aim/motivation was to get to the Cannes Film Festival and now we're not so far off, that we will be attending London Film Festival will certainly stand us in good stead with regards to our application for the world’s most saught after festival tickets. While London may pale in comparison to Cannes, or indeed Berlin and

Venice, it is a massive international festival that has many flocking to its screenings each year. We at PictureShow have a mixture of anticipation and excitement about managing to secure such great access to an international film festival. The oppor-tunity to bring the readers of PictureShow a fan-tastic report from the event is one we will relish. We have set ourselves quite the high bar to live up to especially after Chris Binding’s comprehensive coverage of Frightfest in August and our extensive review of Glasgow Film Festival in February. Next month we will be able to give you full rundown of the films in the festival, as well as exclu-sive interviews and event reviews but until then here are our top ten recommendations for those of you attending the event.

8

10

9

7

The Hunt - Debate

Under the festival’s debate gala, you can find some of the most challenging and interesting films to be released. The Hunt is no exception, telling the story of a Reception teacher deftly played by Mads Mikkelson, who is accused of sexual abusing children. The small town so-ciety quickly turns against him and his family all because of the accusations of a small child. Beautifully directed and Mikkelson’s performance is extraordinary. Absolutely one of the must see films of the festival.

Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? - Treasures

While film festivals are great for discovering new talent and interesting off beat films, they can also be useful for the opportunity to watch older films on a big screen, if you never got the opportunity first time round. Whatever Happened To Baby Jane? is a twisted thriller cen-tred around two sisters and retired actresses, one who was successful earlier in life and one who came to recognition later on. As jealousy, anger and confusion consume the two they spiral out of control. Massive performances from Joan Crawford and Bette Davis.

Spike Island - Sonic If you felt that The Stone Roses lacked their youthful presence at this year’s comeback gigs, and you feel the need to reconnect with your early 90s self then Spike Island is definitely the film for you. Following a small but rising indie band as they travel to Spike Island in Cheshire to see The Stone Roses play it is an entertaining and heartwarming movie with an incredibly talented roster of young British players including Emilia Clarke, more well known as Daenarys Targaryen from Game Of Thrones.

Antiviral - Cult

Spawn of David, Brandon Cronenberg’s initial feature is definitely in the vein of his father’s early work. Centred around Caleb Landry Jones’ Syd March, a salesman for a company that distributes celebrity illnesses for profit to those obsessed with the stars who tries to smuggle illnesses out of the centre using his own body as a host. Cronenberg’s striking visual style and caustic theories regarding our own celebrity obsessed culture make this a worthwhile and darkly funny watch.

Caesar Must Die - Thrill

Italy’s entrant for “Best Foreign Language Film” for the 85th Academy Awards, Caesar Must Die is the story around the rehearsals of a prison performance of Shakespeare’s Julius Cae-sar. Largely filmed in black and white with a very tight run time that clocks in at under 80 minutes, Caesar Must Die is a fascinating watch with strangely relatable characters. Cae-sar Must Die walked away from the Berlin Film Festival with the Golden Bear under its arm awarded by a jury headed by Mike Leigh.

Tall As The Baobab Tree - Dare

Jeremy Teicher’s debut feature is largely based around real events (see interview on page 15). After having worked in the Senegalese community to create a documentary on the communities, Teicher used the same community as inspiration for his own feature film. With stunning performances and incredibly confident cinematography from a very new face, Tall As The Baobab Tree is an interesting watch with an incredibly engaging set of central perfor-mances with a powerful emotional core.

6

12

34

5

Jeremy Teicher With his film Tall As The Baobab Tree showing under the Dare gala at London Film Festival, PictureShow leapt at the opportunity to interview

Jeremy Teicher about his film, thefestival and where he wants to go.

JOSHUA HAMMOND

Jeremy Teicher is relatively new to the world of filmmaking. At only 23 he directed his first full length feature film movie, Tall As The Baobab Tree. Not only that, he did it on a miniscule budget in a country where the majority of the locals didn’t speak English. The film is making its European premiere at the London Film Festival and concerns the life of a family in a small village in Senegal and the length to which they have to go to avoid complete poverty. Pretty serious stuff for a debut feature but he says: ‘My goal with Tall As The Baobab Tree was to capture this moment in time where there is this cultural shift and to capture the fulcrum of this shift. More specifically in this one village and this one family were these teenagers were the first ones in their family to ever go to school, leading the charge in terms of introducing a new way of life into their village.’ Teicher’s affability and good nature almost make it appear as though he can get along with anything, but his passion regarding his craft al-ways slips though; ‘What I’ve noticed in a lot of African cinema that makes it’s way to the West, especially if

foreigners like me had a hand in the production of the movie is that you end up with this sensational-ised, very narrative and exciting story. To me that “others” the African people in the film. I saw an Af-rican film at Tribeca the other year and it did really well, it talked about armed conflict and child sol-diers but to me it fundamentally felt like an action movie. I didn’t connect with the people on screen. I wanted to actively counter that, the result of which is that you have a narrative that is not this subjec-tive entertaining narrative but rather an objective one.’ What does he think about his own film? What makes it so watchable? ‘This movie is entertaining because it’s so honest. When you read the log line it reads like a tear jerking emotional film but to me it’s a warm ex-perience of connecting with people that you would never expect to connect to. I invite people to be challenged by this film.’ After having worked in the same community for the documentary This Is Me before beginning work on Tall As The Baobab Tree, why did he opt to use a narrative format? ‘I found that a narrative cinema means that you can capture these issues better and allow you to better empathise with these characters. The most narrative thing about the film is that the characters

make the most bold decisions available. The final scene is very dramatic but it is not commonplace in the village, but the film is very close to reality.’ ‘My film blends a lot of reality with fiction. It’s not a traditional narrative movie. The reason I chose to make a narrative movie is because this change is such an emotional change that was what I wanted to highlight.’ Not shy of a challenge, Teicher’s film is al-most entirely in the local tongue and a little French. The language barriers provided a few surprises along the way. ‘A lot of the actors spoke french as well, if they’ve been to school then they probably spoke french and I could speak to them directly. The main character, her sister and the dad had all been to school and I could speak french to them, but the mother and brother had not. So we had a transla-tor on set,a local guy who knew me and them. We would have these discussion on set be-fore a scene and make sure that everyone was on the same page so the biggest challenge was that when they were performing I couldn’t understand what they were saying so I had to trust my transla-tors. He knew what it was I wanted from each scene so I had to trust him that the scenes were done how I wanted them done. There was some improvisation

so I would refer to him about whether the key ele-ments of the scene had been communicated. When I went back to New York, I worked with a guy who spoke the langue and when we were translating the movie I was sort of discovering my movie there. Some scenes were totally different to what I thought we were getting.’ Your first feature is a risk, it’s a bold move to put it out there and especially with this movie where it’s inspired by true stories form this docu-mentary and it was already crazy enough to be making this documentary out in the village but the idea of bringing feature film level equipment out to this village which was pretty remote, no electricity or anything. We definitely felt that there was the possibility of failure throughout. Our equipment could have fallen off the cart and fallen in the mud you know or it could just not have worked out with the actors because we used local people who had never acted before so there were a lot of unknown factors and risks so the fact that we had a movie at all was not something I took for granted and now that we’re getting into the London Film Festival it’s my dream outcome. Even with the language barriers at play, Jer-emy still broke two cardinal rules of filmmaking, working with animals and working with children.

The film is partially centred around the rela-tionship between two young sisters and the rest of their family as they work in the fields to make up for their incapacitated older brother. He says ‘My two main actors were kids, an 11 year old girl and a teenager, and working with them forces you to be a good director. You have to give specific playable actions, give actors something to sink their teeth into as opposed to getting all cer-ebral about it. When you do get all cerebral you can lose them, especially the kids. It helped me as a director, to make sure that I gave directions in the shortest most simple way. There’s a lot of cow scenes in the film and a lot of the time the cows were where we wanted them to be. But there’s one shot involving a cow where the cow is looking at Coumba and Coumba is looking at the cow and that took us forever. Oth-er than that it was fine.’ Now that he’s back in New York, he’s still plugging away to make sure that the film makes it to distribution. We quiz him on how far into the future he like to look. ‘Getting the film out there is taking up the majority of my time especially because I’m the di-rector and producer. I have a great team but a lot of young filmmakers that I meet in New York are working in collectives where there might be three of them and one might switch off and I don’t have that. Especially as I chose to do this instead of go-ing to film school and a lot of my friends all work regular jobs so I’m working on my own a lot of the time. I do have one script written and another script outlined that I have been applying for grants and mentorship programs for with. There are a couple of people I’ve met along the way that keep me in the loop. Within this year I’d like to get this film out there, distributed and living on its own and be underway making a second.’ We press him further about his plans, we want to know if he wants to stay working in Africa or move around. ‘One of my scripts is set in American subur-bia and the other is set in a fictional metropolis that

could be New York or if I get funding form France or the UK it could be filmed in Paris and London. My continued work in Senegal has been as much of a surprise to me as it could have been. I first went there when I was 19 during a vacation semester form college to make some short videos for an edu-cational non profit group. I was just only there for a couple of weeks like an internship, I was making narrative shorts in school and I never thought I’d dedicate years to working in Africa.’ So what attracted him to filming in Africa? Why did he decide to create Tall As The Baobab Tree rather than his American Suburb movie? ‘When I met this group of kids, I realised that I had stumbled into something very special es-pecially at this time where hundreds of years of cul-ture are being changed by one group of people. I got a fellowship to go when I graduated to make a documentary which was eventually nominated for the student academy awards. I was trying to work out what it was I wanted to do and I just thought that if we set our minds to it we could make a real movie. I knew that this story about young marriage could make a really evocative film. Now four years later, I feel like all the work I’ve done is coming to a close and I’m ready to make other movies.’ Does he ever think about awards and fame and glory? His documentary was nominated for the Student Academy Awards, would he want to win a professional one? ‘I’m not focussed on the awards, of course I want all that but that’s not my goal. I have some quite grand ideas in my brainstorm drawer for when I’m at the point where I control a multi-million dollar budget but at the moment I’m being very pragmatic about the films that I write. I definitely want to shoot bigger. The budget for this movie was well under $100,000 and I would like for the next movie to be above that. I don’t want to get in above my head but I want to see a progression of scope in the films that I make. Not just in dollars and cents but also in improving my craft as a filmmaker. One day I want to open that drawer to find the awesome fantasy film idea that I’ve had since I was a teenager and make it for a couple of hundred million.”

“When I met this group of kids, I realised that I had stumbled into

something very special...”

Speaking of teenage Teicher, when did he realise that this was what he wanted to do? ‘I always wanted to make my own films, my friends and I would make these movies that they would show in assembly at school. It was in middle or early high school when I really began to love making movies. I didn’t take it seriously as a career until college but I remember applying to undergrad schools and for some reason I had it in my mind that I wanted to go to Dartmouth which is where I went. At that point I wasn’t 100% sure that I wanted to commit to making movies as my career so I went to a school that wasn’t a specific film school. I took acting classes to scout out actors and learn about how they think. I’d love to see this film fully distributed and this movie was set up in a non profit way so if this movie makes any money then those profits will go as a donation to the village school in Senegal. I would love to see the film turn a profit and for it to start giving back to the community.’ ‘We got into some other European film fes-tivals but London's our European Premiere. I think the timing's good. I'm really excited about coming to London because I've worked with one of my fa-vourite bands and I’ll get to meet them in London.’ With over 60 films showing at the London Film Festival Is there anything he really wants to see in the next few weeks? ‘I know everyone’s pretty excited about Beasts Of The Southern Wild getting played. I’ve seen it already and it’s great. We both took simi-lar routes with regards to casting our films. Mine is more rooted in reality where Beasts is more fan-

tastical. I’m honoured to play in the same festival as them. We’re doing some special educational screenings of our film so that’s an honour. I’m look-ing forward to seeing Atomic Age because I got to meet one of the lead actors in that, Neils Schnieder and I’m really looking forward to seeing that mov-ie.’ ‘I first started going to festivals as a viewer, I’ve been to Tribeca here in New York. When I’m at a festival with my own movie, I don’t get to see as many films as I would like, because I tend to be pretty busy. How is he dealing with the new critical at-tention form international members of the press? ‘For any first time director it’s really encour-aging to get a positive response from major film fes-tivals. Some critics have sent me their reviews and there were some glowing reviews and some that weren’t, there are no scathing reviews. I have yet to read a scathing review of my work but we have gotten ‘not glowing’ reviews because the things that those reviews point out are things I did intention-ally. If critics don’t pick up on that then I see that as their prejudices that they take into the cinema with them. If my movie rubs them up the wrong way, then that’s not my failure, because I did what it was I set out to do. Aside from the few glowing reviews, a large chunk of the reviews I’ve read seem to say: “I really liked and appreciated the film and what they were trying to do, but I don’t know how “audiences” will react.” I say, let’s put some more faith in the audi-ence! And I invite everyone to come out and share in this cultural experience.’

The Campaign

There is a scene in The Campaign where Will Fer-rell straight up punches a baby. If that isn’t to your taste, then this film may not be for you. Ferrell plays Republican Congressman Cam Brady, who is run-ning unopposed for the fifth term in a row, before the corporate Motch brothers decide he is losing his touch and try to replace him with dimwit Marty Huggins (Zach Galifianakis) who will be more suit-ed to their whim.

For a comedy about politicians it shouldn’t come as a surprise that actual politics stay well clear of the plot (which is a shame considering the time of its release). It is briefly mentioned that Brady is a Republican and Huggins is a Democratic but the film mainly pokes fun of the caricatures the actors are playing with.

To an extent this works; Marty Huggins being a character Zach Galifianakis has been playing with for years (youtube the Sean Penn episode of Be-tween Two Ferns) his happy-go-lucky attitude re-fusing to be punctured by the dog-eat-dog attitude of Ferrell’s Brady. The set-up is a good one but can only be taken so far before the film runs out of steam. There are a couple of scenes where Huggins and Brady act so out of character it is unclear who the film makers want the audience to root for. What should be a clever comedy about politicians instead jumps back to the same lessons that are rammed down our throats by the annoying liberals of the world. Politicians are liars; corporations are bad; telling the truth is good (this is pretty much an actual line towards the end of the film), yada yada yada.

And yet despite this the film has its charm. The rea-son it can get away with its predictable overarching plot is because it is actually a funny movie. Fer-rell, as always gets the best lines and there is an excellent early scene where the family of Huggins tell their secrets around a table, in case the media should scrutinise them. They range from saying the Lord’s name in vain to doing unspeakable acts to a goat, all of them delivered perfectly by children, no less.

Ferrell and Galifianakis carry the film with aplomb and most of the supporting cast do just as well, most notably Dylan McDermott’s shady campaign man-ager Tim Wattley, as well as the respective wives of the campaigners, both hilarious in their own right.

Dan Aykroyd and John Lithgow have their comic talent wasted as they don’t really do much as the evil Mosch Brothers.

The Campaign is well meaning but there is certainly room for improvement. The morals and lessons to be learnt are shoved down the audience’s throat in the final act but there are genuinely hilarious se-quences which can cause belly laughs. A decent film it is, but the script writer needs to try harder. BO

Untouchable

Untouchable is one of the funniest and genuinely emotionally fulfilling films to have been released in the past few years. The film and its characters are so lovable and endearingly flawed, that you would be forgiven for thinking that it is based on a fairy tale. Set in Paris, the film focuses on the real life stories of Philippe Pozzo di Borgo and Abdel Sell-ou. Philippe is an extremely wealthy middle-aged quadriplegic seeking a new carer to look after him. Rather than choose someone with qualifications, he opts for Abdel. Abdel was a career criminal from Algeria who had immigrated to France and had only applied for the job of Philippe’s carer so that he could keep claiming his income support. Philippe is immediately attracted to Abdel’s honesty and ruth-less sense of humour and he hires him to take care of him in order to inject some spontaneity and fun back into his life.

The film successfully explores the relationship be-tween these two seemingly polar opposite men with comedic flair, whilst also providing a genuine in-sight into society’s inherent ideas of class, upbring-ing and of course disability. The film’s main mes-sage seems to be that we are all the same. Society forces us to be labelled as where we are from, how much money we have and what we look like, but in truth we are all connected by the fact we are hu-man beings, no matter how different we may seem superficially.

Considering that the role requires François Cluzet

to only use his facial muscles, his performance is refined, charming and brilliantly funny and is the crowning achievement of the film. His comic tim-ing is a shining example of subtle and understated comedic perfection, but he balances this humour superbly with a distressing pathos and an inner tur-moil that is constantly hinted at. It isn’t too much of a push to suggest that his nuanced performance could earn the French the best actor Oscar for the second year running- he is really that good.

Without Omar Sy’s manically energetic and play-ful performance as Abdel though, the film simply wouldn’t work. Sy plays Abdel with a distinct raw-ness, and thus plays off Cluzet’s subtlety and refine-ment beautifully. Like the characters themselves, the acting styles of the two leads contrast massively, thus providing the film with its main attraction. This film doesn’t commit to a certain style and tone and then lazily plays itself out with mundane predict-ability, but it instead insists on portraying these real life people truthfully, with all their weaknesses and insecurities shown as much as anything else.

On the surface this is a simple, warm fuzzy gem of a film, but if you pay close attention, you will see it for the master-class in acting, humour and subtext that it actually is. Leave your cynicism at the door and join the millions of others who have revelled in this multi-layered and deceptively perceptive com-edy about the limitless potential of the human spirit. JS

Lawless

‘I’m a Bondurant, we don’t lay down for nobody!’ With just a few words Tom Hardy’s gruff, animal-istic voice manages to successfully dictate the tone of the entire film. Lawless, adapted by Nick Cave (The Proposition) from Matt Bondurant’s book The Wettest County In The World is a masterpiece in its own right because it follows a classic theme: out-laws versus the law. And in these films…nobody likes the law.

The story follows the exploits of the Bondurant brothers (Forrest, Howard and Jack) as they carve out decent lives for themselves as moonshiners in Franklin County, Virginia. They are well respected and live off the back of the legend that Forrest Bon-durant is seemingly indestructible. When a corrupt Chicago lawman (Guy Pearce) arrives in town and starts putting pressure on them to cut him in on the action the brothers are left with a decision: yield or fight. And as is the way in Franklin County, they fight. The violence quickly escalates in a classic tit-for-tat manner and culminates in an excellently produced final scene.

As briefly mentioned Lawless is as violent as it is classy with blood spattered brass knuckles, slit throats and Tommy guns galore, all of which are portrayed in a graphically realistic manner. The at-tention to detail in recreating the bootleggers’ envi-ronment is brilliant, as is the soundtrack (produced by Nick Cave) which manages to be jaunty, haunt-ing and authentic.

Shia LaBeouf and Tom Hardy are exceptional as two very different but lovable outlaw brothers while Guy Pearce is brilliantly masochistic and creepy in his portrayal of a corrupt lawman. Gary Oldman, one of the films biggest attractions, manages to por-tray the old school, gun-slinging gangster, Floyd Banner, with a wild combination of malevolence and finesse although he isn’t really given enough screen time. Jessica Chastain, Mia Wasikowska and Jason Clarke all manage to equally impress in their supporting roles.

Nick Cave certainly knows how to evoke certain masculine tendencies to go against the grain and his writing manages to deliver the message that life should be lived through pure instinct rather than trepidation. There is no remorse in any of his char-acters; they do what they want, when they want

and how they want, all the time. The ultimate suc-cess of the film is its ability to tap into that inner child and bring out the hoodlum in all of us. This may be a naïve and impressionable sentiment, but this is rather a testament to the boyish charm of the film. OS

Looper

Roughly once every few years, an intelligent and thought provoking science fiction movie appears on the cinematic landscape. While the world’s may be unfamiliar or alien, they use metaphor and clever imagery to create something that stays with audiences. Over the last few years, Source Code, District 9 and Moon have all helped boost the popularity of real intelligent science fiction and this year Rian Johnson’s Looper is here to rescue us from the vacuous and obnoxious attempts at science fiction that too often litter our multiplexes.

The central plot line to Looper is that time travel aids assassinations by ensuring that those be-ing assassinated are killed in a different era to their own and can be disposed of easily in a time where their details do not exist. The assassins are known as Loopers and while they are paid ex-tremely well they live in the knowledge that they will eventually come face to face with themselves and have to assassinate their older selves to remove any evidence that they were in that line of business.

Rian Johnson has come considerably far since his 2005 noir Brick, and his confidence has evi-dently grown. From his small indie featuring a then relatively unknown Joseph Gordon-Levitt, to a vast science fiction movie incorporating time travel in just seven years and having only directed one other film and a few episodes of Breaking Bad is quite a considerable leap. His confidence,

which was the only thing stopping Brick from ap-pearing utterly ridiculous to, is the main thing that keeps Looper on track. As is so often the case with films involving time travel, once you begin to think about them, their plot falls to pieces and Johnson is cannily aware of this, his script explicitly tells you not to think about the time travel aspect. Rian Johnson’s cinematography is absolutely gorgeous. In comparison to most science fiction movies, Looper’s budget was small and has clearly been well spent. The Kansas skyline has rarely looked better.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt gives an impressive perfor-mance as a young Bruce Willis. While his face is heavily made up to make him look more like the younger Willis, the performance is more of a projection of Willis than an imitation. Facial ticks and squints elevate his performance and the way Levitt holds himself is very much like the young Willis. Emily Blunt sheds her crisp British accent in favour of an American accent, which is extremely convincing and Willis himself pulls of a perfor-mance which is head and shoulders above almost anything he’s done in the last ten years.

Regardless of the stars at work here, the allure of Looper comes from its central themes and plot. To paraphrase a supporting character “this time travel crap, it just fries your brain like an egg”. Even those inside the world of Looper understand that Time Travel is inconceivable and the techni-calities of it makes little sense, but the grand idea of time travel and the possibilities it could create are intriguing and worth exploring. Time travel is only ever explored by a director that is sure of his own vision and Johnson certainly is. JH

ParaNorman

It's two out of two for stop-motion animation com-pany Laika's follow up the enormous critical suc-cess of 2009s Coraline with this year's children's comedy horror, 'ParaNorman'.

ParaNorman tells the story of a young misfit, Nor-man Babcock, from the small, New England town of Blithe Hollow. Norman, whose ability to speak to the dead has made him an outcast with his family and fellow citizens, takes solace in his love of hor-ror movies. A particularly impressive opening to the film sees a rather charming stop-motion, film within a film, take on a low budget 70s horror - and it's that type of actually-for-adults children's film that ParaNorman unapologetically continues to be for the duration of the narrative. Swathes of references and in-jokes will fly over the heads of children but the skill of the film means that it's never exclusive, it works on many levels and the richness of the sto-rytelling means that young children will never miss the point.

Much like a modern-day Salem, Norman's town was involved in the trial of a witch exactly 300 years ago, and its resulting identity and tourism has become built around that; statues and images of green-faced, haggard witches dominate the land. And on the night of the tercentenary of her death, Norman learns of the witch's curse which threatens to raise the dead and plunge the town into despair.

On the whole, the film is excellent. It's brilliantly captured, the characters are well developed, and it serves as a really successful genre deconstruction in area where horror genre deconstructions are ten a penny. The narrative twists and turns as much as a great children's film should do, and praise really must go to the rich satirical elements it introduces. It's also funny, very funny.

This humour is sometimes curbed however when the film tries too hard. There are times when the film labours a gag too much and it falls flat, which is a shame because the best comedic moments of the film are normally under the radar. It also has to be said that this is a weaker film than Coraline; probably because it is too stuck in the genre that it is deconstructing to really sing as much as Coraline did. But that's neither here nor there. The film is a must see and it's hard not to respect any film that uses stop-motion to such a high end.

A word on this as a children's film. This is a comedy horror - that is not the same as a mediocre romcom where the comedy lessens the romance and the ro-mance lobotomises the comedy. It's very funny but also very scary; PictureShow witnessed a 6 year old girl in tears. Very young children should probably stay away but if your child can stomach Coraline then it really is worth it. And as well as being en-tertaining, it provides a really uniquely honest look at the actuality of history verses the postmodern cli-mate that we've built for ourselves. Also, the film has caused controversy over the inclusion of the first openly gay character (albeit, in a throwaway line) in a children's film.....but fuck it, it's about time.

Adults often get conned into taking their children to the pictures because the film is offered as being entertaining for all, (The Smurfs) but this really is a treat. And in a year where Pixar have already played their cards, ParaNorman looks set to be the best children's film of the year. DJP

Dredd

Its a tough world out there for a property like Dredd, films based around comic books are gaining more attention and as such drawing more criticism as people become more learned about the subject, films with an 18 rating aren’t as common as they once were and are frequently awkwardly scheduled to maximise screen space for family friendly properties, a film with a very similar set up was released just a few months ago and the 3D element generates as many negative headlines as it does positive ones, for every Hugo there’s a Wrath Of The Titans. These contributing factors make it such a surprise that Dredd is a suc-cessful movie for the most part.

Dredd will suffer for its sins, it is a hyper violent, heavily stylised 3D movie where you never see the face of our central character. It also involves strange science fiction elements such as psychic mutants and futuristic drugs that slow time down in the user’s brain, which makes for some wonderful 3D slow motion shots. That the people behind the film were so aware that they weren’t going to win over any new fans of the series means that the film they set out to make is definitely the one they have made. This could be either a good or a bad thing, but it’s certainly a brave thing to do.

The plot is simple, two law enforcers known as “Judges” get stuck in a tower block full of crimi-nals that are not at all sympathetic to their case. As they realise that the building is a base for

drug distribution, they aim to find the head of the distribution channel and bring them to justice. The problem is that they still have to make their way up the tower block to find them. Those of you thinking that this sounds a little bit like The Raid and any number of video games with the most basic plot progression, you’d be right. It is Dredd’s visual style and futuristic backdrop that set it apart.

Karl Urban’s performance as the titular Judge Dredd is note perfect, his gruff and surly demean-our match the tone of the 2000AD strip he origi-nated in. That the mask remains on, a key element of the comic books is an important side note. Syl-vester Stallone spent more time with his helmet off than on during his performance of Dredd in 1995. At no point can Urban use the top half of his face to play his character and that he manages to pull it off is a staggering feat. Olivia Thirlby’s psychic Anderson is also intriguing, her manipulation of criminals using psychic powers is impressive.

Dredd is a fantastically faithful adaptation of the 2000AD comic book, and takes that role extreme-ly seriously. The hyper violent, totalitarian and extreme nature of the Judges means that the film is certainly not for everybody. The visual style is also likely to alienate many members of the audience, as it’s so colourful it’s almost sickly and there is no shortage of gore. That Dredd takes itself so seri-ously is for its own benefit, that the adaptation is so brilliantly rendered means that it should at least be respected for taking a real risk in making an action film aimed at adults, unlike the 12A Taken 2. These factors do not make up for the fact that the film’s pacing is hugely predictable. JH

Things to See in October

Another great month for screen-ings at your local independent cinema. Look out for special Horror screenings on Halloween.

Wales

AberystwythAberystwyth Arts CentreNight Of The Hunter22 October

Possibly one of the most intense and terrifying per-formances of all time, Robert Mitchum’s career de-fining role as the Reverend Harry Powell is mag-netic and not easily forgotten.

CardiffChapterDracula: Pages From A Virgin’s Diary 28 October

This silent reinterpretation of Bram Stoker’s Dracula celebrates it’s tenth anniversary.

Scotland

DundeeDundee Contemporary Arts CentreArsenic And Old Lace13 October

Frank Capra and Cary Grant comedy.

Edinburgh FilmhouseMr And Mrs Smith (1941)9 October

Definitely not to be confused with the Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie action movie. This early Hitchcock comedy revolves around a couple who discover that they aren’t married

Glasgow Glasgow Film TheatreRoadhouse14 October

Patrick Swayze in possibly the greatest role of his career as a doorman of a rough bar.

Central

DerbyQUADNight OF The Living Dead31 October

A special screening for Halloween, Derby QUAD is showing the George A Romero Z Masterpiece Night Of The Living Dead. With no huge set pieces set in military labs or shopping centres, Night Of The Living Dead is beautiful filmmaking.

LeedsHype Park Picture HouseThe Muppets Take Manhattan13 October

Featuring the regular score of Muppets and a host of celebrity cameos, The Muppets Take Manhattan is a hilarious movie.

Leicester Phoenix SquareAll The President’s Men21 October

Now a classic example of political filmmaking, All The President’s Men revolves around the two jour-nalists who reported the Watergate Scandal that lead to President Nixon’s resignation

ShrewsburyLydbury North Village HallRebecca26 October

Another marvellous Hitchcock film being shown on a big screen. The story of the young Mrs De Win-ter resonates as much now as it did 62 years ago. The terrifying Mrs Danvers is one of cinema’s iconic characters.

StamfordStamford Arts CentreThe Cabinet of Dr Caligari 30 October

Werner Krauss’ silent masterpiece gets beautifully remastered and shown on the big screen at Stam-ford Arts Centre with live accompaniment by Jona-than Raisin

WolverhamptonLight HouseThe Lost Boys25 October

Possibly one of the funniest Vampire movies to come out of the 1980s. Two brothers move to a new town and become intrigued by the rampant vampire community hiding in the shadows. Featur-ing Corey’s Haim and Feldman in their early years.

North West

KendalBrewery Arts CentreThe Shining30 October

With a special digitally remastered print in circula-tion, The Shining has never looked better and what better way to spend Halloween Eve?

LiverpoolFACT Dig!22 October

Ondi Timoner’s hypnotic documentary about the relationship between The Dandy Warhols and The Brian Jonestown Massacre. After filming the bands for several years, Timoner’s documentary gives a unique insight into the inter band tensions.

ManchesterCornerhouseBraindead27 October

With Peter Jackson’s multi- million dollar behe-moth The Hobbit just around the corner, it could be worthwhile investing in a ticket demonstrating Jackson’s indie sensibilities.

North East

NewcastleTynesideClass Of Nuke ‘Em High30 October

One of Troma Entertainment’s more well known re-leases, Class Of Nuke ‘Em High is a low budget B Movie about the exploits of students who live near a power plant and are affected by the radiation.This is a true cult classic.

The Star And ShadowHarvey28 October

Based on Mary Chase’s play of the same name, Harvey revolves around Elwood, a man whose best friend is a six foot tall white rabbit. Played by James Stewart, Elwood drives those closest to him to distraction.

SheffieldShowroomHook27 October

Once Peter Pan has grown up, Captain Hook kid-naps his children in order to lure his nemesis back to Neverland.

South East

Saffron WaldenSaffron ScreenThe Witches31 October

The source of many children’s nightmares. The Witches is based on Roald Dahl’s terrifying chil-dren’s book.

LondonPhoenix East FinchleyDario Argento’s Suspiria31 October

A horror masterpiece, Suspiria is the story of Suzy, a young dancer who joins a group of dancers who are all enthralled by witchcraft.

Harrow Arts CentreThe Maltese Falcon (1941)18 October

Possibly the most successful detective movie of all time. Humphrey Bogart’s Sam Spade is the quintes-sential hard boiled detective

The Prince Charles CinemaFreaks (1932)9 October

A horror film surrounding a circus freakshow. Has to be seen to be believed.

South West

BathThe Little Picture HouseVertigo10 October

The final Hitchcock film in this ‘Things To See’ sec-tion and possibly his best (we have a soft spot for Rear Window).

BristolWatershedBlue Velvet28 October

David Lynch’s twisted meditation on the perils of small town American life. Kyle Maclachlan de-scends into the bowels of society after his amateur sleuthing reveals a world he’s never experienced.

Poole LighthouseWho’s Afraid Of Virginia Woolf12 October

Iconic performance from Elizabeth Taylor as Mar-tha one half of a volatile relationship.

PictureShow Magazine

will return in November

2012