STARRED UP

“A brutal, immersive prison survival story with a breakout performance by British actor Jack O’Connell.” - Empire Verdict

I saw ‘Starred Up’... It’s one of the best films I’ve seen in a while. 

Directed by David Mackenzie, starring Jack O’Connell (Skins, Harry Brown, 300: Rise of an Emprie), and Ben Mendelsohn (Killing Them Softly, A Place Beyond the Pines, Animal Kingdom). I’m a fan of both these actors, more Ben Mendelsohn because I’ve seen him more over the last couple of years, but when I was a bit younger I don’t remember a girl in school who didn’t fancy Jack O’Connell for his character ‘Cook’ in the third series of ‘Skins’ and any teenager boy living in kent who didn’t wanna be him. 

‘Starred Up’ is about a young offender who is so dangerous, as well as clever (prison clever). That he is serving his time in a normal high risk/security prison. However the slight twist to this film that makes it so much more interesting than your average (if there are any) prison films, is that his dad is also serving life in the same wing as him. 

Mis’ en scene is pretty accurate, as Mackenzie shot the whole thing in an old prison (no longer in use any more). I wouldn’t know anything in terms of uniforms and procedures, because I have never been to prison but it seemed more realistic than other films such as The Escapist, 2008, even the old Escape From Alcatraz, 1979 film seemed a bit Hollywoody compared to this film. This film felt gritty, raw, and British. Violence far from glamourised, constant tension throughout, and curve balls in every scene. I felt there which is how I want to feel watching a film. Especially in the cinema with no interruption or digetic outside noises from the world to distract, or frustrate me. 

There were certain points I wasn’t to keen about, although the film felt very realistic. There was also the feeling that some of the stuff in the film wouldn’t have been able to happen. I don’t want to give away too much so I won’t talk about it in detail, I’ll talk about little things, such as actions that didn’t suit the main characters role (O’Connell’s character) Eric. For instance the he slashed a man’s face with a razor and later on in the film makes friends a little bit too easily maybe and sometimes can be a bit too good natured for someone who is capable of doing that. There were also times when I felt that they had nicked a few things from Tom Hardy in Bronson, 2008 (a great film). Little things like body language, grunts and sighs when talking to people, this wasn’t necessarily a bad thing. I just thought maybe they could have been more original, but then maybe it’s just me who thinks this and no one else, after all it was only a couple of times in the film I thought this. 

Apart from this, I don’t really have much else to say without giving too much away which I don’t want to do with this film. To sum it up, definitely worth watching try and catch it in the cinema if you get a chance. 

Empire Verdit - empireonline.com, Damon Wise, 2014
Starred Up Advert - Uploaded by Fresh Movie Trailers HD, January 2014

David Bailey - National Portrait Gallery, Stardust Exhibition

“David Bailey has made an outstanding contribution to photography and the visual arts, creating consistently imaginative and thought-provoking portraits.” - National Portrait Gallery 

independent.co.uk

nymag.com

David Bailey was one of the first celebrity photographers in the 60s. He helped create ‘The Swinging London’ culture of the 60s with his images, his ‘Box of Pin-ups’ which were pretty much every iconic celebrity in the 60s at the time The Beatles, Mick Jagger, Jean Shrimpton... He changed the way photographers prints could be sold and the price of them. 

He worked for Vogue and excelled massively, shooting 800 pages at the height of his proactivity, as well as doing a large amount of freelance work.

At Vogue he was well respected and popular with the models. Grace Coddington, creative director at Vogue and ex model said “... Bailey was unbelievably good looking... We were all killing ourselves to be his model, although he hooked up with Jean Shrimpton pretty quick.”

David Bailey during his career at Vogue, was given the chance to photograph some of the worlds most creative, inspirational, interesting, exclusive, mysterious people in history. For some reason he chose to shoot a majority of them in exactly the same style.

I don’t think David Bailey is a bad photographer at all. His compositions and rules of third are as close to perfection as a photographer would want. He’s clearly skilled with cameras, know’s what he wants, and very clever with his apertures. But his lighting? I failed miserably to try and understand why people kept coming back to him for work. The image of Jack Nicholson was taken in 1976, the image of Beyonce was taken in 2006. 30 years has passed and Davis Bailey is still shooting people black and white, looking straight at the camera, well lit studio. National Portrait calls him “imaginative”. Why? Why is he “imaginative”? Because people have been calling him that for years probably and it has stuck.

I went into David Baileys exhibition not knowing that much about him, apart from he shot the Kray twins and Michael Caine. I came out thinking him more of a brand name. That feeling I get when I see people wearing Fred Perry or Ralph Lauren, it’s good quality but not particularly interesting, most people like it and buy it because of the name, a sign of having a little bit of money, or they have no taste and just want something sensible (Fred Perry has helped me over the years).

I think any photographer could have made David Baileys images given the opportunity. They weren’t technically very difficult. I think most people on my course could have shot the images given the chance.
 David Bailey by the sounds of it, has a brilliant drive for work. Which to be fair to him, not everyone has. So in a weird way although his images are, to me, just okay, at least he had the drive and nerve to travel and shoot as much as he did.

Unrelated to the gallery, I heard a film called Blow Up was based on the character of David Bailey. Portraying him as a sexiest, arrogant, general ass hole. However as true as this may be, was it not the models and the future art director of Vogue who said that he was “unbelievably good looking”? How far would have David Baileys work taken him if it wasn’t for his good looks and charm, that when you type in his name in google or search him in books you end up always hearing so much about. His photographs indicated to me that he may have been sleazy, and saw woman as objects for sex. But maybe his success also was down to him being good looking and charming. Maybe if he was considered unattractive and boring, he wouldn’t be as famous as he is. I’m not saying that it makes it okay for him to be sexiest and degrading models and woman in general. I’m saying to some extent that woman can perhaps be as shallow as men if not more. The fact that David Bailey was “unbelievably good looking” should not have even been quoted in relevance with anything to do with his work. So what if he’s good looking, does he take good photos? That was the attitude I would expect to hear from creative director of Vogue. Hypothetically, imagine if David Bailey was the creative director and Grace Coddington was a famous photographer for Vogue, and Bailey had commented not on her work but rather on her looks. How would that have looked and gone down?

To sum it up, I wouldn’t go because it’s £12 and you can’t get a refund.

independent.co.uk - image of Jack Nicholson, David Bailey, 1976

National Portrait Gallery - Quote, 2014

nymag.com - Image of Beyonce, David Bailey, 2006

Robert Frank

mutanteggplant.com

“I dunno why I’m a Jew ya know? Because my fathers made that happen and so on. But it has something to do... It gives you sensitivity, it gives you strength. It gives you something, if you’re strong enough you can use it” - Robert Frank, ‘Leaving Home, Coming Home. South Bank Documentary’

I watched a documentary on Robert Frank, a photographer I hadn’t heard of until I was assigned to watch a documentary about him funded by the Tate. A man born in Switzerland, 1924 he describes how he remembers seeing in his young adult life confusion and problems. His parents jewish, and his father no longer holding a citizenship, were under a lot of pressure whether to move or stay. They stayed in the end which he thinks was a good choice. 

He moved to America, and loved it. I imagine living with the stress of Nazis invading and taking your family, a huge weight would be lifted off his shoulders. Throughout the documentary he never talks a lot about his native country Switzerland, he never looks back. He considers himself an American and now has an American citizenship. 

He had two children, Pablo Frank and Andrea Frank have both passed away. Andrea in a plane crash , and Pablo died in a psychiatric hospital in Pennsylvania. 

Documentaries about old photographers I have seen before, have never been so lonely. William Klein did a documentary about his life and career made by the BBC shot mostly in New York. He lost his wife the year before but he seemed to have plenty of friends and still has an uplifting personality. William Eggleston’s documentary was full of people he met and knew, revelling a more serious character but fun in his own way. Robert Frank’s documentary had only him and his wife in it, Frank seemed drained and sad I though. I also felt that he never really fitted in anywhere. America, not being his native country and Switzerland being to painful or out of touch for him to want to go back. The feeling of isolation and loneliness was a feeling I felt throughout the film. 

Maybe though being an independent photographer is a lonely job and eventually moulds you into a lonely person. The man I suppose, has had a lot of suffering in his life growing up in fear of being captured by Nazis and then later, loosing his two children. He is also a man of the moment and hates staged events like documentaries, and made it very clear whilst they were filming at some points. He was probably fed up being filmed while they were making a lot of it. 

I like his photographs of America and am a fan of his work and the modernisation of photography with blurred images and “bad” contrasts. All of his images tell a story. 

Perhaps it is not the lonely people that seem to be alone, that are lonely. Maybe it is the people that are well accomplished with friends that are lonely because they need people. That is the question I ask myself seeing Frank’s documentary, was he always lonely in a way? 

300: Rise Of an Empire Review

Image from collider.com

People seemed confused whether this was going to be a pre sequel, or sequel from the last Zack Snyder’s last film ‘300’, the cast in interviews seemed to be being a bit hush hush about it. 

After seeing the film I can say it’s a bit of both. The first part of the film is filling in the gaps before 300. Explaining how the Greeks and the Persians ended up having a war and the birth of the “God King” Xerxes. A majority of the film is set at the same time as the first 300 movies. Basically this film is showing us what was happening on the navy side of the war whilst the first film was showing us what the Spartan army was doing. Then the last bit of the film is technically a sequel. So it’s a sequel in a sense but not really. 

"300, up to 11. The foot-in-mouth direlogue is an Achilles’ heel, but this campy gore-opera is bursting with guilty pleasures. See it large: the 3D is killer.” Simon Crook, Empire Online Reviews. 

"Lacking the visual wit of its predecessor, Noam Murro's stereoscopic (non)sequel simply presents a moshpit of men in leather skirts going "Graaaaaarrrgjhhhhh!" while splattering post-Zatoichi digital blood with their sloshing swords and glistening chests. In a half-hearted bid to bridge the gender divide, co-writers Snyder and Kurt Johnstad offer up not one but two warrior queens, although the leering gaze remains resolutely male...” Mark Kermode, Observer Film Review.

It was also nice to see Jack O’Connell in a film made and produced over seas. As sad as that sounds, but I get the feeling that a British actress / actor has done well for themselves when they appear in a high budget American film. Jack O’Connell was famously “Cook” in ’Skins’, and more recently played a role in ‘Harry Brown’. 

I think the film is pretty good. I also think the first film was a revolution when it came out, not so much in the story, but more in the visuals and the feel good factory of boyish violence and cool fight scenes, some films should just be about that. 

Obviously the film is probably not going to change your life. You can probably tell this watching the advert. However the film is fun. If you’re a fan of gore, pop art violence and sets, as well as sex scenes then why not? People don’t always go to the cinema to see beautiful films, with beautiful actresses and actors, with beautiful or realistic plots. Sometimes you just wanna watch a guy ride a horse across a Greek battle ship, jump on to a Persian battle ship and cut people up. There’s nothing wrong with that. 

Empire Online - March 2014, Simon Crook

The Observer - March 2014, Mark Kermode

Ja'mie Private School Girl - Bad Reviews?

Image from Gurdian review blog newspaper 

About 5 years ago, I broke my leg and was bed bound for few months (it was a bad break). During these few months, family and friends gave me films and TV series that they thought I might like.

Among the mountains of DVDs I got given, one of them, was the first Series of ‘Summer Heights High’. It killed me. I thought it was one of the funniest mockumentaries I have ever seen. 

Unlike comedy series in England that I enjoyed watching like 'Little Britain" (or whatever I was allowed to stay up late and watch), 'Summer Heights High' I remember thinking was more down to earth and easier to relate to real life situations.

Set in a state school in Australia, written and starring Chris Lilley who wields more than a couple of characters: Jonah the misunderstood bully, Mr Gee the flamboyant drama teacher, and Ja'mie a private school girl visiting the state school.

Ja'mie: Private School Girl, is a spin off series that was made late last year, I've been watching it since the first episode was aired on BBC3 over the last 6 weeks. This week is the last episode. 

I read some of the reviews for ‘Ja’mie’ and was generally frustrated when I read one of the critics from The Guardian. 

"Falling ratings suggest Chris Lilley’s one-dimensional Ja'mie has failed to hold viewers' attentions. That's not surprising" Sub heading - The Guardian Review Blog

Yeah, ratings did fall massively by the fourth episode which had only over half a million viewers tuning in compared to the first episode, which had just under a million. But the review later goes on to mention that according to ABC the program had a record breaking amount of people streaming the episodes. 216,000 in one day beating Doctor Who, which got 140,000. So why in your sub heading would you try and give the impression that the program is worse off than it is?

"Lilley’s strength has never been momentum. Where Angry Boys’ story stretched agonisingly across 12 episodes, Private School Girl promised to wrap everything up in six. Yet the series has proved to be as slow as Ja’mie herself. Only in this week’s episode did conflict finally arise and bring with it genuine hilarity, with best friend Madison swooping in on Ja’mie’s boyfriend/prisoner, Mitchell." 

This person writing the review clearly is taking everything from an already prejudice point of view. The way they have written the review indicates that they have never liked any of Lilleys work, or are they even trying to point out anything positive. 

The program I can understand. Might not be aimed at the older generation so much. The music is obviously bad and modern, and the script is appalling (not the story but the language the characters using slang and swearing might not be for everyone). 

The critic giving their suggestions of what they think could have made the series more interesting.
"She could have flunked her dance assessment and been spurned by Mitchell in episode two. Her parents could have gone bankrupt.”

The question on my lips is. Why haven’t you written award winning comedy before with nearly 10 years of TV series to your name if you’re so funny? I don’t think comedy has to be about amazing acting, plots, or cinematography. Funny is funny to different people.

Review - The Guardian, Writer Unknown, Published 2013 November. 

http://www.theguardian.com/tv-and-radio/2013/nov/15/not-so-jamiezing-chris-lilleys-private-school-girl-has-proved-disappointing

Roland Barthes - 'Mytholgies'

Image from Wikipedia

I have been skimming through this book by French Author Roland Barthes. The chapters are not linked, other than the underlining semiotics of french nationality and domestic metaphors in symbols. I'm sure people will disagree with me. I find this soothing, as I can scan the contents and pick any chapter I like the sound of and read it. Rather than having to read up to chapters so I know what's going on in context, I found it a light intellectual read.

The book consists of all sorts of topics from his opinion of what wrestling is and the meaning behind the sport, to steak and chips and what makes it a typical french meal.  I'm going to talk about his chapter about toys. 

"...French Toys always mean something, and this something is always entirely socialised, constituted by the myths or the techniques of modern adult life: the Army, Broadcasting, the Post Office, Medicine (miniature-instrument cases, operating theatres for dolls), School. Hair-Styling (driers for permanent-waving), the Air Force (Parachutists), Transport (trains, Citroen, Vedettes, Vespas, petrol-stations), Science (Martian toys)." Barthes is making the point that toys are given to children as a reflection of the adult world and based on the adult. "...the adult Frenchman sees the child as ones self."

Barthes also talks highly of wooden toys. "Wood removes, from all the forms which it supports, the wounding quality of angles which are too sharp, the chemical coldness of metal... It is a familiar and poetic substance, which does not sever the child from close contact with the tree, the table, and the floor."

I agree with Barthes about the adults seeing a child as an image of themselves which I think in a way is true, when I was younger my mum would very, very rarely let me have toy guns because she hates guns and didn't want them in the house or me to be influenced by violence, my dad is a musician he would buy little shakers from music shops or tapes rather than lego, toy cars, like a lot of my friends had at the time.

I like his theory about wooden toys as well. There's is something romantic about playing with wooden toys. They don't seem to age and there is the reassurance of them being tough to break and clean to touch, a natural resource in a small harmless form.

However, as much as I respect and agree with Barthes I don't agree with his style of writing. I thought he was right about a lot of subjects in his book, his style, choice of words, and his overall opinions. But saying this, he wrote his book giving the reader the illusion of facts, when in actual fact they are just his opinions. As interesting and well written his opinions may be, I don't think that gives him the right to write them as facts, nor anyone for that matter.

If I was to write a book about my mythologies on British semiotics, I would make it clear that the book is my personal opinion. I wouldn't (as I feel that Barthes may have done) try and impose my opinion like it is the only option. No matter how great my ideas may be or how many people agree with me. Saying this though, and seeing it written down, maybe that's what it takes to get people to agree with you. Imposing your opinion as fact and forcing your point on someone. Even if it is just about steak and chips.

Mytholgies - Roland Barthes, Published 1957, Publisher - Les Lettres nouvelles

Wolf Of Wall Street - Spoiler Alert!

Starring the still youthful but experienced actor Leonardo DiCaprio, with fairly recent rising  comedy star Jonah Hill, directed by legendary director Martin Scorsese. The Wolf Of Wall Street appealed to me more than any new film out right now.

I think I'm a big film fan. Having watched a lot of films, more than one of my favourites have been directed by Scorsese Raging Bull, Taxi Driver, The Departed... Having only turned 18 last year, I have never been to the cinema to see one of his films as a lot of them are certificate 18. I have always wanted to be able to say to my future kids if I ever have any, when they discover a love for film (and they will because they'll be my kids) I went to see a Martin Scorsese film in the cinema when it came out. I saw Shutter Island but I wasn't a massive fan so I didn't count it.

I did some research before I went. Although I never bother reading the reviews especially on IMDb because there's so many from people who love the movie to people who hate it. So you can never get a clear overall perspective.

Saying this though I had a look at Empire magazine, They said "Scorsese's funniest and most focused film in a long time, a jet-black sex and drug-soaked comedy featuring a bravura performance by Leonardo DiCaprio" Damon Wise. 

I saw it. It was funny, it was great performance by DiCaprio, and it was a very well balanced black comedy film. On the other hand though. It has been done before by Scorsese 23 years ago. 

In 1990 Scorsese made Goodfellas. A mafia movie starring Ray Liotta, Robert DiNero, and Joe Pesci. About a young man who works his way through and up the mafia only to be finally caught up by federal police and ratting on his friends, then having to live an ordinary life like the rest of the world . 

Wolf of Wall Street is Goodfellas but with traders. The characters are different, the location is different, the actors, mis en scene, cinematography is different, but underneath al these elements... It will always be Goodfellas. Throughout Goodfellas Henry the main character narrates a lot about how boring it must be to live a normal life, so does Jordan Belfort in Wolf of Wall Street. 
The both films are also nearly identical in the sense of the main characters life. Determined poor young man, works his way up the ladder, gets money and enjoys having money, gets greedy, gets caught, rats on his friends and gets a lighter punishment, The End. 

It's not that I didn't like the film. I just heard the story before. 

Empire Magazine - Quote by Damon Wise 2013

IMDb - Film information. Dates and actors

Tate Modern

One of the Images displayed at the Tate Modern
Image from wordpress.com

I went to the Tate Modern to see the display of William Eggleston and a separate display of Harry Callahan.

William Eggleston is one of my favourite photographers. I have been a fan of his work for the last 3 years when I first discovered him when I was in secondary school. I thought he was by far the best frees display out of them all. Well done to the Tate as well for showing a whole room full of his work rather than what most people would imagine a display to be, a glass cabinet with a couple of images to look down on.

They picked really great I thought. I didn't like the frames they were displayed in I thought the borders were too big, other than that though, for a free display of his work, I thought it was a great day out.

I also discovered a new photographer Harry Callahan who I had heard of before had his work recommended to look at but never have.

Harry Callahan Tate Modern
Image from tatemoder.org

I liked him, not as much as Eggleston but I would hang a couple of his photos up in my room. He did images in colour too.

The compositions weren't as creative as Eggleston but they were still very visually pleasing and in some ways he shot similar topics to Eggleston, people, neon lights, dive areas, and cars.

For a free display of the photographers work, it's worth the day out. I'm going again next week to see Paul Klee. This one you have to pay I'll be saying if I thought it was worth it.

Ann Frank Museum

We went to the Ann Frank Museum the day before. 

"It is one of the 20th century's most compelling stories: a young Jewish girl forced into hiding with her family and their friends to escape deportation by the Nazis." Viator.com

    Image from the Ann Frank Museum Facebook Page.

I read a bit about Ann Frank when I was a lot younger. I never finished it though as I found it very hard to read as an 11 year old boy at the time hooked on Play Station 2. Reading about a girl from the 40s didn't grab me as much as it does now. 

My girlfriend was very interested and had apparently wanted to go for a long time, having read the diary, and finished, and found it interesting! I quickly felt the same way.

The museum had remade the house to as close as possible to what the conditions would have been like for when Ann Frank and her family were living their. I thought the museum was greatly moving and respectful the Ann Frank and her family and a brilliant way to tell her story. 

Amsterdam - Vincent Van Gogh

artrenewal.org

I visited the Vincent Van Gogh Museum in Amsterdam during my stay. As much I liked the layout of the museum, the lighting, and the chronological order of the painting and description of the social surroundings of art, Van Gogh's life, and location. I thought that he was trying to hard to show the working class. 

A lot of Van Gogh's work is brightly coloured and abstract. However when he did his series of "Potato Eaters" thought to be finished in 1885. He showed the working class in dull, brown colours, unflattering faces and solemn expressions. Compared to self portraits of himself, which showed him in bright energetic colours, thoughtfully gazing at the viewers.

'Peasant Woman'
dailynom.com

 According to the museum, he considered himself an artist of the working class. Capturing and documenting 

their work and life style. I don't think that's a title someone can give themselves.

He also was famous for his painting of shoes. Most people had the impression that these shoes were shoes he had seen in the "Potato Eaters" houses or around farms. Upon further inspection they are shoes he purchased from a flea market, walked around through mud in them, then painted. 

Van Gogh, if he was alive today. Would probably be one of those middle class / upper middle classed kids who buys tatty cloths from Brick Lane or wear jogging bottoms with snap backs to try and play it off as cool. 

Other than that it's amazing and a must see. 

Self Portrait
evangogh.org