Check this out –
Despite being made for just £16,000, The Sky In Bloom was chosen as a London Film Focus 2012 breakthrough film and screened at the BFI alongside the Oscar winning Searching For Sugarman and the Bafta winning The Imposter. It has also won a number of festival awards. Most recently it was awarded best feature at Newport International 2012 and screened in competition at Baja 2012 against the 2013 Oscar nominated feature ‘No’.
Night Train is a Polish drama that was directed by Jerzy Kawalerowicz and originally released in September 1959 under the title Pociąg. It stars Lucy Winnicka, Leon Niemczyk, Teresa Szmigielowna, Helena Dabrowska and Zbigniew Cybulski. Ostensibly a thriller, the film tells the story of a man on the run – who may or may not be a murderer – boarding a crowded train and being obliged to share a sleeping compartment with an unhappy young woman.
Towards the end of the film, one of the characters says “Nobody wants to love. Everybody wants to be loved”, a statement which neatly encapsulates Kawalerowicz’s central theme. Although the current DVD release from Second Run pushes the film as a Hitchcockian thriller I’d say that it has much more in common with Ingmar Bergman’s work, being far more concerned with the relationships between people – or, to be more accurate – the spaces between people than it is the plot. Indeed, I think it’s fair to say that there is no plot to speak of; rather, there is a situation into which various characters, or pairs of characters, are introduced.
The central pair is Jerzy the fugitive and Marta his sleeping carriage companion. Both are fleeing but it is not clear whether they are in flight to or from something or someone. Nevertheless, each recognises the other as a lost soul and they make tentative steps towards attempting to understand one another. A number of other pairings within the film overlap with one another, a case in point being Marta and her ex-boyfriend Staszek. Similarly, Jerzy finds himself the subject of attention from an unhappily married woman (known in the script simply as Lawyer’s Wife). In some respects the film is structured like Max Ophüls’ masterly La Ronde (1950) although one might equally say that it is the obverse of that film in the sense that it concerns a series of overlapping unsuccessful relationships.
There is a useful extra on this DVD release in the form of an insightful, if brief, documentary about the Polish new wave of film-makers. My guess is that most film buffs will know the work of Andrzej Wajda but fewer will know Jerzy Kawalerowicz; that’s certainly true in my own case, I’m ashamed to say. However, the documentary makes clear that Kawalerowicz is regarded, by Poles at any rate, as the father of their new wave and goes on to explain that his interest in character as opposed to narrative set him apart from his predecessors as did his immense technical skill.
Whatever his place in Polish film history may be, Kawalerowicz’s film is incredibly accomplished visually. While some of the footage was shot on board a real moving train, some was shot in a real train carriage on a set with rear projection providing the moving background. The quality of the technical work in this regard is exemplary and, dare one say it, far in advance of what Hollywood could manage at that time. Indeed, it’s often the case that the rear projection work even in Hitchcock’s films is terrible. And as if to indicate how far ahead of its time Night Train was there is a sequence towards the end of the film, set to music, which reminded me of no-one as much as Jim Jarmusch; given Jarmusch’s fondness for European cinema that may not be as strange as it sounds.
The cast contains a few actors who may be more familiar than you would initially think. Leon Niemczyk was in Roman Polanki’s breakthrough feature Knife in the Water (1962) and also had a small part in David Lean’s Inland Empire (2006). Zbigniew Cybulski, who plays Staszek, was terrific in Wajda’s Ashes and Diamonds (1958) and was a hugely influential in Polish screen acting. Tragically, and ironically considering some of the shots he’s in in Night Train, he was killed at just 39 when he fell beneath the wheels of a train he was attempting to board.
As fans across the world get set to celebrate International Star Wars Day today, Spotify reveals the top 10 most streamed songs from the classic film series.
‘The Imperial March – Darth Vader’s Theme’ is the most streamed Star Wars song globally.
Dual Of The Fates from Star Wars Episode 1 is fan’s number 1 choice in UK.
Spotify users have created over 74,000 Star Wars themed playlists globally.
Almost 36 years since the famous chimes of DarthVader’sTheme bellowed out in cinemas and homes across the globe, fans are more than ever united in their love for the songs that defined the film series, with tens of thousands of fans having created their own playlists on the service, ahead of International Star Wars Day on 4th May.
Spotify has delved into its data to reveal the top 10 most streamed Star Wars songs globally are;
1. The Imperial March – Darth Vader’s Theme
2. Cantina Band
3. Duel Of The Fates from Star Wars Episode 1: The Phantom Menace
4. Across The Stars (Love Theme from Star Wars: Episode II)
5. Battle of the Heroes
6. Across The Stars (Love Theme from Star Wars: Episode II)
7. Anakin vs. Obi-Wan
8. Main Title/Rebel Blockade Runner – Medley
9. Imperial Attack
10. Anakin’s Betrayal
UK Warsies have been streaming Star Wars tracks in their tens of thousands in the lead up to May 4th, with British fans most streamed Star Wars track being revealed as Dual Of The Fates from Star Wars Episode 1, as devotees prepare to dust off their lightsabres, Jedi robes and put in their Princess Leia buns for this weekend’s celebrations.
Spotify has compiled a playlist of the top 10 Star Wars tracks ahead of International Star Wars Day, which can be listened to below.
A lovely infographic from the guys at motors.co.uk.
Just look at the different Audi cars in all these films.
Kickstarter has been in the press in the last couple of months, as two high profile projects have both successfully raised seven figure amounts from online donors. One was greeted with celebration, by and large, and the other with complete contempt. The Veronica Mars movie, which raised 5.7 million at the end of its 30 day run on the site, was seen as a long overdue catharsis for a passionate fanbase, an exciting exploration of a new Paradigm and Kickstarter heralded as a place which could liberate the artists from the money men. A few weeks later, Zach Braff launched his new project, ‘Wish I Was Here’, which has thus far raised 2.3 million with 21 days of funding left to go. A total of about 3 million or just above it is likely. This was seen as an insult to the very intentions of crowd funding, a millionaire celebrity looking to make his dream project, standing on the heads of his penniless adoring fans to do so and Kickstarter heralded as a place where the rich and famous could placate their whims and take the money out of the mouths of starving children to do so.
The adverse reactions to the projects perhaps show how difficult it could be to have an honest debate about the merits and failings of Kickstarter as a potential paradigm going forward. From where I’m standing both projects turn the love of a fanbase into cash, but if anything the Veronica Mars project appears more insidious because of the involvement of Warner Brothers. Let’s say, that the Veronica Mars movie gets a cinema and VOD release and becomes a cult hit, and takes in something like 15-20 million. Warner Brothers, who won’t have contributed a penny to the film’s initial budget and have in fact been a major obstruction to the film getting made in the first place. 5.7 million is pocket to change to them, they probably spend more every year on Oscar parties, and they could have funded this movie, or even part funded it, at absolutely no risk to them. Yet that 15-20 million would go straight into Warner Brothers pocket. Money that would be to them free, a reward for their cowardice. I know Veronica Mars fans could give a shit about this, but its a worrying trend, allowing movie studios to possibly make you pay for a movie to get made and then pay to see it as well.
Personally I don’t think Rob Thomas and Kristen Bell have presented this information as clearly as Zach Braff presented his, you get the sense they just want to make the movie. Make no mistake, there’s something dickish about what Braff has done here, but by and large he has presented his case more honestly. Braff had secured funding for his film through traditional methods, but there were too many strings attached for his liking. Braff claims that he wouldn’t have had final cut on the movie, nor complete control over casting. Though I did find a bit implausible that any backer would have a problem with him casting Jim Parsons as his best friend, Jim multi Emmy winning star of the most watched TV show in America The Big Bang Theory Parsons isn’t a big enough star to be 2nd fiddle in an independent movie made by Zach Braff? Yeah whatever mate. That aside, Braff’s main reason for turning to kickstarter seemed to be so he could have complete control over his movie, no strings, no conditions. Whatever you think of that morally, like perhaps you think Braff should have accepted a lead on his creative freedom as opposed to take money out of the pockets of poor people, or possibly just funded the entire movie himself out of his sizable personal fortune (supposedly 22 million, but he has refuted that figure) but he put his cards on the table.
I can’t remember one mention of Warner Brothers involvement in the entire Veronica Mars Kickstarter machine, let alone one explaining why we have to pick up their tab. Nor do I see evidence that Bell or Thomas intend to put their own money into the project, something that Braff has explicitly said he will do. Of course you could say that the Veronica Mars movie definitely wouldn’t have happened without Kickstarter and Braff’s movie could have, but the point stays the same. For all the 99 percent vs the 1% insults levelled at Braff, I can’t really recall any being thrown at the professionally adorable, but equally a multi-millionaire Kristen Bell. Ultimately I just think it came down to the Veronica Mars movie is OK because Veronica Mars is cool, Kristen Bell is cool and their fans are cool, whereas Wish I Was Here is bad because Garden State is not cool, Zach Braff is not cool and therefore his fans are being conned because nobody could possibly want another movie from that guy. This is a bullshit argument for me. If one is OK the other is OK, and nobody OK with the Veronica Mars kickstarter can be morally outraged be Braff’s, just because its a project you believe shouldn’t be able to raise 2 million on the internet. It has. Personally I think Garden State has aged horribly, and I don’t have a burning desire to see Braff make another movie 10 years later and I certainly didn’t donate, but if people want to, that’s their business. Just as it was with Veronica Mars project.
Too much effort though has gone into to making a distinction between VM and Braff’s film, so Braff can be insulted, whereas the real debate should be whether EITHER of these films or anything like them should be allowed on a site that follows the economic model of a charity. I think Kickstarter was originally envisioned as a place to give the little guy a chance, where money can be raised for projects, like games/documnetaries/short films etc. where profit more or less wouldn’t play a part. If studios and the independent film begin to see Kickstarter as a sustainable model, with an eye to cinema and VOD profits, then questions have to be asked about what donors are obligated. Perhaps they should stop being called donors, and start being called investors. I understand the legality of rewarding someone who invests 0.006% of the budget with 0.006% of the revenue is currently shady, but perhaps this is something that needs to be sorted out, because there could be a window to for studios and cult figures of repute to exploit cult fanbases for free cash and take all the profits, which looked at in literal terms is not that different to a pyramid scheme.
That said, there has to be an element of personal responsibility here. If you’re a broke father of three and you Give Eliza Dushku 2 grand to make a documentary about Albania, then bro, this is just evolution taking its course. You can’t really blame anyone else for doing something as daft as that, you have self control and just because you thought Dushku was hot in Bring It On doesn’t make bankrupting your family her fault and not yours. In that sense, I don’t really have any strong moral objections to Kickstarter, no one is forced to do anything against their will and I think nothing about Kickstarter should be made illegal, but that doesn’t mean its not icky at times. There’s potential for greatness here. Kickstarter could be the way for people to get the movies they want without being subject to the fast food restaurant that is Hollywood and its fantastic for first time film-makers making their first steps into the industry. But people have to be wary, anything designed with good intentions and without the profit motive like this is easily exploited. I don’t think it would be too difficult for a con man to come up with a fake project, make a quick video, spend a couple of days making storyboards etc.. Make 70,000 grand of the unsuspecting public and just walk away with the cash, never to be seen again.
I think if profit making movie projects are entering the arena of crowd-sourcing funds, then there has got to be better accountability, a better sense of financial reward. Perhaps contributors who give less than say, 200 dollars, should get all the same prizes they do now, scripts, premier tickets etc… and anyone who contributes over that amount should be classified officially as an investor with a stake in the film. This would make the accountancy viable, instead of tracking everyone who give 5 dollars, the ones who’ve taken more personal risk in seeing this project get made get rewarded with something more tangeable then a walk on part or a character named after them. The birthing years of a new paradigm are always the worst, when the law and public savvy has not caught up with people gaming the system, they can and will get away with more. But perhaps thats the risk we take in attempting to take away the security blanket of the studio system. The wilderness can be dark, scary and unforgiving. It can also be worth it. I guess we’ll just have to wait and see.