Alternative Cinemas.....

I'm always interested by cinemas that are in unusual or exciting settings, rather than your standard multi-plex. Of course there are people like Secret Cinema who put on films in weird places, usually relevant to the film, but there are a lot of permanent cinemas that are in unusual buildings or have something a bit different about them. For example the Filmhuis Cavia in the Netherlands is above a fitness centre in a quiet neighbourhood. This gives it something kind of exclusive about it, as people would most likely find out about it through word of mouth. The Colosseum Kino in Oslo, Norway is inside a building which looks like an observatory for astronomers. Also, the Cinespia in Los Angeles is set within a cemetery, but they don't just screen horror films. But, although all these wonderful, obscure places exist around the world, I think we have one of our own in London. Although the cinema inside the 02 Arena is run by Cineworld (and previously Vue), thus falling into my multiplex category, I think it's an amazing place to watch a film. The venue is so vast and unique, and all the more special for anyone who was lucky enough (as I was) to visit the Arena in its initial incarnation as the Millennium Dome for an all-too fleeting time in 2000. So, although it's usually the independent cinemas and art-house ones that are unique, maybe we shouldn't overlook multiplexes for exciting locations.



(Photo taken by me)

Interview with screenwriter and filmmaker Ray Connolly

Ray Connolly has a long, successful career which has seen him write and produce films, write novels and also work as a freelance journalist over many publications. I spoke to him about film censorship and his thoughts on the BBFC.

Q: In the article you wrote for the Daily Mail about The Dark Knight, you say that the BBFC is failing to do its duty. Do you think censorship in Britain is redundant or just needs improving?

R: I don’t think it’s possible to have a situation where you don’t have censorship for something. If television and film don’t affect people as far as violence is concerned then these people who spend millions on advertising are stupid. It’s got to a point when violence is a joke and not everyone can distinguish completely between a joke and reality. You get copycats all the time. I wouldn’t want to write anything for a film that would affect someone but some people just don’t care. Movies aren’t real life, they’re a polished version. They glamourise death and violence. Movies depersonalise these sort of things. The BBFC have a responsibility more than anyone else. I didn’t think the Dark Knight was suitable for 12 year olds. It’s a very impressionable age from 12 upwards, as they’re developing into adolescence – they’re the people you worry about who are going to see these films with their mates. The film I wrote – Stardust- ended with the star dying of an overdose. I wanted to get the message across that it’s bloody dangerous to do these things. David Puttnam and I were both very keen that young people wouldn’t think that everyone does drugs because they don’t. I believe you should protect the young and impressionable and that’s what censorship should be for. I think it [the BBFC] has a job in society – it hasn’t done its job efficiently. There’s a theory we don’t need censorship and it gets in the way. I’d censor to protect the young, like a parent. The state should protect them. The right wing would use censorship to stop anyone, like China banning Google. No-one wants that but at the same time we don’t want a free-for-all. It needs to be maintained. Are they doing the job or are they getting too free? It’s all a balance so it has to be checked and regulated all the time and it should be stopped from going too far. It’s about protecting the vulnerable, not necessarily just children. A child should have the freedom to grow up without these images in his mind.

Q: Do you think the BBFC panders to film studios and gives lower ratings because of the power of the studios? Particularly the case with the Dark Knight?

A: Probably not consciously, I’m sure there would be a lobby from the studio if they gave it a 15. Maybe they thought ‘It’s Batman, it’s harmless’. With Stardust, the censor wanted to give it a higher grade certificate and David went to him and said show it to teachers and delinquents in Reading, not London because London is different, and see what they think. Overwhelmingly, they said it should be a lower certificate, AA in those days, so kids of 14 could see it now and make an impression on them. And also we wanted people to go and see it. It should be seen by young people. I can’t believe all the studios don’t put pressure on. [The censors] have to think am I doing this for the public and the kids or am I the servant of the film companies?

Q: Do you think films are often cut so they get a lower certificate which will make them more money?

A: It will happen all the time, there’ll be pressure brought by the censor. Then they’ll say what don’t you like and then they go through it to take bits out. You don’t even have to take things out. It should be a healthy debate between censor and filmmaker. The censor should be our servant not the filmmaker’s servant. It’s also not there to take out things the government doesn’t like but to protect us.

Q: In your opinion, does this cutting ruin filmmaking or is it better that more people get to see it?

A: Not necessarily, I don’t think it would have damaged the Dark Knight to remove that shot [of the Joker pushing a pencil through someone’s eye]. I would disagree in the case of violence. A director might say ‘they ruined my film’, people get very precious about their films. It’s different for a 38-year-old director who’s seen it all but it could be shocking for a 13-year-old. There’s a general trend for increasingly violent episodes. I think it’s due to a self-perpetuating cycle. Some won’t be desensitised. 

The Kid With A Bike

Winner of the Grand Prix at Cannes 2011, The Kid With A Bike marks another success for Belgian filmmakers Jean-Pierre and Luc Dardenne. Telling the story of a boy abandoned by his father, the film really touches a nerve with the audience.

 Thomas Douret plays 11-year-old Cyril, who is being forced to realise that his father, Guy, has abandoned him in a children’s home and left town. Guy also sold Cyril’s beloved bike to make some money for his getaway. While trying to find his father, Cyril meets Samantha, who offers to let him live with her at weekends. Samantha also tracks down Cyril’s bike and buys it back for him, although the bike leads to several confrontations for Cyril. As a result of one such confrontation, Cyril meets Wes, who attempts to alter Cyril’s innocence and kind nature…

 The Kid With A Bike is Thomas Douret’s first film performance, but it would be hard to tell if you did not know. He packs emotion and anger into the role and delivers an excellently convincing portrayal of Cyril, radiating hurt and vulnerability as he is let down and exploited by adults and peers. In Douret, the Dardennes have found a true talent – even without any film experience, Douret carries the film and is on screen for almost the entire duration without becoming irritating. Despite being one of the Dardenne brothers’ more cheerful films, The Kid With A Bike is full of anger and resentment, and Douret, along with the excellent direction of each scene, embraces and embodies Cyril’s hurt.

 Read the rest at subtitledonline.com