Berlin 2.

More Images from Berlin.

Double Exposure.

Double Exposure.
35mm Film. Minolta 5000.

Berlin.

Berlin.
 
One perk to working in a sixth form college but not actually being a teacher is the trips. I quite often get to go on the day trips as an additional member of staff. 2 weeks ago, I was ucky enough to join a film/media/photography/art trip to Berlin for 3 days.
 
Having never been to Germany, my 3 days (well 2 1/2 days) in Berlin we a real treat. I didnt have a huge idea of what to expect from this city so exploration was right at the top of my agenda. 

I crammed in as much as possible into my short time there and could resist the opportunity to get snap happy. I geared myself up with a map, my Minolta 5000, 2 rolls of black and white film and a handfuk of colour rolls. 

I think one of my intial thoughts on the city were actually of disappointment. Now, I should point out that this quickly changed before anyone is too offended. One of the first things I take note of, as does anyone I'd imagine, is the aethetics. The archecture. Given the city's history I'd think that a lot of the orginal structures were demolished, giving reason to the lack of intricatly designed buildings. Many of them, and this is something I have tried to show through my images, are grey and angular. My very idea of the 'concrete jungle'. In my opinion, the city is still shadowed by its history.

The Jewsh memorial is a definite must for anyone visiting. It a powerful peice of art work, though simplistic in design. Giant concrete blocks tower over you as you walk through the memorial, pushing upon you the feeling of oppression that you can only assume is a fraction of how the Jewish felt during the war.
Sadly, I did not get any good shots of this, though they certainly wouldnt have done it enough justice anyway.

As I began to overlook the aesthics of the city and dig deeper into what it has to offer, I found much more that I'd expected.

The Berlin Wall memorial again is surely a mandatory visit if you are in the city. If not to learn a little history then at least to gage an idea at the size and vastness of the wall before it began being pulled down.

I was lucky enough to be there at the end of Berlinale film festival. So when walking around the Potsdamer Platz there certainly was an air of glamour. The red carpet, the reporters. Practically every cinema screen was fully booked for the proceeding week. I was unaware of just how large the film indutry was in Berlin. The multiplexs consisted of at least 15 screening rooms, all of which dwafered the size of my local multiplex in comparision.

There are galleries and museums on every corner. I certainly couldnt pin down a favourite. Unfortunately, I did not get to visit any of the smaller independant galleries, which is something I'd do on a return journey. But with the Photograhers Gallery, film and media museum and The Salvador Dali gallery to visit, I simply didnt have the time. All of these I'd insist on any vistor seeing.

The photographers gallery holds an inpressive collection of the work of Helmet Newton. From exhibiting his prints to the collection of his cameras and even the car named after him.

The film and Media museum is again an impressive exhibition. When I visited they had a ollection of Kens Adams set designs. Concept builds and drawings from Diamonds are Forever. Imopressive as that is, it is far from my favourite part. A sci-fi exhibition that begins with a replica of the Robot from Fritz Lang's Metropolis. You are guided athrough a room covered completely in mirrors, giving the feeling of a never ending space. Almost like seomthing that might feature in Nolan's Inception, or even, his more recent Interstella. Genuinely awesome, in every sense and most accurate use of the word.

Birdman (2015)

With 2015 shaping up to be an excellent year for films already, and the glowing reviews that Birdman has already acheived, not to mention it's 10 BAFTA nominations, I went into the screening of the film with high expectations. I am yet to decide whether or not it actually met them. Perhaps I'll have come to a conclusion by the end of this post.

Birdman begins with a shot of Riggan Thompson, played by the seemingly perfectly cast Michael Keaton, levitating in the middle of his dressing room. Thompson is a former movie star, famous for his superhero franchise, Birdman. His turning down of Birdman 4, on principle (not dis-similar to Keaton, who himself, turned down Batman 3 'on prinicple') sets him on a course for finding prestige over popularity. He adapts, directs and stars in a theatre adaptation of a Robert Carver novel.
It is rather egotiscal to assume you can adapt, direct and star in your first theatre production as Keaton's character is doing. This egotism shines right through the film. Though I can't critise the film for its subject matter, I do think it throws away its hard work by regarding itself fairly highly.  It's mockery of the industry comes across as arogant. I find it ironic that the film in question has gone down a storm with critics despite is clear jab at crisiticism as career.
Everything about the film feels disjointed and fragmented. We are introduced to characters and plots that come and go, Edward Norton as the passionate thespian, for example. He appears after some excitment from Riggan, brings a new dimension to the show, then destroys the preview, falls out with his girlfriend, kisses daughter and then barely shows up again.The score is equally as fragmented, it never seems to fit. It's bolshy and disjointed drumming offers an interesting take on the usually forceful way scores draw out passive viewers emotions. This score had no real lead, we were left to reacted to the narrative and imagery in our own way entirely. The camera work again did nothing that you'd expect. Shot in one long take (with the expection of one cut about 10 mintues from the end), we were lead through the narrative by a continuous shot.

What interests me most about this film is the way in which it deals with the matter at hand. The film devles into the lives of 'washed up' stars trying to gain themselves a little crediblity when perhaps their earlier work may not have offered them this. James Franco and Shia Labeouf are two names that come to mind when considering actors that may have done just this. Granted, this is a clever, fascinating peice of work with plenty to get you thinking, I'd take that over a film that makes go 'yeah, it was alright'any time,it's just that it seems all too self-indulgent and confident. 

The Theory of Everything (2015)

This movie made for a good start to the 2015 film scene. A heart warming biopic with a near perfect balance of fun, sadness and warmth. The film, based on the memoirs of Jane Hawking, follows the story of how the pair became to be a couple and the deterioration of Stephen Hawking himself after he is diagnosed with motor neurone disease.

Screen writer, Antony McCarten and director, James Marsh have beautifully put together a delicate and charming film. Eddie Redmayne effortlessly portrays Hawking with care and intelligence. Felicity Jones plays Jane, who eventually becomes Mrs Hawking. Their relationship is honest, complicated and real. Jane's dedication and strength motivates Stephen Hawking to continue his work and push through his illness.

For me, the outset of the film is a little rushed. The meeting of Stephen and Jane, his diagnosis and deterioration all come fairly quickly, while the latter half of the film feels much slower. This, however, is the only real quarm I have with the film. It questions human relationships, how far we are willing to go for loved ones and what effect that love has on us.

A well made, carefully considered and heart-warming film. Perhaps it's pace needs adjusting but otherwise, absolutely worth the viewing time.

Paddington (2014)

 

Last night I went with my mum and sister to our local multiplex for a screening of Paddington. As my mum's childhood favourite, me and my sister were bought up on the stories of the bear that found himself far away from his home in Darkest Peru and landed in the busy streets of London. It is safe to say that we were all eagerly anticipating this film for a good dose of nostalgia.

I am happy to announce that not one of us was disappointed. It is always dangerous, I feel, to see a modern creation of something you loved as a child, it is normally at least, never quite the same. However, director, Paul King, has done great justice to the bear and encapsulated the charm and heartwarming nature of Michael Bond's stories. 

I may be biased given my already present love of Paddington, but its hard to see how anyone could not like this film. Though admittedly I found it something of an emotional rollercoaster, quickly going from happy to sad, to tense, to happy, to nervous, to happy and back round again. The films naratative is well balanced, to me it feels short, though not rushed, but I think this is due to the increase in rather lengthy features (Interstella anyone?) that have been produced in that last few years.

Hugh Bonneville and Sally Hawkins play the well-meaning parents wonderfully. Bonneville's cross dressing moment was enough to stir a child at the back of the screening in an uncontrollable fit of the giggles.  Normally, sitting in a screening full of children is not what I'd like, but in the case hearing the reaction of the scattered few only added to my enjoyment of the movie. The giggling and gasping and commenting made for an interesting insight into how this generations youngersters feel about movies. It is safe to say, that, if Paddington is anything to go by, they love it every bit as I do. Julie Walters was of course as excellent as ever, providing several laughs whilst being something of a voice of reason behind some plot points. Perhaps a little more of Capaldi and Broadbent wouldn't have gone a miss but that is simply being pandantic.


Paddington is contemporary enough for new audiences, without losing any of its original sinserity. Paul King is sure to maintain references to the time in which Bond stories were created. The suitcase and tag around the neck offers chimes of the war.

Paddington film exceeded my expectations, the charcaters indosyncracies and every other little quirk make for a delightful 95 minutes of screen time. It is sweet, warm and fun. Just what it should be.



Now, maramaldae sandwich anyone?

'Her' Review

Her - Spike Jonze, 2013. 

I had the pleasure of going to a screening of 'Her' at Birmingham's Electric cinema (http://www.theelectric.co.uk/home.php)
The Manger gave a short talk to the students we took on the runing of the cinema, a little about the film and also some disscussion regarding sci-fi, which with regard to this particular film makes for interessting disscussion. We got to have a nosey inside the projection room too which was pretty amazing.

Her follows the story of Theodore Twombly, as he deals with the break down of his marriage to Catherine (Rooney Mara) and falls in love with his OS. Set in a Utopian Los Angeles, though with definite elements of dystopia, this postmodern film deals with something of a contemporary topical issue. Human relationships. Or lack of, may be more accurate here. Shot in a dreamy soft light, with plenty of graceful lens flare, director Spike Jonze poses the idea that people are more attached to technology than they are other people. Human intereaction is rapidly disappearing dispite the fact that 'social media' is designed to increase interaction.

Scarlett Johansson voices the Operating System that Joaquin Pheonix falls for and is every bit as loveable as you'd want her to be. Joze has meticulous thought through every detail of this film. Twonbly (A reference to the artist here?) himself works as a love letter writer for those who cannot find the words themselves. Something that seems a fairly feesable profession in the none too distant future.The very real possibilty of such a thing happening is exactly what makes this flim work. Sci-fi films begin by setting out ideas and rules that the world of the film can live by, thereby convincing the audience that such a world could exist. In the case of Her, we are placed in a hyper-real world, the set of rules laid out feel entirely possibly. Jonze has explored a societal issue that many of us can, in some way, relate to.

Though at times this film can be a little slow, it acheives what I feel it sets out to do. Jonze has successfully created an intelligient film, cleverly creating a world we can fully believe in. He puts in a world of relative lonliness, yet still makes it feel warm. Its heartfelt and poetic style offers the audience a fascinating take on the rom-com. It is a beautifully crafted, quirky, postmodern love story that leaves you thinking about the all-to-credible prediction of our societies future.


This is a great article on the film ... http://www.theatlantic.com/entertainment/archive/2013/12/why-em-her-em-is-the-best-film-of-the-year/282544/