Special Features - A conversation with producer Daniel Pleacoff

Jon Dudley interviews Daniel Pleacoff, producer of Treasure of the Black Jaguar...


Tell us a little about this project.

Daniel: The project originally started with Masayuki Imai who was doing a film out in L.A. and the production wasn’t going really well, it was just kind of a mess. Cameron Van Hoy, who is the producer of this Treasure of the Black Jaguar project and an actor in the film, was an actor in [Masayuki Imai’s original film] as well. Basically he went to them and said “look, we want to make a better film for you guys, this film doesn’t do Masa justice.” He went to them and raised the money and we made Treasure of the Black Jaguar.

Treasure of the Black Jaguar was originally a script Cameron [Van Hoy] had come up with a few years back, and it was an homage to Treasure of the Sierra Madre. It’s about three guys that go out into the desert also looking for something valuable and realising that their greed actually turns the three characters against each other. So we have the same thing with a new directing style and a new way of telling the story from maybe a younger perspective, a younger point of view - on a more indie kind of scale.

What was the reception of the film after it was screened at Raindance?

Daniel: We were very surprised. We were very happy to have a very warm reception to the project. We didn’t really know what to expect when we first went in to the project and so we were happy to find out that people really enjoyed it. So far what we’ve gotten [as feedback] is the directing of the film is very stylistic and that they are a lot of cool moments, a lot of cool shots. The geography we had was absolutely beautiful and that really added a lot to the production value. It was just an amazing journey the whole way through, from the point of view of the story, from the point of view of us a film makers because we had a little crew out in the middle of the desert, in the middle of nowhere, not knowing if anybody was ever going to see it, and here we are! We have been very grateful for the reception so far and it’s been very kind.

Has the positive feedback enabled you to secure distribution for the film?

Daniel: Just from the U.K. we have already started to get a lot of interest. After last Saturday’s screening at The Apollo Cinema we had a bunch of meetings set up for this last week. We went to Sony, Paramount, Warner Brother’s, so now we’re talking, we’re announcing, we’re sending out screeners and negotiating, just to understand what options are available to us. I personally just flew back from Rome just before this screening. I came straight from the airport here. I met with some Italian distributors who are very interested. They are yet to see the film, I’m sure they will love it but in the mean time it’s just the trailer which has gotten us a pretty long way so far.

Masa Imai is a rather [well] known actor in Japan so for us we’re very lucky to have him. So we know, just through him alone, we’re pretty confident we’re going to have a good trail in Japan and the people of Japan are going to get to see it. Basically the idea was that if we had him we could get at least one market for sure! We also actually have a follow up movie also with Masa Imai called Miracle Man. That’s the next movie, we’ve shot, completed, we’re in the post [production] process right now, just picking up the colour and sound. Hopefully we’ll be screening it next year, maybe even as soon as January.

Does that mean you will enter it to the Sundance Film Festival?

Daniel: We’ve submitted to Sundance, we’ve submitted to Slamdance, we’ve submitted to Tribeca. We’re confident about Tribeca, Sundance and Slamdance we’re still waiting on where we’ll probably find out in November. We don’t really know. Just out of this last week from the last screening we’ve got a lot of indication from the festival. Now we’re just deciding on the best strategy for us. In a year from now we expect to have it worldwide as fast as we can, explore our market potential and follow that up with our second movie, also starring Cameron Van Hoy and Mike Dreyer and Masa Imai.

They [Van Hoy and Michael Dreyer] both put in great performances in Treasure of the Black Jaguar. The performances helped keep the audiences attention. We had a lot of problems along the way, things we didn’t expect. This was collectively our first feature film that we have all worked on together. We’re really excited to know that it’s possible, that we were able to do it, that we can move forward from here and have our second follow up film.

Are you able to reveal the budget at all?

Daniel: I want everyone to see it first.

Of course. You don’t want people to judge the film against the budget?

Daniel: We don’t want people to judge it against the budget because at the end of the day it all came down to people. There was a lot of relationship and at the end of the day it just came down to people working really hard. The value of the film is more of the hard work put in to it and not so much the actual hard dollar. I’d love to tell you [the budget]!

You’re a very young producer in this business. What did you do prior to this project?

Daniel: Well, I’m twenty five years old. I’ve been making movies since I was twelve years old with my buddies. It’s always been a passion of mine even though my parents hated it. They wanted me to be a lawyer or a doctor or something! And this is a very risky business. But I’m alive only once in my life, I get one chance to do what I really want to do.

When I was nineteen I was very lucky. I got an internship working on Saturday Night Live for two years in New York. So I was at NBC for two years and I really got to go around the block and I got to understand what it was like to be in the industry. I made a lot of great relationships while I was there. Then after that I just worked my way up. I PA’d [personal assistant] for a number of years, I was a script supervisor, I was a boom operator. I’ve done everything there is to do in film so for me now as a producer, all those elements of ‘how can we put together a film’, when I’m on set I know what everyone else’s job is. I also know the problems they might expect and now I’m in a better position to expect problems and try to avoid them. Each time around I always try to be better and better and better, look at the mistakes I’ve made in the past and fix them for the next project.

So in that sense was this film a learning curve for your second project [with Masayuki Imai]?

Daniel: Treasure of the Black Jaguar was absolutely a learning curve. There were a lot of things we didn’t really expect and that was maybe my own ignorance really, I just didn’t know certain elements and what to expect. So the second time around I was a lot more prepared, a lot more organised because at the end of the day I was really like a one man army. I did the job of maybe twenty people and so that meant three or four months with three or four hours of sleep a night and I was traumatised at the end of it! At the end of the whole process I just wanted to be gone and thought ‘never again will I do it this way!’ I hope to continue building and raise more awareness of the project. It will reach a time when it will just be smooth sailing.

What is it in particular about Treasure of the Black Jaguar that you think will attract and engage audiences?

Daniel: The performances themselves are very good. The actors that we had are studio actors, they had already been vetted. Mike Dreyer has been in The Sopranos, Cameron Van Hoy has been in several films and worked with Academy Award winning actors. He was in the TV show Crash with Dennis Hopper which was the TV version of the film. Timothy Murphy has been in a number of films himself. Right now he has an amazing commercial out in the US that has gotten him a lot of awareness which could put this [film] on the map even more. He’s an Irish actor so all these things come together. At the end of the day the story is about the treasure of the Black Jaguar, a real story from ancient Mayan history. The whole 2012 thing has been an issue, people don’t know what to expect, they don’t know if it’s the real thing. Either way people seem to be enchanted, myself included, in the idea that something might happen on that day and so anything that has to do with a mysterious object that brings about greed will intrigue [audiences], especially in the middle of the desert.

We shot about four hours outside of L.A. and so we had this amazing geography, mountains and canyons and cliffs. It was a hard thing to shoot because we were out there with very little luxury. We were sending down our equipment on a rope! Down forty or fifty feet into a canyon, and it’s expensive stuff! We had to be very careful.

Yes I can imagine! I saw on the end credits that the film was shot entirely on location in California, like you mentioned. What was it like organising locations and sets?

Daniel: Well the only design elements were the interior locations, the brothel sequence for example. We literally shot that in a bar and we had our set designer who really did a great job in bringing to life the room, the feel, the look, the colours, the entire ambience of what we were trying to get. But as far the exteriors go the desert really spoke for itself. We shot in a little town called Lone Pine where John Wayne did all his movies. Stage Coach was filmed there and a lot of other famous western films, so we were very proud to be a part of that. This movie in my opinion is a classic American independent film and I’m very glad with the reception we’ve had from a European perspective. But like I said, we really didn’t know what to expect.

Treasure of the Black Jaguar trailer:


Read our review of the film here.

Jon Dudley is a freelance film and television journalist and his 17-minute short film Justification was shown at the 2009 Cannes Film Festival.

Frustrated Ramblings: My Guilty Pleasure #1 - Alfie (2004)

DJ Haza reveals his guilty pleasures in more "Frustrated Ramblings Of An Aspiring Filmmaker"...

We all have our guilty pleasures when it comes to film and television. That one film or television show that you know deep down is absolute tripe and you shouldn’t be watching it. But you do. It may be something that makes you laugh, but your friends don’t see the humor. It could even be a cheesy drama that strikes a chord with you and pulls at your heart-strings. Maybe even a certain film that reminds you of a certain time, person or place in your past and brings back happy memories. For me one of those guilty pleasures is Charles Shyer’s 2004 remake of Alfie. I know!

The original Alfie (1966) is a gem of British cinema and starred the similarly gem-like Micheal Caine. To some it may seem as a travesty to remake such as classic. To others maybe even a crime against cinema. Lewis Gilbert’s 1966 classic was nominated for five Oscars, so how could the remake better the original? It doesn’t really. It’s not a stitch on the original in terms of cinematic importance or stature. Shyer’s Alfie cost a whopping $60,000,000 and only grossed $35,000,000 worldwide. Rotten Tomatoes gives it an average rating of 5.6/10. Evidence that not everyone shares my fondness of the modern incarnation. But I still enjoy it.

If the modern version of Alfie is on I can’t help but watch it through to the very end. For me it’s slick, stylish and has a great soundtrack. When I’m watching it I can’t help but smile. Every inch of the integral filmmaker inside me screams that I should not like this film. I cannot like this film. But I do. It isn’t really a film I would have liked to have made myself and I’m sure that when I first heard the original was being remade I probably made an internal protest within my own head. But… it entertains me. This is why….

Jude Law is perfect for the sly and seductive lothario in the remake. Despite having a distinct lack of acting talent Law doesn’t need to do much more than act natural if half of the tabloid rumors about his personal life are true. He fits the bill of charming and selfish down to a tee. Alfie’s wardrobe is immense. From his range of exquisite suits, shirts and ties down to his Prada lace-ups it is a wardrobe that is stuffed full of high end named labels. He always looks sharp even when dressed down and I for one would kill for a wardrobe like that.

New York City is a stunning setting with its bohemian coffee shops, towering sky scrapers and trendy bars. Plus it looks even better at Christmas. Since I visited the city for a week around New Year's 2005 I’ve always wanted to go back. The city was then, as it is in parts of the film, blanketed with white snow and lit up like the proverbial Christmas tree with all the trimmings. With other shots like the ones set beside the Brooklyn Bridge as it lights up the East River at night it looks simply stunning.

The soundtrack is pure audio bliss with a collection of 13 original songs, and a rewrite of the 1966 original title song, written by Dave Stewart and Mick Jagger. A beautiful fusion of rock and blues give the film another edge of class. I have even gone as far as to buy the soundtrack and I am indeed listening to it this very second as I electronically scribble way.

Perhaps the icing on the cake is the inspired casting of Sienna Miller. Not because she makes the part her own or nails the American accent perfectly. Who cares about that? The scene in which Alfie shows his unhappiness at his current girlfriend Nikki painting in his favourite shirt is one of my most enjoyed. Not because it has any real story telling merit, but because Nikki, played by Miller, precedes to take the shirt off and continue painting in her pants and boots whilst sucking on a cigarette. What more could you want?

Like I’ve said – it’s not from some sort of filmmaking appreciation I enjoy the film. It’s just nice to watch. I know that some of the exterior shots of New York City were shot in Manchester, Liverpool and the Port of Tilbury and when intercut with cityscape shots of Manhattan make it look like New York. I know that Jude Law is a shit actor, but he doesn’t have to do much acting. I also know that the clothes in Alfie’s wardrobe wouldn’t fit over my writer’s stomach, but I’d squeeze them on somehow.

What people have to remember about the latest incarnation of Alfie is that it is of a different time. The original was making an abrasive statement of London in the swinging 60’s where as this one is more about having fun. Alfie proves that you don’t need big money or a flash job to enjoy life. Even those with humble surroundings can get our kicks. He’s got a roof over his head, some nice threads and a beautiful city to play in so why not go out and enjoy life. There is also of course the obligatory closing moral about being careful of burning too many bridges in life.

At this point I must admit that I am uncertain as to whether I am trying to justify my fondness of Alfie to you the reader or myself. All I know is that Alfie himself leads a pretty decent life and he lives in a world where all you need is nice clothes and a city to play in for one to be happy. The film’s offering of escapism to a world where your only concern is who’s bed your going to be sleeping in tonight seems pretty good to me. You may, and probably do, disagree. You know what? I may just stick the DVD on this evening, kick back and enjoy. Excuse me whilst I go and wash hands. I’m feeling very dirty right now.

D.J. Haza

Follow my blog at http://djhaza.blogspot.com/
Follow me at http://www.facebook.com/djhaza

Special Features - Too Much Trailer?

A frustrated Jamie Baker on movie trailers and their habit of giving away just that little too much...

Trailers are one of the most important advertising techniques used in the promotion of films. With the increased accessibility to view them, not only through television and cinema, but also countless other new media devices, we are constantly subjected to their glossy, energetic intrigue which battles for our desire to watch the features they promote.

Originally trailers were used to entice the viewer by showing us snippets of the film; its individual uniqueness and qualities i.e. the genre, whether it is suspense or comedy, and its main contributors. Basically its appeal and why we should pay to go and see a particular film.

But it seems many advertisers are ignoring these simple rules and instead subjecting us to mini versions of the films which reveal all the best bits and even tell us the ending quicker than you can chuck your popcorn at the screen.

With so many films being released each month and each one battling for our attention; many advertisers seem to have the ethos of ‘the more we show them, the more likely they are to come’.

As my frustration has grown, I have realise that it is often films of poor quality that feel the need to grab our attention by bombarding us with as many key details they can squeeze into three minutes, even if it means showing us scenes that are not even in the film.

One of last year’s most anticipated horrors (to me at least) was Case 39. It looked to be a chilling, supernatural thrill-ride with a leading star and an accomplished supporting cast (a rarity from the genre). But because I watched the trailer first I left the cinema feeling cheated.

Apart from the fact it was a lacklustre film anyway, every major scene or incident is already exhausted in the trailer, and it even includes additional scenes that are not featured in the film in a bid to deter and confuse us, as without these red herrings we would know exactly how the film unfolds, who the clandestine antagonist is, and how the film concludes. I became a victim of the increasingly common crime of the trailer being better than the film.

The idea that only films with obvious potential, do not need to exploit themselves by revealing all is advanced by recent successes such as Paranormal Activity.

Paranormal Activity was last year’s sleeper hit and much of its success and revenue came from its clever advertising campaign and the efficiency of its trailer. Rather than showing us any of the film, we instead find ourselves looking at an audience, on the edge of their seats, in the pitch black, flailing and screaming as they watch the film before us.

The ingenuity of this trailer emerges from its simplicity. It only reveals as little as it needs to and leaves us with a great anticipation to indulge in the thrilling experience of those that already have in the trailer.

The creative minds behind many trailers need to learn that even if the film they are promoting is not going to win a bagful of Oscars, at least do not cheat the audience into watching the film as ultimately the effect is a nullified viewing experience.

As Paranormal Activity holds testament to, many of the most memorable trailers do not even feature a single frame of the film, and much of the experience of watching a film can include the hype that precedes it.

So to finish... Scott Pilgrim does get the girl, the piranhas do eat everybody and yes, he does get him to the Greek. Aaaah that’s better!

Jamie Baker

Where Did All The Good Spoofs Go?

James Ellis on the demise of the spoof...

I wanted to start this article all contrived describing to all the uninformed masses what a spoof was. Literally what the spoof dictionary definition was. I was even going to add all the silly abbreviations one finds in a dictionary, make the start of the article look really cool and give myself off as some quasi-cosmic film critic: Universally intelligent and wise beyond his years (basically Kim Newman sans hair). If I did that you would probably skip to somewhere else realising everyone knows what a spoof is. What I really want to talk to you about is the recent fall of this once great, well-funny genre.

The spoof genre is often confused with satire; spoof is a light-hearted mockery of a subject (often other films), whereas satire is the exaggeration of story, characters, language etc to the point of the ridiculous. This can be extremely dark subject matter - for instance American Psycho is a very dark satire. The reason I talk of this fall of the spoof is recently while perusing some magazine I spotted on the back cover a full-page advert for the new spoof film Vampires Suck. Looking at the bouncy bold and instantly recognisable font of the poster I knew it was by the terrible twosome of Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer. This dynamic duo that brought us the superbly awful and unfunny Date Movie, Epic Movie, Disaster Movie, Meet the Spartans... you know the ones. These two men have really ripped the heart out of the spoof genre and whored it round looking for any pimp studio looking to make a quick buck. They take whichever films are popular and then they take at random any celebrity that has particularly caused any commotion in the press and try to shoe horn them all in together in a vain hope that some sort of humour might come of this. The stories are usually non-existent, the characters are either disgustingly inappropriate cameos of lookalikes, or clichéd mash up of main protagonists from other films; neither likable nor memorable but always boring, stupid and inconsistent. What I worry about is that the younger generation will only have this franchise of films as reference to what a spoof film is and all it can be. That will produce two results firstly we going to have a generation of people who are ignorant to how well a spoof can be made and intrinsically hate them. Secondly we will have a league of cretins, the cretins that keep these films a bankable asset, that love these films and carry on creating movies constantly get worse and more infantile until they release the Spoof Movie movie.

I want to write about the spoof of yore, the one that was a study and observation of films that were ripe for mockery and were done with wit and heart. What all these Date Movie-esque movies miss is a love and respect for the subject that they are mocking. They place celebrity pop culture junk randomly and unintelligently into each of these films. Real spoofs, like Airplane! (1980), take a subject matter or a series of films and make fun of each and every part in such a silly and ridiculous way that you almost fall for it instantly. The plot often takes back seat to the silliness but the characters are always endearing and always hilarious. They also use certain traits in genres and maximise as much hilarity from them. For instance on the aforementioned film Airplane! the plane in question is full of stereotypical characters that have been inspired from watching a slew of disaster films. Take the black characters that talk so much jive that you can barely understand them. Then there is Leslie Nielsen's Doctor - over confident and under competent as well as being stupid and hilarious in equal amounts. The Zucker brothers who created Airplane! and other fabulous spoofs write with such wit and deliver such a barrage of ideas and jokes it takes multiple views just to catch all of them. They have sight slapstick gags, rude and violent gags, as well as playing with words and meanings of how people talk: everyone remembers:

“Surely you cannot be serious”
“I am serious and don’t call me Shirley”

It’s this inspired silliness mixed with wit and cleverness that makes a quality and memorable spoof. The Zucker brothers obviously loved these B-movie disaster films, or at least watched a lot of them, and decided to make a homage by making fun of them. From all of these older films; spoofing has even become a verb, when a character is obviously mimicking something so much he is spoofing it.

There are two camps from whom have made spoof films an art; they are the previously mentioned Zucker Brothers and the Godfather: Mel Brooks. I have talked a little about the Zuckers and will get back to them but this paragraph is dedicated to Mel Brooks who really took this type of witty silliness to another level and one particular film is to account for that: Young Frankenstein (1974). Now please all of those punters that have screamed “but what about The Producers”, do not get me wrong that film is amazing but it isn’t a spoof, it's an out and out comedy. Its absolutely quintessential Mel Brooks but it doesn’t really spoof existing films. So its out. Young Frankenstein or Fronk-en-schtein as its pronounced, is all spoof and its fabulous. First commendations go to the writing. It is so quick witted and so silly that it takes you back to being a teenager and laughing about cocks and boobs. It really is that juvenile but taken to the next level by its level of intelligence. Just because its silly doesn’t mean it doesn’t take an intelligent person to write them, which is where Friedberg and Seltzer always go wrong.

Second commendation go to the actors, once again where the Friedberg and Seltzer seem to fall short, good comedy actors are needed and you cannot get better than Gene Wilder who plays the lead as Young Frankenstein. Gene Wilder has an ability to give off an anxious anger that borders on insanity and sadness. He done this in Willy Wonka & The Chocolate Factory (1971) and See No Evil, Hear No Evil (1989), playing a character who has a real sense of pathos, that life has beaten him down and he has all but given up and trying to fight it at the same time. Just to watch his jittery nervousness spill into a visible shaking of rage, his voice squeaking and raising in intensity, makes the most mundane of situation an absolute riot. In Young Frankenstein he is the grandson of the famous Victor Frankenstein trying to get out from under of his shadow and put himself forward as a viable scientist. As always Gene Wilder is perfect putting his spin on the proud but mad scientist and applying himself completely to Mel Brooks script. The other stand out actor is Marty Feldman - his Igor is the sarcastic and objective observer that most spoofs need. As easily the silliest looking character its natural that he is the one that sees through all story elements and drama. He winks and nods to the camera making sure that he is on the audiences side and is just enjoying the ride like the rest of us. He also delivers some of the best lines with such a dry dead pan that it barely registers as a joke until you really listen. Once again multiple views are a must to get the full effect of this movie.

Mel Brooks has delivered a good canon of spoof movies; he has also made some ones that have missed the target a little. Titles such as Blazing Saddles (1974) reach the dizzy heights of quality that Young Frankenstein touches but others such as Spaceballs (1987) and Silent Movie (1976) do have their moments but are essentially flawed. The current spoofs are not so much lacking in flaws but rather lacking in any quality and respect for what can be achieved with the mockery of popular culture and a film genre.

The last good spoof was the Austin Powers (1997) series of films, it was obvious to all that Mike Myers had a great love for James Bond and all other spy films and the series were successful by being exceptionally silly and brilliantly scathing. Once again Austin Powers is so loved because it is cleverly written, brilliantly acted, with good knowledge and love of the subject matter.

What I particularly loved was that spoofs were exceptionally rewarding to me personally. As a huge film fan I get a lot of the jokes and realised that spoofs were a kind of prize for being a loyal follower of movies and the industry in general. I felt it was like they had made a film of all the silly things you say when watching a film with your fellow film lovers. Often starting saying “wouldn’t it be funny if…..”. The essential part of creating a good spoof is to firstly be a fan of the films you are sending up and then creatively taking and mocking them to ridicule but never disrespecting them. The Friedberg and Seltzer approach only really responds to a scathing hatred and exceptionally childish approach to humour, which constantly falls so flat. They have forgotten to be fond of the things they are making fun of. They have forgotten to watch these films properly and really understand them. They have forgotten to get decent comedic actors but most of all they have forgotten to be funny and respectful.

As the saying goes, imitation is a form of flattery and if so then Mel Brooks and the Zucker Brothers have paid the most extravagant of all compliments.

James Ellis

The Unsung Heroes of Film: The Editor

James Ellis on the unsung heroes of film...

Most people don’t realise what goes into making the films we love and adore. There is pre-production - all the writing of scripts and getting everything and everybody together. Then there is the production – all the shooting and explosions and arty bits. Finally there is the post-production – that’s the editing, CGI and music etc. Now while the infamous director holds most of these together, sometimes directors are just brought on for the shooting and leave. But auteurs on the other hand have a passion and style that needs to be satiated. Most directors like to work with the same people, people they can trust and depend on to fulfil their masterful vision. Before I drift into talking about the genius of some directors I want to sing the song of the unsung hero of filmmaking:

The editor.

The editor is the person that takes all the footage and ‘cuts’ it together to create an understandable film. It has often been forgotten amongst audience how much work and craft goes into this, the pacing and tone can all be changed through the editing. Editing has be claimed to be the sculpting of the stone (footage). Greg S. Faller said that an editor should be invisible, the cuts should move seamlessly from one to another creating the least amount jarring for the audience. There are rules to follow - trust me there are a shit load - I have a book called ‘The Grammar of the Edit’ that sets them out. Editors do need to follow these rules but like with any art when they are broken and broken right it makes for such a powerful impact, they can make the film their own.

One of these ‘unsung’ heroes is Thelma Schoonmaker, the long time editor for Martin Scorsese. Now every one knows the explosive directorial style of Scorsese, but ever since their first collaboration on Raging Bull (1980), Thelma Schoonmaker has consistently made sure her style is original, creative and that she pushes the boundaries of editing convention each time. Scorsese and her make a perfect couple. A match made in Heaven some would say. Now put her name into Google and you can get plenty of in depth analysis of her style and life story. I just want to make sure all of you readers just realise what goes into her work, and give her the credit she deserves.

Lets take her first feature film, which was Woodstock (1969) (not with Scorsese), a phenomenal documentary. Editing in documentary is a large part of crafting of the story, especially as I can only imagine what the footage was like from an LSD fuelled festival (don’t quote me on that please, I have no proof I am only speculating). Schoonmaker constantly plays with our expectations of a documentary cross fading between dreamy images of rock stars, instruments and the addled audience. Using the space of the frame intelligently splitting them up into multiple screens so we can see all parts of the performance and festival. With this piece of work we can see a glimmer of Schoonmaker’s brilliant talent, she changed how documentaries could be edited, how they could be sculpted to dictate the subjects tone and makes sure the audience feel like they are there and relating with the legendary atmosphere of the festival. She also earned an Oscar nomination for her efforts.

Her next Oscar nomination was the beautiful-but-brutal Raging Bull (1980), the biopic that would follow the violent life of middleweight boxing champion Jake La Motta. Here I feel is when she showed how a film could really be edited. She would mix classic Hollywood editing with a modern unstoppable staccato of images that cannot be compared and would lead the way for a montage style that is still used today. Her managing of scenes involving Jake La Motta and his family could be seen as a perfect by the book editing of shot reverse shot, letting the actors work the screen, holding on to images so the performances can really shine through. Then when the fight scenes came around her editing knife really starts to slice up the action. She would cut between images of blood, fists, sweat, tears and ropes of the ring and making sure the audience could never get out of fight. Taking Scorsese’s legions of footage; twisting them and turning them so the audience can’t get away from the barrage of punishment that Jake La Motta gives out or takes depending on the fight. I remember watching this film and realising how an editor can put their mark on a film so powerfully. It was here that at the end credits I burned her name to my memory and took a keen eye to her career. Scorsese is a master director picking shots that some times need to be held on to and some that need to be shown but for but the briefest of times. She, unlike the director, won the Oscar for Best Editing. Just one of three she would later earn.

If you are reading this then I would be right to assume that you have a vested interest in films and probably watch more than the average punter. If you have been inspired or intrigued by what I write then please go out and watch or re-watch Scorsese’s film back catalogue from Raging Bull. Look at the time she stays on long takes and when she ups the pace with a tirade of rapid images cut together so cleanly. I see her as the perfect serial killer cutting up her victims perfectly and guiltlessly. Her editing will often mimic Scorsese’s characters emphasising their ability to suddenly shock and eviscerate into violence.

Her last Oscar was also awarded the same time that Scorsese won his first in 2007 for The Departed. Here was the first time, in a feature film, I witnessed non-linear editing. Non-linear editing is when inexplicably action from the same shot is skipped to forward on the movements of the character. Now remember generally in films when a character is doing an action a cut further on of the same shot is a big no-no especially in the ‘Grammar of the Edit”. But to do it right is so effective, the first time it is prevalent in The Departed is when Leonardo Di Caprio’s character is packing to leave his life of under cover police work. The pressure for the character has built up so much that on the one shot of him packing the bag, we see multiple cuts of this shot; almost seamlessly speeding up the action and creating an utter urgency for this character. He needs to leave and this is completely embraced by Schoonmaker utilising a new convention of editing.

I love that this lady of 66 years old, who even in her later years is still breaking rules and making sure she will not be forgotten. Changing how editing and the depiction of images can be conceived so differently when placed together in different ways. Sergei Eisenstein may have created montage editing with The Battleship Potemkin (1925) but Thelma Schoonmaker regularly takes it to the next level.

These films are an essential watch if you want to see how this master sculptor works her stone...

Raging Bull (1980)
The Color Of Money (1986)
GoodFellas (1990)
Cape Fear (1991)
The Departed (2006)
Shutter Island (2010)

James Ellis

The Frustrated Ramblings of an Aspiring Filmmaker

Aspiring screenwriter and filmmaker D.J. Haza discusses 'Original Voice'...

The lights go down. The curtain opens. Cue orchestral music score. The screen shines with glowing stars of a galaxy similar to our own. Then a deep, male voice reads the bold yellow words that scroll up the screen - ‘In a galaxy not too far away… in a time not too different from our own… there lives a young man, fuelled with ambition and determination… who’s one and only aim is to… make it in the film industry! His name… Daniel Harris. No, not the writer of Superman Returns. Nor the other 11 Daniel Harris’s on IMDB Pro. Okay, let’s call him D.J. Haza. Why? Long story. But, that’s his nickname.’

I think that would indeed be the opening scene to the film of my life so far –hopefully there are many more chapters full of success, sex and controversy still to come, but at present it’s waiting for greatness! Although it does seem a little uninspiring at present. I was born Daniel James Harris, but my friends have called me Haza since my infamous stint as a club DJ began at age sixteen. The majority of friends call me Haza still and it’s not very often I hear it called in a bar and turn around to find that someone else was being called. In my opinion it definitely stands out more than the birth name that I share with thousands of people worldwide and therefore gives me a slight edge in standing out from the masses.

Originality is very important in the film industry, and also very rare. Identifying yourself from the crowd seems vital and everyone bangs on about your own original voice and being different. The film industry is full of hundreds and thousands of people all writing the same scripts, making the same films and possessing the same qualities and skills. Every man and their dog went to film school - I graduated from the International Film School, Wales with about 100 others in my year. Everyone has made a few shorts - Behind Lock and Key, A Change of Tune and various others that will never see the light of day. Many have now set up their own production company - mine is Scratched Print Productions. However, when questioned most have never won any prizes at even the remotest film festivals, have not had any paid work, some have never even seen a film set since university and a lot quote their website as their Facebook page. To make a name for yourself you need to stand out, and a stand out name seems a good place to start. Okay, it’s not quite Seymour Butts or The Rock, but it’s better than what I started with. Daniel Harris’ are ten a penny. D.J. Haza is original.

However, a name that differs from any other doesn’t guarantee you success. So how do you get ahead? I must state at this point that I am not ahead at present, but I am doing everything within my powers to try and get ahead. These thoughts are my logical conclusions on what I can do to get ahead without having to lower myself to wearing nothing except a gimp mask, mankini and clown shoes in order at any networking event or screening. You wouldn’t forget that guy, especially if you sat next to him for lunch and he produced a wallet from somewhere!

So, what am I doing to stand out? First and foremost my ambition is to be a screenwriter. Every single writing seminar, class, lecture or How To book always bangs on about the writer’s original voice. I used to think yeah whatever, there is no original voice, film is just everyone ripping everybody else off and whoever rips the best gets the credit. Nothing seemed new. It was all “borrowed” from French New Wave or Russian Montage, and those were the films that bored the pants off me. Tarantino was a filmmaker who appeared to have his own style so I thought, but as soon as I dared voice that opinion in the halls of IFSW I was swiftly corrected by those anally retentive about their cinema that he is in no way original. They would then reel off what shots he stole from what Kung Fu B movies and smugly chuckle that he is not innovative. Those people made me want to poke them in the eye with a DVD or a sharp piece of 8mm film just for ironic cinematic effect.

Then I watched In Bruges by Martin McDonagh and something rung home. The story was so simple, yet so brilliantly done. The characters had a quirk to them and the way they interacted seemed to be uncinematic, yet brilliantly authentic. No big prophetic speeches. No flicks of their hair as they stand on the edge of the world’s tallest building or the greatest ship to ever sink. No masterminds or geniuses. No pretentious nonsense. Nothing too special. These characters were just so authentic and real, the walked as people walk, looked as people look and spoke the same as everybody else. A rarity in cinema I feel. Then I wondered why the name, McDonagh, rang a bell. I IMDB’d the film immediately and realised mastermind behind the film was indeed the writer/director of the Oscar winning short, Six Shooter. A film I had caught the final moments of one time, was totally intrigued by, but had never watched in its entirety. So I bought it, and again it was simple yet so very effective. My brain started to think. Martin McDonagh has his own original voice!

No matter how many people agree with that statement someone will always disagree. Cinema is a medium that relies heavily on the audiences’ experiences and interpretations resulting in everyone having their own individual opinions. And some people are just arses. However, I was thinking about my original voice. Not the horrific Newport twang that spills out of my mouth every time my lips separate, but the voice that results from my fingers bashing the keys of my Mac book. Am I actively trying to make my writing original? Am I writing in a style that I have picked from reading other people’s scripts, newspapers or any number of How To books on screenwriting? Can I add little changes to my writing in order to create my original voice? Am I rehashing old stories or do I have something truly original to say?

On reflection I concluded that I was not writing in the same manner as I spoke. No, not my twang! But, freely. Confidently. Me! If I were sat in my local pub festering away on a Saturday night I would not hold back on what I say or how I said it. So, why don’t I write like that? I now make a conscious effort to try and write like I talk. To use my original voice. Say exactly what I want without fear of judgement or repercussions. And, I hope my writing benefits as a result. Holding back from what I really want to say is only short changing my audiences and myself. You do not get many chances in this industry, so when you get them it better be your finest selection of words that spring from the page rather than something you were only half-heartedly pushing.

So why don’t I write like I talk? Perhaps my lack of cinematic knowledge in university and my early opinions being frowned upon had conditioned me to hold back slightly through fear of ridicule. After all, I did think Nick Love and Guy Ritchie were cinematic geniuses. A statement I have since retracted and refrain from repeating. We all live, learn, grow and then cringe whilst reminiscing I suppose.

So, what does a once chavy Newport boy like myself have to say that is original? And will people want to hear it? Hopefully. I’ve acquired a wealth of world experience for my 26 and a half years on this planet and I’ve always been good for a story. However, the ability to make your mates’ chuckle after ten pints in your local establishment is not the same as international acclaim in the film industry. So, what do I have to offer the world that no one else does? If I can’t offer something different then I’m not going to get my chance to shine! I’ve been trying to add my own humour, my own slant, my own words and way of structuring a sentence to create my own voice and I think it’s bringing my writing to life. But………. What if no one likes it? What if people think your original voice makes you sound like a tw*t? What if every film critic on the planet slates every line of dialogue that spring from the lips of your beloved and long suffering characters? They sounded great in your head though! Didn’t they?

They did, yes. I’m sure they did. No, they definitely did. If people don’t like them then it’s their problem. I’m a proud, confident screenwriter with an original voice and no one is going to tell me any different. If people are bad mouthing you at least they are talking about you. You are gaining column inches. People are hearing your name mentioned. Free advertising! I convince myself.

No matter what role within the film industry you aspire to make your career your best chance of doing so is by doing things differently to others. It may not necessarily be better, but different. Different stands out. Different gets recognised. If you talk to a producer in the same dull tone that the last ten screenwriters have as they too have approached him whilst he tries to eat his dinner in some fancy Cannes restaurant you will be dismissed. You will then join the other rejects standing open mouthed at the window berating yourself and wondering why he didn’t want to talk to you. If you are telling the same story as hundreds of other screenwriters your script is unidentifiable from the hundred others sitting on the floor of some producer’s office in Soho or LA. Be different! Not just in your writing but your methods and your personality. Don’t be shy, speak up and get involved with people, events and productions. Always remember that obnoxious isn’t different in this industry, but make yourself heard somehow. If you don’t talk to any other filmmakers how do you expect to get ahead? If you don’t talk to these people how can they hear your original voice? One saying of mine is that a writer who sits in a dark room all day staring at his laptop will soon have nothing to write about other than writer’s block.

I do my best to meet as any filmmakers as I can; admittedly I don’t attend absolutely everything as work commitments hinder my appearances, and try and make as many contacts as possible. I try to engage people into an intellectual conversation on film, but always add my own humour to the discussion and hope to make them laugh. My sense of humour tends to be memorable and I use it as often as I can. A joke can stick with people for years. And if you supplied the joke, you go with it. It doesn’t have to be a joke you created yourself, but you could have a unique way of delivering it. If you have any unique skill, trait or prop of any sort - use it! It could be the difference between falling into the endless abyss of faceless names that producers brush aside every day and that call of a job offer that begins your journey. And when they call and ask you what you have to offer…. You know to use your own original voice.

Follow my new blog at http://djhaza.blogspot.com/

D.J. Haza – Scratched Print Productions

Friday The 13th Retrospective - Part 1: From Crystal Lake to Pinehurst Halfway House

Luke Owen examines the classic horror franchise Friday the 13th in the first of a two-part feature...

Friday The 13th came at the right time in American cinema. The box office success of Halloween was to kick start a slasher horror revolution that consumed the 1980s and Friday the 13th was one of the first one to capitalise on it. It has since spawned an amazing 9 sequels, one remake, one crossover and a TV series over the last 30 years. Jason is one of the most prolific and recognisable horror icons and was the first ever fictional character to win the MTV Lifetime Achievement award.

As many of you will already know, I like my horror films and I particularly like my slasher horror films. Much like Nightmare on Elm Street, I love this series. It has a few duds here are there (more than good ones actually) but there is something about these films that I like. After I wrote my retrospective for Nightmare, the natural progression was to write an article of another franchise. So I looked at my DVD rack and went to pick up Halloween for a John Carpenter piece I was planning, but then I had a sudden urge to watch Friday the 13th. An urge I’ve not felt in a while. I popped it in my DVD player for the first time in what seems like forever and watched it from start to end. I then went on to watch the rest of the series and I began to remember about the first time I ever saw these films, what I liked about them, what I didn’t like about them, what I thought was cool, what I thought was lame. It compelled me to write this.

So, without further ado, here is part 1 of my Friday the 13th retrospective.

Friday the 13th (Cunningham, 1980)

Borrowing heavily from Halloween, Friday the 13th was the surprise hit of 1980. Made for a lowly sum of $550,000, Friday went on to become the 18th highest grossing film of the year and cement itself in the halls of horror classics. The premise of the film is very simple, a group of teenagers go to Camp Crystal Lake to help set up for a new batch of kids but mysteriously get bumped off one by one. As apposed to Halloween, where we knew that it was Michael Myers doing the murdering and stabbing, Friday took the whodunit approach by never letting the audience see whoever it was doing the killing. By placing most of the stalking in a first person perspective, Cunningham drew the audience into the eyes of a crazed killer and created a feeling of dread and uneasiness.

The film also throws a curve ball by convincing the audience that the stalking killer is the drowned boy Jason back from the dead, only to reveal at the end that it was in fact his mother Pamela Voorhees. It was a nice little twist that comes out of left field and brings a human nature to the film. This is a woman that loved her child so much that she vowed to kill camp councillors, regardless of if they’d done anything wrong or not, because she felt they needed to be taught a lesson.

The film itself is very good. The script is good, the acting isn’t terrible, the camera work is excellent and Tom Savini’s special effects are outstanding. The scares are very well executed and the final moments of the film will stay with me until my dying day. It is a film that is truly deserving of its place in the hall of fame.

Friday the 13th Part II (Miner, 1981)

With the success of the first film, Paramount would have been foolish not to try and cash in all their chips on a franchise. The original plan for the films was to have different stories out every year under the Friday the 13th banner - a sort of slasher version of The Twilight Zone. But some plans change, and some plans change for the better. Friday the 13th Part II falls under the latter category as it introduced us to a deranged hermit killer in a mask. His name was Jason.

This entry has a lot going for it and has some great moments. The introduction of Jason furthered the series' back story without making a mess of things. Jason survived his supposed drowning and lived his life as a crazy hermit in the woods alone wanting his loving mum. 5 years previous, he found his mother, and he found her dead. Something inside him snapped. Much like his mother, his mission in life now is to kill camp counselors. This all comes to a head in a beautifully crafted final act in which our heroin Ginny discovers Jason’s shack only to find the severed head of Pamela and her dirty blue sweater mounted on a make shift shrine. The mummy’s boy had struck back.

If there was one deterrent from the film it would be its ending. After Ginny stabs Jason in the shoulder with his machete, she and her boyfriend Paul run back to a cabin. There we get our final scare where Jason jumps through a window unmasked. Ginny then wakes up in a hospital bed, asking where Paul was. Credits roll.

While the “shock waking up from a dream” ending worked in the first instalment, it does not work here at all. In fact is feels forced and unnecessary, like they couldn’t think of a better way to end the film and it leaves a few unanswered questions. It was works fine if you are planning on facilitate another sequel, but this is poorly executed. Especially when you take into account that neither Ginny nor the missing Paul don’t appear in the next film. It was the beginning of what could become a horrible trend for these films.

Friday the 13th Part 3 (Miner, 1983)

“A new dimension in terror” the tag line promotes as Friday the 13th was going 3D.

In 2010, it has become almost commonplace for any film that is being released to be retrofitted into “3D”, but back in the early 80s, it was only for a select few films and was made to be a big deal. Steve Miner (who worked both the previous films) returned to the director’s post to helm the third instalment which gave birth to a mask that would become synonymous with the series - Jason’s hockey mask.

So what’s the crack here then? Well some teenagers are on their way to Higgins Haven, a stones throw away from Crystal Lake, one day after Paul and Ginny survived Jason’s attacks. But Jason has made his way to the same area and people start to die.

The only thing that separates this film out from the rest of the series is its 3D element. Other than that, it’s a very bog standard hack and slash film. Not that it’s a bad thing you understand, but this is not a strong entry. The fact that they gave no explanation to the ridiculous ending of Part II shows that Steve Miner didn’t care about continuity or story progression, he just wanted to make a film where teenagers get stabbed in a variety of different ways while exploiting the 3D technology.

It’s not a great instalment in the franchise. Jason did get a much better look and some of the death sequences are cool, but the film just feels hollow. It also suffers from the same alignment that the second film had in that it has a terrible nonsensical ending. The final female hangs Jason in a barn and leaves him to die. She then sails out into the river on a canoe to sleep. When she wakes up in the morning she sees Jason in a house. Before she can scream, the decomposing body of Pamela Voorhees jumps out of the lake just as young Jason had done in the first film. You’ll then be incredibly unsurprised to hear that she wakes up from the nightmare and is carted away by the police. It’s a terrible ending to what is a pretty forgettable film.

Friday the 13th - The Final Chapter (Zito, 1984)

To paraphrase Lionel Hutz, “this is the most blatant case of false advertising since The NeverEnding Story”. But the reality is that this was going to be the final chapter of the Friday franchise.

The mid eighties were a troubled time for the horror genre. Silent Night, Deadly Night had sparked quite a lot of controversy by portraying Santa Claus as a wild crazed killer and the angry mothers of America called out to “ban this filth”. The film was pulled from the cinema and banned from anywhere outside the US. Paramount got scared (how ironic) and decided to pull the plug on it’s money making franchise. The truly ironic thing is that Silent Night doesn’t feature Santa killing people but someone dressed as Santa. But that’s for another article.

Despite the fact that 5 years previous a load of teenagers were killed and over the last couple of days more teenagers have been murdered, a group of teenagers travel to Crystal Lake to camp. Shine on you mad bastards. Well, unsurprisingly, Jason survived the hanging from Part 3 and has now made his way back to Crystal Lake where he starts bumping off the stupid teens.

As you can probably tell, the series was starting to become a pretty predictable affair and this entry is no different. But there is something about this episode that separates it out from the others - it has an almost definitive ending. Whereas parts 1-3 have had convoluted stupid open endings, this one feels like the series has closure. The final act of the film is quite powerful with young Tommy Jarvis shaving his head to impersonate Jason only to brutally stab him to death with his own machete. This violent act from a young child (played superbly by Corey Feldman) plays back to the violent treatment Jason received when he was a young boy. As with the first Friday, Jason is not the killer, he’s the victim. Jason deserved his revenge, but he took it too far and it took the actions of a young child to bring him back down and end his reign of villainy. The very final scene is quite ambiguous in the face that it hints that Tommy could possibly become the new Jason, but it’s never explicitly spelled out.

This is one of the best entries of the series. It didn’t convolute anything by stretching out the plausibility of the story and it didn’t end on a “wake up from a dream” ending (despite the fact they filmed one). It harks back to the original film by heightening the notion that Jason is not an all powerful demon, he is a regular human being and he can be stopped – just like his mother.

Had Paramount stuck with their ideals, this would have been a great ending to what has been a fairly brilliant quadrilogy. But, as we all know, it was not to be the end. We we’re heading for a new beginning…

Friday the 13th Part V – A New Beginning (Steinmann, 1985)

The fans begged and the fans pleaded and it didn’t take long for Paramount to cave and make another film.

But the question that lingered over fans was, “will Jason return”? They’d essentially killed him off in Part IV and this film was titled “A New Beginning” – would they go through with the tease they left at the end of Final Chapter by suggesting that Tommy would become the new killer?

The answer to both of those question is “no”. They just made a rubbish film.

5 years have passed and young Tommy is now 17 and placed in Pinehurst Halfway House. Upon his arrival, one of the patients is killed by one of the other inmates. Tommy then starts to have nightmares about Jason and believes he isn’t really dead – much like the audience. As the body count piles up, the audience get more and more drawn into the belief that we are watching the return of Jason Voorhees. That is until the final act, where is revealed that it was a paramedic from the first 5 minutes of the film avenging the death of his kid – the patient that was killed.

This would have been fine, we were of course in the midst of A New Beginning, but Steinmann and the rest of the team led us to believe we were watching Jason - not some paramedic who has no relevance to the Friday mythology. It was the completely wrong move to attempt and it backfired on them greatly. This wasn’t a great entry to start with, but its ending is just beyond awful. It was a slap in the face to the audience and they did not take kindly to it.

But the series was showing some progression. The horror audience had moved on since 1980 and films like Nightmare on Elm Street had given viewers a more sophisticated killer. While Jason was never going to be viewed as a refined psychopath, we could at least enjoy his travels. By having Tommy return as a recurring character, the films were starting to move along with back story and plot rather than just have Jason show up and kill teenagers. Jason Lives and The New Blood where to carry on with this ideal, but that’s for part 2 of this series.

Part 2: From the Grave to Space

Thoughts, opinions, questions all can be sent to to boddicker_scripts@yahoo.co.uk or visit my website www.boddicker-scripts.moonfruit.com

Luke Owen

“You see, Jason was my son and today is his birthday” – Pamela Voorhees (Friday the 13th, 1980)

Related:

A Nightmare on Elm Street Retrospective

Bringing Star Wars to the Small Screen - The Ewoks and Droids Adventure Hour (1985-86)

Continuing our series of articles examining the various screen incarnations of George Lucas’ Star Wars saga, we turn our attention to the first animated entries in the saga, Ewoks and Droids: The Adventures of R2-D2 and C-3PO…

Star Wars: Ewoks.
Star Wars: Droids – The Adventures of R2-D2 and C-3PO.

Executive Producer George Lucas.
Featuring the voice talents of Jim Henshaw, Eric Peterson, Denny Delk, James Cranna and Anthony Daniels.


SYNOPSIS:

Fifteen years before the Battle of Yavin droid duo R2-D2 and C-3PO embark on a series of adventures that sees them do battle with pirates, gangsters, and agents of the Empire. Meanwhile prior to the Battle of Endor, Wicket W. Warrick and his Ewok friends see their peaceful existence threatened by distant cousins the Duloks, along with their sworn enemy, the evil sorceress Morag.


Following the ratings success of George Lucas’ first TV movie Caravan of Courage: An Ewok Adventure (1984), network ABC secured the rights to two animated series based on the Star Wars canon - Ewoks and Droids. With their work on the ten-minute animated portion of CBS’ infamous 1978 Star Wars Holiday Special having impressed Lucas, Canadian company Nelvana Limited – who had recently found success as subcontractors to DiC on the popular children’s show Care Bears – were tasked with producing the cartoons on behalf of Lucasfilm.

Regular Nelvana directors Raymond Jafelice and Ken Stephenson – both of whom had extensive experience on Inspector Gadget – were brought in to oversee direction on Ewoks and Droids respectively, with Dale Schott (Care Bears Movie II: A New Generation) replacing Jafelice for the second season of Ewoks. A number of notable writers were hired to produce the scripts for Ewoks including Bob Carrau (The Ewok Adventure), Paul Dini and Michael Reaves (Batman: The Animated Series), and Linda Woolverton (Tim Burton’s upcoming live-action Alice in Wonderland), while Peter Sauder (head writer on Inspector Gadget) handled scriptwriting duties on Droids along with Lucasfilm regulars Ben Burtt and Joe Johnston, who brought much needed Star Wars pedigree to the project.

Having chosen to focus the shows on the Ewok and droid characters due to their popularity with children, the production team soon found themselves working to a number of restrictions including limited physical contact and use of weaponry, not to mention the inclusion of speeder seatbelts. This sort of moral regulation was common for the Saturday morning cartoons of the time and ABC - who rejected Paul Dini’s first story pitch concerning an Imperial pilot who crash lands on the forest moon and befriends the Ewoks as “too Star Warsy” – were clear on their target audience. Further problems occurred for the Korean animation team, who struggled with the human characters in Droids in addition to the sheer volume of cels needed for the high-quality animation.

The Ewoks and Droids Adventure Hour premiered on September 7th 1985 at an estimated cost of $500,000 per hour and - despite the numerous restrictions - managed to deliver a number of entertaining storylines to keep the younger viewer (and withdrawn Star Wars aficionado) engaged. The first season ran for thirteen episodes throughout the latter part of 1985 before the decision was made to axe Droids in favour of a dedicated Ewok half-hour (advertised as The All New Ewoks) that would adopt an even more child-friendly approach. Droids did make a final appearance as a special double-episode entitled The Great Heep that premiered on June 7th 1986, before the second season of Ewoks began airing later in September. However, this new shift in focus failed to engage viewers in a highly competitive, over-saturated marketplace and the show was failed to be renewed for a third season, ending after just twenty-six episodes.

While easily eclipsed by the more recent animated entries in the saga, Ewoks and Droids provided a last-gasp, desperate feast of new material for those who suffered the slow demise of Star Wars in the mid-eighties and still holds nostalgic value to this day. Droids in particular featured numerous references to the original trilogy such as an appearance by fan-favourite Boba Fett and fellow bounty hunter IG-88, while a number of prequel elements including the planet Bogden, Boonta Race, and General Grievous’ Episode III wheel bike also stand as nods to the series. Unfortunately for Star Wars completionists a full release of the entire series looks highly unlikely, and with only sporadic home video releases on VHS along with two DVD compilations under the “Star Wars Animated Adventures” banner in 2004, both Ewoks and Droids look certain to remain, for many fans, a rather obscure entry in the franchise.

Up Next…

The Star Wars Holiday Special (1978)

Bringing Star Wars to the Screen: Episode IV – A New Hope
Bringing Star Wars to the Screen: Episode V - The Empire Strikes Back
Bringing Star Wars to the Screen: Episode VI – Return of the Jedi
Bringing Star Wars to the Small Screen: The Star Wars Holiday Special
Bringing Star Wars to the Small Screen: Caravan of Courage - An Ewok Adventure
Bringing Star Wars to the Small Screen: Ewoks - Battle For Endor (1985)

Gary Collinson

John Wayne: World War II Propagandist

Santosh Sandhu profiles the career of silver-screen legend John Wayne and examines the influence of World War II on his body of work...

John Wayne (1907-1979) was the very embodiment of everything America would like to be. Jingoistic, brave, forthright and a fierce defender of the American way of life. After shooting to fame playing supporting characters in B-Movie westerns, he was initially cast as a leading man in Stagecoach (1939) which would see the emergence of the screen persona he would inhabit for the rest of his career. This also signaled the beginning of a long lasting relationship between the actor and director John Ford. Often depicting an everyman oppressed by authority, Wayne would come into his own having to do what was right for himself and those depending on him.

Wayne would spend the war years making patriotic movies such as The Fighting Seabees (1944) and Back to Bataan (1945). Unlike some of his fellow actors who signed up for active service including John Ford who made the documentaries The Battle of Midway(1942) and December 7th(1943), Wayne never did fight in the war, having been refused due to his wife and children. Instead Wayne served his country via his movies in which he often played a similar character, mainly the typical American hero with a clear set of morals and democratic principles. His films would feature stirring music, dialogue and credit sequences that pretty much explained a film to the audience so they were in no doubt as to the ‘message’ of the film. John Wayne and the other Americans were portrayed as brave men doing what their country required of them regardless of the sacrifice.

Such patriotism was reminiscent of Wayne’s right wing political beliefs and his strong anti-communist sentiments. A fierce supporter of the McCarthy witch hunts of the 1950s, Wayne managed not only to distance his former colleagues but also John Ford, who suggested greater diplomacy was required when dealing with members of the film community. Whilst Ford was also an anti-communist he strongly distrusted the tactics of McCarthy whose blacklisting resulted in the destruction of many lives and careers.

Ford’s westerns Stagecoach and The Searchers(1956) had originally been seen as racist and disrespectful to Native Americans who were portrayed as nothing more than blood thirsty savages. Later in his career Ford did attempt to reconcile this by making more liberal films such as Sergeant Rutledge(1960) about a black cavalry officer wrongly charged with rape and murder and Cheyenne Autumn(1964) about a journey made by a group of Indians to the land of their forefathers. Wayne however never did make a film which contradicted his original stance. He made crude comments about Native Americans and the black community and was against the civil rights movement. His directorial effort The Alamo(1960) was a thinly disguised attack on communism.

During the Vietnam War, Wayne thought of South Vietnam as a brave little country protecting itself against the evils of communism and it was America’s duty to intervene. Using the same storytelling techniques established in his World War II movies, Wayne made The Green Berets(1968) which promoted US involvement in the Vietnam war. The film featured a group of US soldiers trained to go on a dangerous mission with a doubting journalist soon converted to accept the nobility of this war effort. Wayne's friendship in the film with a Vietnamese boy laid on the sentimentality and manipulation. Wayne’s attitudes were therefore dismissed as severely right wing and out of touch.

The film was made with a total disregard to the civil rights movement and anti war protests which were so widespread in America at the time. It was obvious that Wayne deplored such anti-establishment sentiments and chose to disregard them entirely. His feeling that the American government should always be supported in whatever it does did not reflect the sentiments of the public. Whilst the film did make money at the time, today it is rightly regarded as an embarrassment due to its over simplification of a contentious issue. Wayne’s comments gave scant consideration to the napalming of innocent civilians and the drafting of young American soldiers mainly from ethnic minorities into a war they knew nothing about. Whilst John Ford only ever saw himself as a film director, Wayne often aspired to be something more.

Santosh Sandhu graduated with a Masters degree in film from the University of Bedfordshire and wrote the short film 'The Volunteers'.

Superhero Showdown 2009: Watchmen vs. Wolverine

With the release of the highly anticipated movie adaptation of Watchmen now less than a week away, and the return of Hugh Jackman as everyone’s favourite feral mutant in May’s X-Men Origins: Wolverine, which film will reign supreme? Welcome to Superhero Showdown 2009!


2008 was the year that Hollywood legitimised the comic-book genre. With the runaway success and critical acclaim of The Dark Knight, not to mention Marvel’s Iron Man and – to a lesser extent – The Incredible Hulk, cinemagoers were engrossed in the adventures of costumed heroes to the tune of box-office billions.

While superhero films like the Spiderman and X-Men trilogies struck box-office gold in previous years, many critics were quick to dismiss the genre as being little more than popcorn-movies aimed at children, nerds and fanboys, and lacking in any real artistic merit. The Dark Knight - with it's compelling narrative, stellar performances and brooding atmosphere - changed that view by proving that a comic-book movie could appeal to a mass audience while presenting a story as detailed and engrossing as any other genre.

Fast-forward to 2009 and we are met with a whiff of deja-vu; the year’s two big comic-book releases (naturally, I’m discounting Punisher: War Zone) consisting of a dark and gritty epic from D.C., alongside a spectacular action blockbuster featuring one of Marvel’s most cherished characters.

Watchmen

Directed by Zack Snyder
Starring Malin Akerman, Billy Cudrup, Jackie Earle Haley, Jeffrey Dean Morgan and Patrick Wilson

Watchmen is set in an alternative 1985, where ‘superheroes’ have been outlawed and the threat of nuclear annihilation has never been greater. The story follows masked vigilante Rorschach, who becomes convinced of a plot to eliminate and discredit retired heroes during an investigation into the murder of a former comrade. As the Doomsday Clock counts down, Rorschach must enlist the aid of his surviving peers, Nite Owl, Silk Spectre II, and the god-like Dr. Manhattan, to unravel a diabolic conspiracy that threatens the entire world.

Zack Snyder looks to have created a visually-impressive and faithful adaptation of Alan Moore's classic graphic novel. The film has generated an impressive amount of hype and is sure to be a hit, having already gained rave reviews in addition to the popularity of the source material. While strong adult content is bound to be a limiting factor to overall box-office appeal, the film will likely gain a huge cult-following when the extended cut hits DVD and Bluray later in the year.

X-Men Origins: Wolverine

Directed by Gavin Hood
Starring Hugh Jackman, Liev Schreiber and Ryan Reynolds


Hugh Jackman becomes the first person since Superman legend Christopher Reeve to portray the same hero in four consecutive films with X-Men Origins: Wolverine, released in May. This prequel story promises to unravel the mysteries of Logan’s haunted past, including his involvement in the Weapon-X program and his relationship with friend and future nemesis, Sabretooth.

The film will also feature appearances from a host of well-loved Marvel characters including Deadpool, Gambit, Silver Fox and Cyclops. How this all fits with previously established continuity, we shall have to wait and see. Regardless, Wolverine’s popularity and the broad appeal of the cast will ensure that the movie is hugely successful at the box office this summer.

PREDICTION

Despite Warner Bros. dominating last year’s worldwide box-office and the buzz surrounding their latest release, it would be a major surprise if Watchmen comes close to matching the revenue that X-Men Origins: Wolverine will generate. Reviews, word-of-mouth and so on will likely favour Snyder’s effort, but when the dust settles this summer the adamantium-clawed mutant will have slashed his way to twice the worldwide gross of Watchmen. However, he'd need to enlist more than a few of his old X-Men chums to have any chance of beating Dr. Manhattan and Co. in terms of quality and lasting appeal.

Agree? Disagree? Let me know what you think.

Gary Collinson