Skew 2011 PosterThe opening film for this year’s Big Bear Horror Film Festival was Skew, director Seve Schlenz’s entry into the bustling found footage genre. When three friends take a camcorder along on a cross-country road trip, one of them notices the camera blurs the face of anyone who is about to die. Simple enough, right? All in all this was a fine film to kick things off, but there were better films to be found at the festival. Anyone already getting fatigued from the massive influx of found footage films since Paranormal Activity hit in 2009 would best stay away, since Skew does little to enhance or experiment with the subgenre.That being said, the film was entertaining. The acting was decent and Schlenz efficiently worked around a meager budget. Although the 3rd act fumbles the rising action built-up during the first hour or so, the suspense is functional and the suspense is sufficient.
I do not know if it is just because of the voyeuristic nature of found footage films, but I always find an inherent sexuality bubbling beneath the surface of the movies in this particular genre. What do you guys think, is it just me? Let me know.
The Madness of King GeorgeCinema as a medium, by necessity, must always adhere to the strengths of its elements. As a means of storytelling, film is unequaled in its ability to quickly and succinctly engage its audience with visual tenacity. Restricted by the endurance of the common spectator, films are obligated to tell dynamic, fleshed out stories within a limited time frame. Of course filmmakers must attempt to “show” their story, not simply “tell” it, so when tackling such weighty topics found in historical period pieces similar to The Madness of King George (1994) and Amazing Grace (2006), a director must often choose between what is accurate and what is engaging. The filmmakers of these three films were given the opportunity to adapt divergent stories all set within the same location and time frame, often portraying the same characters. William Pitt the Younger and Charles James Fox appear in both The Madness of King George and Amazing Grace, but each film paints a decidedly different image of the 18th century politicians.
The Madness of King George is a heartbreaking, often humorous, account of King George III’s mental collapse towards the end of the 1700s. His son, the Prince of Wales, is nipping at the dying man’s heels, anxious to obtain the throne and the power it promises. The Prince has made an ally in James Charles Fox, a notable British Whig statesman eager to purge England of its tyrannical King. The country’s Prime Minister, William Pitt the Younger, has much to lose if the Prince were to successfully remove George III from power, and so must tirelessly defend the king while also desperately finding a cure for his illness.
The introduction of Pitt and Fox in the film would suggest a playful competiveness shared between the two politicians. Pitt patiently stands by as Fox criticizes the King’s choices and English politics, quipping “God wrought all royals, give us the wisdom of America.” Their amiability was an interesting twist that delivered spontaneous wit and some much needed exposition in the film, but to the frustration of many British historians, their relationship is highly improbable. According to author John Simkin, Fox resigned as Foreign Secretary for the Whig government following the death of the Marquis of Rockingham, as he was “unwilling to serve under the new Prime Minister, Lord Sherburne. Sherburne appointed the twenty-three year old William Pitt as his Chancellor… after this the two men became bitter enemies.” Less than a year later, at the age of twenty-four, Pitt would become England’s youngest Prime Minister. It seems in all actuality Pitt and Fox were more akin to being archenemies than playful competitors.
Looked upon separately, the portrayal of each man is rather true-to-life. Simkin confirms Fox’s controversial opinion of American policy, that in fact he was opposed to the “taxation of the Americans without their consent,” and when war broke out between the countries Fox argued for peace. Jim Carter portrays the statesman as conniving and outspoken, devilishly quick tongued but lacking true obedience. Marg Baskin complies with this notion, “As with many radicals, his political views were marked by forward-looking ideals but marred by a lack of practicality… (Fox) was subject to wildly emotional highs and lows which sometimes led him to resign power, and seek to regain it again on a changing whim… he left his mark on late-18th century politics for the brilliance of his way with words far more than for tangible accomplishments.”
Amazing Grace 2006Pitt, on screen and factually, was almost the polar opposite of his political nemesis. In The Madness of King George Pitt is self-contained, a calculating and cold man that is always the politician. This portrayal too seems quite accurate. Information found on the Blankeney Manor site dedicated to The Scarlett Pimpernel novels describes Pitt as “notably withdrawn.” His frigid demeanor is understandable considering the difficult predicament he found himself in during George III’s fall from grace. His political future was reliant on a man who was literally losing control of his sanity. Blankeney Manor and the film concur on just how close Pitt came to losing everything: “(Pitt) most serious crisis came in the winter of 1788-89, when, during George III’s madness, Pitt lost the support of the crown. Had the dissolute Prince of Wales, who favored the opposition, become regent, Pitt would certainly have been dismissed.” In retrospect “notably withdrawn” could have easily been misperceived for quiet concern.
The Duchess 2008From sworn enemies to political confederates, both Pitt and Fox receive a major character overhaul in the 2006 film Amazing Grace. No longer fighting over British regency, the politicians join forces to support William Wilberforce and his twenty-year campaign to abolish the British Empire’s involvement with the slave trade. Although both men are portrayed differently in Amazing Grace compared to The Madness of King George, it is William Pitt that receives the most apparent reconditioning. His indifference is replaced with empathy, frigidity with compassion. This is not only a direct contradiction to the character on display in Madness, but also challenges documented accounts of the man. Blankeneye Manor explains that Pitt never bothered to marry, had very few friends, and that his inaccessibility caused problems with other members of government. This notion of a disagreeable statesman is hard to believe having been introduced to the sensitive activist fighting for human rights in Amazing Grace. It is true that Pitt and Fox both worked for the nullification of the slave trade, but this film does little to suggest any history of animosity or vitriol between the men.
This notion that historical figures can be appropriated for narrative design is an interesting one. Filmmakers seem to pay no mind to the sounds of wincing historians, dismayed at the blatant disregard for accuracy in the name fictional fusion. Should the directors of films like The Madness of King George and Amazing Grace be slaves to the details, or does history just make-up the building blocks for their interpretations? The answer is of course subjective, but one must consider the medium. The films discussed in this essay each admirably strove to depict a moment in time, an event worthy of representation, in the most engaging manner possible. The cold, unlikable William Pitt the Younger found defending his position as Prime Minister and that of the King’s in The Madness of King George, out of narrative necessity, would make no sense befriending William Wilberforce in Amazing Grace. Films cannot be expected to reach the intellectual and factual watermarks that textbooks define. James Fox is the conniving politician in Madness, the spunky supporter of human rights in Amazing Grace, and the outspoken playboy in The Duchess, because that is exactly what those films required to achieve narrative success. Each of the three films presents a different character, but when taken in context with documented history they combine to create an amalgam of the man, which in a way is perhaps accurate enough.
Big Bear Horror Festival 2011I am organizing my thoughts and getting ready to start talking about the 3-day event held last weekend. Saw a bunch of awesome films and met some really cool people, so I am anxious to talk about it. Stay tuned. . .
We're Not Married Poster 1952This film reeks of the disappointment felt by Americans after World War II. With men dealing with the disillusionment of promised white-picket fences and a happy wife waiting in the kitchen, the troops who fought in the war were unaware that the America they left to defend no longer existed. Women, having taken up the cause and replaced the men in the work force were not willing to abandon their newfound independence. The resulting tension produced We’re Not Married, a 1952 anthology comedy that is light on laughs, but heavy on insight. Five couples in very degrees of unhappiness all receive a letter in the mail informing them that there has been an unfortunate mishap, and that all of their marriages were in fact not valid. While a few of the stories fall flat, there are one or two that are worth the entry fee. Marilyn Monroe and Ginger Rogers are fun to watch, and I especially enjoyed watching young Eddie Bracken going AWOL from the Navy to try and re-marry his pregnant wife. Although it may be hard to find a copy of We’re Not Married, its an interesting display of post WWII American discontent.
The Treasure of Sierra Madre PosterThe Treasure of Sierra Madre is a classic tale of man fighting, and also embracing, his twisted nature. After three American’s team-up to mine gold in the dangerous mountains of Mexico, each man must struggle with their own greed when they strike it rich. While they contend with each other, they must also survive attacks by Mexican banditos, Gila monsters, and conniving miners.
The cast is spectacular, with Humphrey Bogart giving one of his most thorny, vulnerable performances. That being said, it is Walter Huston’s weathered miner Howard that steals the show. Classic flick, I recommend The Treasure of Sierra Madre to anyone interested in classic films, but too intimidated to give any a shot.
Here is an impressive video mashup of The Matrix and the many films that influenced the The Wachowski's final product. It is a lot of fun, and creator Roger Wilson is quite the editor. Cannot wait to check out more of his remixes. Check out Roger's site here.
Elizabeth 1998 PosterThe 1998 film Elizabeth, a period piece examining the rise to power of perhaps the most celebrated of the English matriarchs Queen Elizabeth I, had the arduous task of portraying a well-documented and highly regarded event in history on screen. While possibly to the dislike of British historians world-round, director Shekhar Kapur takes advantage of his artistic license to treat the subject matter as malleable fiction instead of concrete fact. Specifically Kapur, along with screenwriter Michael Hirst, plays with the specifics of the film’s main characters. To best facilitate their narrative, the duo liberally adjusted not just the particulars of Queen Elizabeth, Sir William Cecil, Sir Francis Walshingham, and Robert Dudley Earl of Leicester, but also remodels the characters’ integrity and intentions for the greater good of filmmaking.
The film essentially begins as the Queen Mary Tudor’s reign is coming to an end. Desperately trying to convert England into a fully Catholic nation before a brain tumor ends her life, Mary is fearful of her protestant half-sister Elizabeth ascending the throne after her death. Following a stint in the infamous Tower of London, Elizabeth outlived her older sister and, at the vexation of many Catholic clergymen and Royal Family assemblymen, Elizabeth took the throne as Queen of England in 1558.
The majority of the drama in the film is derived from Elizabeth’s relationship with Robert Dudley, and her insistence on remaining unmarried. Many scholars question just how accurate the portrayal of the Queen and Dudley’s love is in the film. In the beginning of the movie Elizabeth is shown meeting and becoming quite enamored by the handsome Dudley, forming a quick and passionate bond. Soon after, the film jumps to the Queen’s incarceration in the Tower of London for alleged acts of treason, however, according to according to the website Elizabethi.org, “When Elizabeth was taken to the Tower in 1554, Robert Dudley was already incarcerated there for his part in his fathers attempt to usurp the throne for his daughter in law, Lady Jane Grey.” This alone cannot and should not be held against the director, dates and locations are mere details, beholden only to whoever is crafting his or her story. Elizabeth does more than just manipulate the details of events however; it completely rewrites the intentions of Robert Dudley.Elizabeth 1998 Poster
In the film Robert Dudley is a loyal subject to Queen Elizabeth, and with implied scenes of romance and coupling, was also the “Virgin Queen’s” lover. Some historians would argue with this notion, like those found at Elizabethi.org for they believe that “…it is unlikely that Robert Dudley and the Queen had a sexual relationship, for various reason, and their love affair had not begun at the time of her coronation. In all probability, the Queen was the virgin she claimed to be.” Passion is not the only emotion tinkered with in the film, but also devotion and loyalty. In the film Elizabeth is staggered by the revelation that Dudley was in fact already married, which eventually leads to a heartbreaking split between the two lovers and instigates Dudley treasonous plotting against the throne. All of this appears to be nothing more than wild inventiveness for drama’s sake. According to the 2000 documentary on Queen Elizabeth I hosted by David Starkey, not only had Elizabeth known of Dudley’s marriage to Amy Robsart, she attended their wedding. Starkey does go on to explain that his wife was ill and that there were rumors that both he and the Queen were simply waiting for the poor woman to die so they could marry. Even that seems unlikely considering that the documentary briefly mentions that Elizabeth ventured to marry Dudley off to Mary Queen of Scotts because it would not only solve issues with England’s foreign affairs, but also alleviate some of the stress created in her court by her perceived relationship with Dudley. Devotion indeed. As far as the film’s portrayal of Dudley’s devious plot to assassinate the Queen, ElizabethI.org defends the real Dudley’s honor, “Robert Dudley was never involved in a treasonous plot to kill the Queen. He was her closest friend throughout her life, and did all that he could to preserve her life… Elizabeth and Robert remained close throughout their lives… she was devastated at his death.”
Her two most loyal subjects in the film were Sir William Cecil (Richard Attenborough) and Francis Walshingham (Geoffrey Rush). In the film Cecil is a man of considerable age. Having served under her father Henry VIII, Elizabeth continues that trustworthy relationship with Cecil and he serves her for the early years of her reign until she made him Lord Burghley and forced him to retire. In truth, William Cecil was only in his thirties when he was made principal secretary of state. He served the Queen for over 40 years, and was never forced to retire. The film portrays him as a devout loyalist to the crown, concerned only with the wellbeing of his majesty. According to Volume 1. of The English Heritage, “Cecil founded a notable political dynasty and lined his pockets with the profits of office, but Elizabeth judged that he would always be loyal and steer a middle course.” (103) This more profiteering councilor is nowhere to be found in Elizabeth. As for Walshingham, the film’s ninjaesqe assassin and calculating strategist, his mysteriousness is a fun distraction from the film’s more serious concerns. While he was in fact Elizabeth’s “spymaster” and trusted head of security, Kapur greatly downplays Walshingham’s passion for his protestant beliefs, as well as his home life. In fact, although he was married twice, the film hints that he was a homosexual.
Elizabeth 1998 PosterThe image of the queen herself is somewhat altered in the film as well. Blanchett portrays the queen somewhat unsure of herself, at times intimidated by her station. It should be remembered that Elizabeth was the daughter of Henry VIII, born royalty and highly educated. The notion that she would be easily manipulated or even intimidated by her “subjects” seems somewhat ridiculous. And for what could have been perceived as uncertainty may have been her strategy. “ She often delayed making decisions, and her procrastination often worked to advantage when she was confronted with insurmountable problems.” (Youngs Jr., 103) ElizabethI.org also argues with the film’s depiction of the young Queen cutting her hair to resemble the Virgin Mary. “Elizabeth did not early in her reign decide to cut off her hair and paint her face, to make herself like the Virgin Mary. While she was always careful in cultivating her public image, the association of her with virginity was a slow process and one that developed over time. It was not until about 20 years into her reign… that the legend of the Virgin Queen really began to emerge.”
Shekhar Kapur’s film Elizabeth is a sweeping, dramatic look at one of the most influential and compelling person in history. Filled with enigmatic characters, theatrical love triangles, gripping plot twists, and one indomitable woman, Elizabeth can and should be forgiven for its fictional transgressions. It may be hard for historians to swallow the offenses against actuality found throughout the film, but what is a director’s artistic license for if not to swerve off the road of truth once in a while in the name of entertainment?
Clark, Steven, Dir. Elizabeth. Perf. Starkey, David. 2000.Film.
"Frequently Asked Questions." www.elizabethi.org. N.p., n.d.Web. 4 Oct 2011. <http://www.elizabethi.org/us/faq/two.htm>.
Kapur, Shekhar, Dir. Elizabeth. Perf. Blanchett, Cate. FocusFeatures, 1998. Film.
Youngs, Frederick. The English Heritage. 3rd. 1. Wheeling, IL:Harlan Davidson, 1999. 211. Print.
Thursday, October 20, 2011 at 6:15PM 
Skew 2011 PosterThe opening film for this year’s Big Bear Horror Film Festival was Skew, director Seve Schlenz’s entry into the bustling found footage genre. When three friends take a camcorder along on a cross-country road trip, one of them notices the camera blurs the face of anyone who is about to die. Simple enough, right? All in all this was a fine film to kick things off, but there were better films to be found at the festival. Anyone already getting fatigued from the massive influx of found footage films since Paranormal Activity hit in 2009 would best stay away, since Skew does little to enhance or experiment with the subgenre.That being said, the film was entertaining. The acting was decent and Schlenz efficiently worked around a meager budget. Although the 3rd act fumbles the rising action built-up during the first hour or so, the suspense is functional and the suspense is sufficient.
