Night Flight - teenage complications in high school Korea's pressure cooker

Night Flight is the always involving story of Yong-Ju, a lovelorn Korean teenager with a hopeless crush on classmate Gi-Woong, a taciturn school gang leader who is bullying Yong-Ju’s best friend and is probably completely wrong for him in every way.  Both Yong-Ju and Gi-Woong are struggling with secrets: Yong-Ju worried that his classmates will find out that he is gay, Gi-Woong searching the streets for a relative recently released from prison.

South Korean education is sometimes held up as something the British education system should aspire to given the former’s success in international tests.  If this film, along with last year’s Pluto and this year’s Han Gong-Ju bear any resemblance at all to reality, then I’m not sure any increased educational attainment is worth the downsides.  All give a sense of a system with incredible pressure and an utter disregard for student welfare.  Anything that does not fit within the strictures must be pushed under a rug or swept out of the door. No failure or distraction will be allowed.  When Yong-Ju mentions to a teacher that his friend is being bullied, he is told that the only things that matter are exam results and university entrance.

All this creates a setting for the film of a pressure cooker or perhaps an over-inflated balloon, about to burst.  A law of the jungle society is allowed under the surface as long as outwardly it is a picture of academic success. This allows the vicious to get away with most things and no-one daring to rock the boat.  Gi-Woong and his gang earn extra cash as bulliers of bullies- hired by parents to beat up and threaten the kids picking on their own kids. In such a setting, how can a student dare be different, let alone openly gay?

In these circumstances, any relationship between the more genial Yong-Ju and the coiled ball of anger that is Gi-Woong is surely doomed.  It is also hard to root for, given Gi-Woong’s initial violent homophobia.  But the film just about overcomes this because of Yong-Ju’s devotion to the romantic idea of it - nothing can dampen his longstanding feelings.  It is credit to the character created by the film that this is the case, and the continually changing, somewhat ambiguous relationship between the two is brilliantly acted and unpredictable.  The film brings the viewer into Yong-Ju’s way of seeing the world, particularly through smart use of flashback to their previous friendship in junior high.

The film is visually striking, turning Seoul and its surrounds into a beautiful landscape through some beautiful cinematography and filling many scenes with a real vitality, whilst creating a stifling, almost prison-like feel for the school scenes.  The film also makes an interesting use of panning away from the characters during scenes whilst their voices continue off-screen; in doing so it reinforces the sense of restlessness within both the main characters.

This is an intensely dramatic film, but one which knows when to turn up and down the volume on the drama, to let the characters evolve and come through and to keep the viewer engaged.   The final outburst is gut-wrenching and horrific but also feels consistent with what has gone before despite being so much more extreme.  It is a confidently directed, well-acted and consistently interesting film which focuses in detail on some complex relationships to illuminate wider society. 

I Believe in Unicorns - the magical and the very real add up to something extraordinary

This skillful, absorbing and imaginative film tackles a difficult subject not often seen on screen in a way that doesn't feel like an “issues” film. As a film feature debut it is the work of someone with remarkable vision and talent and was one of the most impressive and memorable films I saw at the Festival this year.

I Believe in Unicorns is the story of 16 year old Davina (the utterly remarkable Natalia Dyer), who is sole carer for her disabled mother, and her relationship with the older Sterling.  It is hard not to start anywhere other than Dyer’s performance.  One of the first times we see her, on her face is a look of such vulnerability and uncertainty that you know exactly where this character we have never met is in that moment to a degree that you rarely get from an actor.  The rest of the performance is of a similar high quality throughout: that the actor was 16 at the time of filming is extraordinary. Davina gains respite from her caring responsibilities by disappearing into a fantasy world. In these scenes, Dyer doesn’t have much dialogue to express the character through and the film is also intercut with micro scenes where Davina is trying to work out the precise facial expression that will capture herself exactly for a school assignment on self-portrait.  Again, in all of these elements of the film, Dyer’s performance is pitch perfect and nuanced, revealing in depth the precise emotional state of the character in that moment.   It is a highly challenging role, and director Leah Meyerhoff revealed in the Q&A that character development throughout was a collaborative effort between actor and director. 

The central theme of the story is the not particularly secure relationship between Davina and Sterling.  This is a relationship of shifting power dynamics that Davina is rarely in control of and perhaps doesn't always quite understand. She is certainly out of her depth much of the time.  The challenge for the film-makers is for us to understand why the character would put herself in these situations, even return to them to try gain some control back, without it just seeming like her reasons are youthful naiveté or teenage irrationality.  Aided by excellent writing and direction, Dyer’s performance makes Davina’s choices seem believable for the character, however much as a viewer you wish she wouldn't make them.

The way in which I Believe in Unicorns deals with the dynamics of a relationship like this is frank, unflinching and brilliant.  Meyerhoff is exploring the danger and violence in relationships where one person has a lot more power than the other. Davina may be consenting to sex but rarely in the way that it plays out.  Any time she tries to take initiative or a little control, Sterling will wrestle control back, often taking advantage of the fact that Davina is trying to be ‘grown up’ and adventurous but is also young and lacking confidence and will not resist his direction. Sterling is angry at life and unpredictable but Davina has written her concept of the relationship, something she sees as an exciting escape and adventure, into the fabric of her fantasy escapes.  In making the film, Meyerhoff set out to represent the dangers of power imbalance and violence in relationships, particularly teenage ones – the grey area which may not always tip over into actual criminality but which is damaging and dangerous to the person with less control and power . She does this with perception and honesty and I hope her aim to engage teenagers in the conversation around this issue continues to succeed.

Meyerhoff has enhanced her chances of doing so by making her film so beautifully crafted and imaginative.  It opens with a brilliant credits-type sequence that grabs you right into the story, giving you Davina’s backstory through a freeze frame and stop motion whirl of photographs of Davina’s increasingly ill mother and her birthday cakes through the years.  I knew I was hooked from those opening minutes.  Meyerhoff has shot on Super 8 and Super 16 and used only in-camera effects to give the film, particularly the fantasy elements, the feel of something Davina might have crafted herself.  This ensures the fantasy sequences, for example Davina’s fairy tale of unicorns and dragons, feel like they have come from the character’s own mind rather than as the whim of a flashy director (which could have been the feeling if they were done in a more ‘sophisticated’ or hi-tech way). The little details within these scenes are yet another avenue into our understanding of and empathy with Davina. The film is also excellently edited, making the viewer fully entwined in Davina’s moods and emotions.  Somehow both the lo-tech effects and clever editing never feel like we are jarringly switching between trivial and gritty, or between artsy and real: they feel like two genuinely intertwining parts of a wider puzzle – the puzzle that is Davina trying to figure out what she wants and what she needs.

This is a film that I cannot speak highly enough of.  Some scenes of Davina and Sterling together are hard to watch because you feel every moment of Davina’s fear and uncertainty. But the inventiveness of the fantasy scenes keeps the audience going in the way that they keep Davina going.  Meyerhoff is clearly a director of amazing perception and creativity and I can’t wait to see what she does next.

Snowpiercer - vision and ambition that doesn't quite grab you by the shoulders as it should

Here was a film that was extraordinary in many ways, but which was also somewhat ordinary in some crucial ways that made the overall film feel like a tiny bit of a let-down and a little bit of a wasted potential.

Let’s start with an introduction to the setting and the best thing about this film. Snowpiercer is set after an attempt to stave off climate change disaster goes horribly wrong and causes the world to freeze. (There is something unnerving when the first date on the expositional news report is three days from when I saw it – and incidentally, the date I got round to typing this up – spooky!) Seventeen years later and a specially designed, self-sufficient train is still travelling around the world with a few hundred of so passengers, ruthlessly split into an elite luxury front section and a miserable, poorly fed, oppressed tail section.   The production design and vision on the film to create this unusual and disturbing world is exemplary: imaginative and both otherworldly and realistic.  It is like a compressed microcosm of the production design in the Hunger Games films (which thematically it is very similar to) distilled into a much smaller universe.  The detail and visual imagination behind it is highly impressive.

The visuals just about overcame what is a pretty clichéd plot, with a twist that felt rather predictable and a nonsensical (if visually spectacular) ending that didn't really go with what went before. The scenario felt imaginative and original but the narrative arc felt a little stale and unconvincing. I even started to wonder if in the fight over final cut between the director and Harvey Weinstein, if the latter might just have been trying to fix this weakness, although if the cuts were to make it more commercial, then perhaps not.  I have to say that if I had seen this film between a couple of summer blockbusters, I probably wouldn't have had these qualms – it is certainly better than many half-decent big Hollywood pictures in this respect.  But it suffered a little by comparison sat in the middle of me watching a lot of festival films, with their more unique stories to tell and characters to bring to life.  I was entertained throughout but never quite as gripped as I would have liked.

Within this, there were some fantastic scenes. One standout was in a primary school type class, where young children are frighteningly indoctrinated into loving Wilford, train owner and engineer.  IT is a smart piece of exposition and a toe-curlingly horrible piece of black comedy.  Another standout scene is a bloody fight in a sauna car, full of sweltering tension.

A talented cast is a little let down by weaker characterisation and script than they needed.  Octavia Sepncer, in particular, deserved better, though she does her best with a frantic mother role. Jamie Bell has fun with a mouthy sidekick role (inexplicably Irish accent and all), but has probably played a variation of that part a few times before.  And it felt like John Hurt and Ed Harris did their John Hurt and Ed Harris thing, which is of course magnetic, but not exactly stretching for them and not as interesting as they could have been.  Song Kang-Ho is good support as a security expert, bringing world-weary cynicism and simmering anger.  Alison Pill and Tilda Swinton are the real standouts from  this cast though. Pill’s slightly deranged school teacher is ferociously and unnervingly funny.  And Tilda Swinton does the live action version of Wallace and Gromit villain (it has to be seen to believed) and I mean that in as complimentary way as possible.  It is Swinton that sets the film’s tone as slightly unreal, with a deranged stir-craziness from being trapped on board that has infected everyone, an unsettling unspoken mood that lies under the surface of the film.

Chris Evans is effective in the lead and his character Curtis proves an interesting comparator to the recent Captain America film.  Curtis, like Steve Rogers, is trying to do the right thing, trying to find a moral compass in a series of impossible moral dilemmas, is a reluctant leader who wants to protect others from harm but feels he has no choice to pull them into it.  They are distinct characters and Evans mines a gritty, grim darkness from Curtis, particularly when he reveals his back story motivation near the end.  In his scenes near the end with Harris where being faced with impossible choices, you really feel how lost Curtis is by that point.

Snowpiercer may well have been hampered in its plotting and characterisation by its source material, which I’m not familiar with.  Through a talented cast and superb design and vision it brings out something that captures the imagination and looks and feels like little else – it is certainly worth seeing for these aspects.   But once the lights have gone up, there is a feeling of what it could have been, of a level that it could have stepped up to, but it is still entertaining and worth viewing.

Blind Dates - nice guys don't always get what they want

This dramedy from Georgia was an interesting and engaging film, although is probably the film I connected least with at this year’s EIFF (that may be due to the very high bar set elsewhere!).  That may also be because I was expecting more of an actual comedy. Although there were some funny scenes, particularly with lead character Sandro’s parents and their determination for Sandro to get married as soon as possible, as the film advanced it was clear that this was intended to be more of a drama.

Despite not being the most compelling film I saw this year, this is not to say that it doesn’t feature an interesting story told in an interesting way.  The leads are excellent, with a well-rounded supporting cast. Similar to ‘Anatomy of a Paperclip’ that I also saw at this year’s festival, much of the comedy comes from the put-upon nice guy and the absurdities he is surrounded by.  Sandro is less passive and more engaged in his life, but his determination to do right by everyone does mean he finds himself taking on responsibilities that most would shirk from, and it is quite ridiculous in some cases that they should fall to him.

Sandro makes for an interesting lead character, much more in tune with the people around him, aware of how society works but instead of cynical about the world, he goes along with what is needed from him, wherever it places him.  This is particularly true of his interactions with women, greatly in contrast to his friend Ivan.  Sandro seems much more aware of how his actions might make women in particular feel.  Whether international or not (and it seemed to be a conscious decision) Blind Dates does a good job of illuminating a low-level sexism that is presumably as prevalent in Georgia as it is in other countries.

All-in-all, Blind Dates is an interesting and frequently very enjoyable film, but not one that had a massive impact on me or that will stay with me for a long time. 

Han Gong-Ju - when your past is this traumatic, you can never escape

This devastating and moving Korean film was one of the most harrowing films I have seen in a long time, but always compelling.  Right from the opening scene, when we hear the central character Gong-Ju talk detachedly how she copes with something horrific that has happened to her and see her exiled to a new school through to the traumatic, ambiguous ending, there is an unrelenting feeling of marginalisation and despair, with only a few moments of escape in between.  This is not to say I didn't appreciate is as a powerful piece of film-making, and I think it may have been a little less disturbing that I remember, but it was also very hard-going in its unflinching portrayal of a rape survivor being abandoned by everyone around her.

One of the things the film does well, and which helps clamp the viewer to the story emotionally is to full focus its gaze on Gong-Ju.  It brings you into her isolated state, partly through its occasional flashbacks as if the viewer themselves is blinking at the memory.  This only intensifies as the horrific ordeal that she went through is revealed. Music is the only solace for Gong-Ju and it is well-used throughout – both to reflect her state of mind and as a potential route to redemption (although it will become yet another part of her life that betrays her).

I don’t know how accurate the film is as to how survivors of rape are treated in Korea and whether these precise set of circumstances could happen, although frighteningly, this is inspired by a real case.  However, even if metaphorical, it is all too believable in creating an atmosphere and sense of the victim being the one abandoned, doubted or blamed, seen as a messy inconvenience, and of the power structures that lead to the act in the first place. Perhaps it takes the depiction of such an extreme coming together of shocking and horrific events to demonstrate how the world’s indifference or worse must feel for people in that situation.  There are so many studies that have showed how we as people have preconceived notions of how a victim should behave. Maybe it should not be such a surprise when one character intimates hat if Gong-Ju really was innocent in all this, why has she gone on living?  But it still hits like a body blow to the viewer – another episode of the horrifying lack of compassion displayed by characters throughout the film, even from the ones you think will finally be a source of support.  Interestingly, it may only be the teacher who seems most open about having his own interests at heart who actually tires to act in Gong-Ju’s interest as well throughout – finding her somewhere safe to stay at his mother’s house and recognising the potential danger of Gong-Ju being in touch with her alcoholic father.

As mentioned the film ends with a singularly devastating but ambiguous event as we finally learn the full reason why Gong-Ju has put so much of her focus into learning to swim. In some ways, you could see some hope or light at the end of the tunnel in the ambiguity, but with all that had gone before, it felt like a punch to the gut.

The Infinite Man - a stunning, layered tale of one man's desire to make everything right

Possibly my overall favourite film of 2014’s Edinburgh Film Festival, and although I’m not sure I can put my finger on exactly why, I think it was the slightly euphoric feeling at the end of having seen a piece of incredibly clever, brilliantly realised cinema.

This is a film with only three actors and essentially one basic location – an abandoned motel near a remote beach.  And yet, it uses these simple ingredients to concoct as complex, interesting, entertaining and cinematic a movie as pretty much any other you will see.

The plot is simple and intensely intricate. At the simple level, a man (Dean) takes his girlfriend (Lana) to a motel on their anniversary to recreate their previous year’s anniversary which had taken place at the same location.  But the motel has closed in the previous year and is now abandoned. Things go from bad to worse when Lana’s ex (Terry) turns up and eventual she leaves with him.  Dean stays on in despair at the motel and over the course of a year builds a time-machine. On their next anniversary, he travels back a year to make things right but things don’t go as planned.

One of the keys to the success of the film is how funny it is, with writer-director Hugh Sullivan wringing exactly the optimum amount of laughter to entertain his audience without making the story trivialised or an afterthought.  There is some serious concern about Dean’s mental state, which is neither glossed-over nor shoehorned in to make a point – it instead provides context and background to both plot and character. 

I still have no idea how Sullivan kept track of the plot and characters at each point.  I like to think he had one of those World War II bunker room maps with lots of little Deans but he probably did it by being a lot smarter than me! But although the film dazzles you with its cleverness and it is causes a bit of a headspin by the end, I never felt lost, which is again tribute to both the intelligence of the plotting, the confident storytelling and fantastic performances.

The acting is superb. Josh McConville as Dean manages to make each Dean feel slightly different but very much part of the same person.  He brings through the obsessiveness and need to control everything that drives the plot but makes sure Dean a sympathetic and multi-dimensional character alongside this. His need to make everything right is the thing that makes everything wrong but this isn't made into a quirk but a sign of a genuinely well-intentioned person who is just slightly off from the world. Alex Dimitriades as Terry is fun support. And Hannah Marshall as Lana reminds you just how badly written a lot of Hollywood love interests are.  In a big blockbuster she probably would have had one character “setting” to react with -  probably impatience or being insufficiently supportive, before finally being won over with some empty romantic gesture or because she has been saved, fulfilling little role but as a plot lever.  But in The Infinite Man, Lana realistically reacts to where she is in the plot and how much she can manage of Dean and their unusual relationship trajectory. She genuinely cares about Dean and is mostly patient with him, but at the same time sometimes has to bring a reality check when his obsessiveness starts to take over and damage their lives. She wants him to get past this, but is also sometimes confused and hurt by the way that Dean (or the Deans) treats her and the way he expects her to just go along with whatever he is now convinced will finally solve everything.  Her reactions and character are nearly as crucial to the plot and the way events play out as Dean’s are.

The direction is snappy and dynamic, essential with such an intricate plot and the use of more-or-less only one location is very effective, particularly with the plot’s references to getting stuck in a close loop – the use of location emphasises the narrowness of Dean’s focus – he only leaves the motel complex briefly if he is trying to break from the pattern he has caught himself in.

Overall, a simply brilliant film that I want to see again and that I hope a wider audience gets to see as well.  It is entertaining, rewarding, engrossing and dazzling in the best possible way. 

Uncertain Terms - an absorbing drama of uncertain feelings in a makeshift family

Uncertain Terms is a wonderfully depicted and intimate film that brings out some real human drama and humour from an unusual setting.  That setting is a home and part-time school for five pregnant teenagers, and is run by Carla, a woman who when a pregnant teenager herself some 30 or so years ago had found herself in a similar but much harsher institution.  Carla is played by director Nathan Silver’s own mother, and the idea for the film came from her own experiences.

It makes for the perfect setting for a delicately poised drama.  Five semi-isolated teenagers would in most cases lead to an atmosphere of simmering emotion just ready to bubble over;  five pregnant teenagers heightens that even further.  Into this mixture steps Carla’s 30-ish year old nephew Robbie, attractive and enigmatic, helping out his aunt and finding his own refuge from a disintegrating marriage.  The girls are drawn to him, he is wary in return and then intrigued, particularly by Nina, who is struggling with both the reality of imminent motherhood and a feckless teenage boyfriend who won’t step up and get a job.  A relationship between a 30 year old man and an 18 year old girl could be unfortunate territory – a cliché used far too often as well as the fact that Nina is in a very emotionally vulnerable situation – but the film just about avoids this through two means. Firstly, with Nina, the film doesn’t just substitute the attributes “young and pretty” for a character but gives her an actual personality and something to do other than wait for the central protagonist to fall for her.  She has her own issues to deal with, much wider than Robbie or boyfriend Chase, her own approach to the relationship, her own agency within it.  Secondly, Robbie’s choices, although those of the protagonist, are not presented as uniformly sympathetic. Instead, they demonstrate his emotional immaturity, particularly within relationships.  In fact he is scarcely more mature than Chase in some ways, just a little more in control of his temper.

This set up allows the film to contrast (or perhaps show there is not much difference here) between teenage relationships and supposedly more grown-up ones.  There are similar frustrations, anger, jealousy and disappointments – the one difference being alcohol in Robbie’s exchanges with his ex-wife. Robbie and Nina are well drawn characters, although they do retain some mystery both from each other and the audience.

Carla threatens to steal the show with her no-nonsense compassion that frequently overspills into interference but is always well-meant and sometimes brings comic relief.  She really has built a haven and new home and family for these girls, something emphasised by the beautiful cinematography.  The film looks exquisite – the outdoor scenes in particular are gorgeously lit – and however tense or dramatic things get, the sunbathed, luminous feel to the film really emphasises the house as a safe place, set apart from the rest of the world.

Although there are outbursts of emotion through the film, it is delicately and beautifully plotted, like a coil being wound up, sometimes slackening with an outburst but getting tighter and tighter and then completely snapping as the drama comes to a head.  Overall, this is a beautiful and absorbing piece of film making, drawing you into a unique and special world and squeezing the exact right amount of drama from it while illuminating some very real and honest characters and relationships.

A Practical Guide to a Spectacular Suicide - a low-budget comedy treat that will make you love life

So the Film Festival isn't just here to take the audience on a journey around the world. It also gives a showcase to some fantastic storytelling from here in Scotland which might not get seen by as many people as it deserves. Oh and it should be very clearly stated, A Practical Guide to a Spectacular Suicide deserves to be seen by a lot more people than will have made it to the screenings here. Hopefully the Festival can be a stepping stone towards that. I don’t know what the budget was, but this was probably the lowest budget film I've seen at the Festival since The Puffy Chair a few years back, and it was just as enjoyable experience.

From what I could tell from the Q&A, the director, lead actor and their co-writer are not full time professionals, instead fitting this round full-time jobs and persuading professional involvement on the basis of their rather wonderful script and managed to pull everyone together for 12 days to shoot it.  Having had the film picked up for a couple of other festivals, they took a punt on risking some money on the submission fee for EIFF on a “what’s the worst that can happen” whim.  The film makers would modestly give you the impression they somehow beat the odds – as if they were given the place at random.  I suspect it was more that the programmers enjoyed the film as thoroughly as the audience at my screening.  I've included all this as background for two reasons.  Firstly to show that the understandable minor flaws with the film are more than dwarfed by the achievement of making such an enjoyable film on such a low budget and without the time and resources of full time filmmakers. And also because the film makers all look about 20 years old and I’m in awe.

Let’s get the minor flaws out of the way so that I can get on with singing the praises of how funny this was. The tight shooting time probably mean that not every scene could have as many takes as the director would have wanted and there was the odd line that didn't quite land or quite have the power it should have.  However, although I remembered that happening a few times, I couldn't remember which scenes or lines this was as there was usually a cracker a few seconds later, so I really feel like I’m quibbling.  And while lead actor Graeme McGeagh, playing protagonist Tom Collins, is not likely to be challenging Daniel Day-Lewis for any awards, he makes up for some occasionally self-conscious acting with phenomenal comic timing and a lot of screen charm.  The surrounding cast around him are strong enough anyway that it didn't detract from my enjoyment or appreciation of the film.  And in this type of film, comic timing is always going to be what makes or breaks the feel of the film and he nailed it in this respect. For some people, these flaws may be too distracting, but I really do think it was a funny and life-affirming enough film to more than overcome then.

Huge praise has to go the script.   It is consistently witty but capable of throwing in scenes with a real emotional punch to give the film depth as well and make sure it doesn't have feel trivial, important given the subject matter.  It’s not always that common for the comedy in a film or TV show to consistently come from the spot-on banter between the characters – you know, actual funny things that actual funny people would say to each other- but for the non-set piece scenes, that’s where the humour comes from and they hit it spot on. It feels natural and not forced.  Interspersed between these scenes are more fantastical and equally funny ones – the Practical Guide of the title.  Particularly towards the beginning, it reminded me of Channel 4’s “A Young Person’s Guide to Becoming a Rock Star” (which can only be a good thing if you’re me).  The low budget means there is a sort of “throw the kitchen sink” in approach to storytelling, an inventive way of keeping it fresh, meaning we have direct to camera web posts, a live stop-motion fantasy scene, theatrical re-enactment and animation.  All are handled with a sense of imaginative fun.

The witty script is complemented by a set of well-drawn characters.  I’m not sure Dr Watson is going to be anyone’s idea of a model psychologist, but Patrick O’Brien is a riot in the part and the character is a perfect comedy antagonist for Tom. Annabel Logan doesn't make quirky in a fault (another performer might have dragged Eve dangerously into Manic Pixie Dream Girl territory), but finds someone who takes the world in her own terms, determined to have fun with it, but also bringing back both characters to reality when needed. And Ray Crofter brings a wry world-weariness along with being the emotional anchor for the film. 

The film deals with a topic that can’t be laughed at in of itself, another reason why it is important that they made sure the comedy comes from the banter or occasional absurdity of Tom and his quest rather than making “suicide jokes” as such, or too much from comedy situations. This film is one with a real love for life and a belief that everyone has something to live for but also one that finds a way to acknowledge the reality of what suicide would actually mean. It certainly doesn't do what it says on the tin. By ensuring that their lead character is such an engaging and likable person, and a character they clearly have a lot of affection for, they can get away with going places that a more serious film or one with a more standoffish persona would not feel comfortable.  They also have the skill to bring in a few real emotional punches in between – this is not a comedy that forgets the real world and real consequences.

All in all, this was a lovely low-budget treat, a film made by people who clearly have a passion for film making, comedy and storytelling without cynicism or self-indulgence.  Hopefully, in writing at least, this is the start of a long line of success for the people behind it. 

Life May Be - a fascinating film conversation

This interesting film conversation was not quite what I expected, but was nonetheless thought –provoking and rewarding.  The film had the feeling of a truly spontaneous dialogue between Mania Akbari and Mark Cousins (something that was confirmed in the post-film Q&A) rather than the more structured, collaborative essay that I was expecting.  However, the film had an authenticity and meditativeness that it might not have had if it had been a more formal collaboration.

The film therefore seems to have been made the way it is presented. It opens with a letter from Cousins to Akbari, a wonderful, impassioned, rambling look at Akbari’s previous films. Akbari responds with the tale of her exile from Iran and journey to London via Dubai and Malmo, framing it with the contrasting views in each of those cities of freedom, of women, of art and culture and much more.  Cousins runs with some of the themes raised in Akbari’s reply – such as depiction of bodies and nudity in art, film and society; and memorialisation of conflict. Akbari responds and expands on Cousins’ trains of thought. Finally Cousins leaves us with a sort of visual poem as a coda.

One of the interesting ways about how the film is presented is the contrasts between the two film makers’ approach. Cousins has an enthusiastically magpie-like approach, grabbing everything around him and everything pouring out his mind and meshing it together to try draw out universal themes.  Akbari takes these themes and explores them in a much more personal way.  Although she also references and integrates many cultural touchstones, she illuminates them through her own extraordinary life experiences.

What is particularly appealing about the film is although it is very much defined by the filmmakers’ own styles, and really does feel like a genuine conversation between the two, it is not a closed conversation or an exclusive one.  Both raise their issues and opinions in a way that invites the audience to reflect themselves on the themes explored by the film and I think it would be pretty hard to watch the film and not wonder what your own film letter response would be.

Although I was a little disappointed that the conversation wasn't as much about film and film making as I was hoping, Life May Be felt like the start of a discourse, not the complete conversation and I would be delighted to see these two continue their dialogue on whatever topic they like. Perhaps this could be the first of several of conversations of this type.  The two film makers clearly have a lot of fascinating this to say in a fantastically engaging way, - proved by their previous film work – and they also seem to draw a great deal of perspective thinking from the other.  It was nice to eavesdrop for a little while.

Displaced Perssons - a wonderful story of family and finding somewhere to call home

This heart-warming document tells the story of the Persson family – Pelle, who moved to Pakistan 40 years ago, his wife Shahmin and their daughters, Zahra and Mia, who were both born and raised in Pakistan, looking at their life as they move to Pelle’s native Sweden.  Pelle hopes to give his daughters more freedom and safety, and Sweden has been built up almost as a paradise in the daughters’ eyes.  But although Pelle’s happy-go-lucky attitude has made him popular in Lahore, it is perhaps not quite suited to the bureaucracy that he is confronted with on trying to re-establish his life (and official ‘existence’) in Sweden.

The Persson family are ideal subjects for a documentary. It is impossible not to warm to them and become emotionally involved in their story.  The affection between the family members is palpable and gives you hope they can overcome the struggles in their path – from financial insecurity and homesickness to doubt and separation.   These central characters are backed up by a highly entertaining supporting cast, particularly Pelle’s siblings who have not seen him for decades but (at first tentatively) embrace the new family in the caravan in the back garden.  Although the film makers present them a little too often as demonstrating some naivety, they on the whole manage to get the balance towards presenting the family in a good-natured and non-patronising ways – though this may have been through sheer force of personality on the part of the family.   On the most part, the cultural changes between Pakistan and Sweden are brought out well by letting us see it through the eyes of the family rather than trying to hammer it home artificially.  These are funny, warm, and interesting people who drive the narrative and refuse to be downcast by any bump in the road.

The film is also very thought provoking on what being home means.  Each member of the family has their own interpretation and their own way of adapting to new circumstances and building a new sense of home.  For the most part, it tries to see the world as the Perssons do, each place, each home, has its good and bad aspects and as long as you support the people around you, and are supported by them in turn, you can find the best in it.  This is certainly a film that believes in the goodness of people.

If there was one let down for me, it was the style of the voice-over narration.  Although it didn't lessen my enjoyment of the film – the Persson family shone too much for this – it did give me a sense of an occasionally slightly judgemental tone from the film makers towards Pakistan.  Presumably aiming for a wry, novelistic tone, the narration sometimes moved beyond the merely expositional to offering up an interpretation of the next scene or segment rather than letting the viewer decide for oneself.   As alluded to above, occasionally the family’s naivety was hammered home a bit too much either by the edit, or by the voice-over. The effect of feeling like I was being asked to filter the story through a certain viewpoint made me aware that we had no perspective on why Zahra and Aun end up staying in Pakistan longer than expected. We are already aware of the often horrifying attitude towards women in Pakistan – in the film we hear about the threats received from the girls’ maternal uncle which has accelerated the decision to move back to Sweden. The delay in their return to Sweden seemed to be told in a way to force us to assume that it is caused by similar misogynistic reasons.  This may well be the case, but then why not show us this rather than tarnish everyone, including Aun, with the same brush.  It is almost as if the film makers didn't quite trust enough how strongly the film has something to say without them adding a particular perspective – but the characters and story are so strong that they didn't need to.

However, this was just one minor part of a very funny and engaging film with a lot of heart.  The film makers have found a terrific story and mostly told it in an entertaining and sympathetic way which seemed to have the whole audience entranced.  It makes their rather unusual story feel very universal and draws out the story in a way to ensure it has a deep emotional resonance. The Persson family are delightful people to spend time with and I got really caught up in their happiness. In keeping with the storybook narration, here’s hoping this is a family that lives as close to a happy-ever-after as is possible. 

40 Days of Silence - under pressure from the legacy of generations gone before

I've said before that one of my favourite aspects of the film festival is a sense of a journey around the world and an opportunity to be introduced to communities and lives that I might never otherwise get a glimpse of.  I can’t think of another film off the top of my head that I've seen set in former Soviet central Asia (the beginning of Borat doesn't count!) and rural Tajikistan is certainly a place I know absolutely nothing about.  It is the setting for the magical-realist 40 Days of Silence, the story of a teenager, Bibicha, as she embarks on a 40 day vow of silence, following a family tradition.  Through this central story, are weaved memories and vignettes of lives of previous generations of women in her family

The director skilfully brings out a sense of place and community – both isolated from and connected to the wider world – and some very strongly realised characters.  Within this though, there is an over tendency towards long shots of mountains, fields, empty streets – perhaps more than is needed for the sense of place that the director is trying to create.  The cinematography is evocative enough that taking us away from the story is so frequently is a distraction.  The peacefulness is an interesting contract to Bibicha’s mental turbulence, but it feels a little overused and slightly disengaged me from the story at times.

The scenes showing Bibicha’s mental disintegration under the pressure of her vow that are particularly memorable and skilfully achieved and form the core of the film.  They in particular (along with the family life around her) are what really engrossed me in the film.  Firstly credit must go to both director and actor for bringing to life so vividly a character who doesn't speak nor dominate the screen time but still dominates the film. Despite the harrowing effect on her mental state, the vow and the choice to make it are depicted as coming from a position of strength, of willing accepted duty, of a way of connection to her family’s past, rather than from submission or oppression. Bibicha is a fascinating character, coming across as determined, stoic and strong but also as very much a teenage girl, whether being mischievous or stubborn. 

The director uses horror tropes in a really interesting and effective way to evoke the experience of the effect of the vow, from the quietly creepy ghostly visitation at the beginning to the full-on panic that Bibicha has in the woods later on.  The soundscapes and score that accompany these are incredibly evocative, utterly pulling the viewer in to the scene.  The subplots are well and handled and acted and complement Bibicha’s story well.  I was also struck with how the director combined the extraordinary and the everyday to set the scene for these stories.  Overlaid on this background, the way the director brought together the different women’s stories was also very well achieved – all the stories, from the radio tale listened to by Bibicha’s grandmother to her aunt’s struggle for acceptance of her choices felt unique and distinct but also complementary, painting an interesting tableau of women’s experiences across the generations.

All in all, the film was a very interesting and absorbing journey into the unknown and a fascinating portrait of one family.

Anatomy of a Paper Clip - mysterious, dead-pan goings on in Japan

Probably the most deadpan comedy I have ever seen, Anatomy of a Paperclip is a funny but strange affair. The film uses its surreal setting and scenes to take the side of the underdog against the wider forces at work in the world - disinterested corporations and opportunistic criminality among them. There may well have been a lot more social satire and metaphor involved, but not being very familiar with Japan, I had to take it at face value.  And it was still very enjoyable at this level.

Our central protagonist, Kogure, works in the strangest repetitive job that I can remember on film since Mary's dad in Mary and Max worked adding the strings to tea bags.  He works at a paper clip factory, well he sits at a bench in a dusty work room, hand making paper clips with an utterly vile and inappropriate boss and three largely silent colleagues.  Kogure lives in a tiny one room flat and wars a neck brace. The reason for this last aspect is strongly hinted at but never confirmed.  The clothes worn by the characters look vaguely contemporary but could also probably come from the past 40 years or the next 40. The low-tech ‘factory’, the lack of other technology bar one vintage radio and the slightly dystopian atmosphere in the background made me uncertain of the date and added a disquieting feel behind the strangeness.

Dialogue is frequently sparse and the actors’ movement deliberately start and stilted, giving it almost the feeling of a silent film.  The comedy comes from the utterly absurd situations Kogure finds himself and the compliant passivity or baffled politeness that he answers these situations with – even undressing every time he meets a pair of local wannabe gangsters who demanded his clothes the first time he see them.  The comic timing in both the acting, pacing and editing is spot on. The director uses repetition (or almost repeated scenes with a twist) to underscore the comedy effectively.  My only qualm with the humour was that a couple of situations were unpleasant rather than humorous and presenting them as comedy was a little alienating.

As the story becomes odder and more disconcerting, it feels like we are building to an ending that will explain one of the most unexplained and surreal sub-plots – one literally sitting in the corner of the room.  However, this is slightly rushed over.  On reflection if the film is viewed through the prism of a sort of character journey for Kogure, then the narrative does come to some sort of conclusion or finish point. However, it felt a bit fudged and perhaps left me getting less out of the film than I would have liked.  Still, for the overall absurdity and strange humour, it was an effective, enjoyable and very funny film.

Final Whistle - how far should you get involved when you might be able to help?

Niki Karimi's engrossing film examines many issues, notably including mistreatment of women in Iran and the responsibility of those with more influence, particularly artists, to use that influence to help those who are marginilised.  She cleverly examines them together in a way that means one issue sheds a deeper light on the other.

The plot follows a documentary film-maker, Sahar who becomes involved in the life of an extra, Maliheh, working on a TV drama made by her husband.  Maliheh is trying desperately to get together enough money to save her mother who is waiting execution for killing her husband in self defence and to protect Maliheh. Karimi doesn't overdramatise or sensationalise the plot but uses it as a vehicle to examine several interesting moral dilemmas, which have no easy answers.  In the Q&A after the film, Karimi revealed that she made the film as a self-reflexive exercise to examine her responsibilities as a film maker rather than to particularly highlight issues. The success of this approach is that it brings to light injustice without being preachy or self-righteous. Sahar will go to pretty far to do what she can for Maliheh, her husband is much less keen. But the film does not judge her husband too harshly - would most of us give up the deposit on a home we had worked years for to help out someone we didn't know very well, however much we believed that it was right?

Another interesting take on these topics that Karimi brings out in the film is both the limits that artistic influence can have and the instinct towards a one-sided crusade.  In one particularly memorable scene, Sahar makes a short documentary and takes it to Maliheh's step-father's family, hoping to persuade them to drop the charges.  However, the film recognises the distress of that family - the step-father may have been an awful person, but his death has left his family bereft and Sahar's determination to help Maliheh just causes them even more pain.  And her failure to convince them shows that however lofty her intentions, for some situations, artistic endeavour cannot always solve hard, real world problems. The film is not saying it is not worth trying to use your talents towards confronting injustice, but it does it recognising there will always be limits.

Although a fiction film, Karimi has used hand-held cameras to give her film a documentary film - a clever way to add to the ideas discussed in the film.  It is also a very effective way of setting the emotional mood of the film.  When Sahar feels determined, or under pressure, or in other ways energetic, the camera is always moving, giving the film a really urgency and energy.  But when she feels defeated or deflated, it is much more still; you can almost feel her hope draining away through the camera work alone.

The story and the way it is told are engrossing through out - initially there are occasional bursts of black humour, as the story progresses and becomes more tragic, it becomes more intensely dramatic.  Karimi's performance is brilliant and unshowy and the film left me slightly shellshocked at the end - the dramatic tension is ramped up and we are left with an ambiguous ending as to whether Sahar has succeeded or not - my heart was in my mouth as it cut to the credits.

Something, Anything - no easy answers, much to dwell on, just like life.

Something, Anything was a really interesting start to my 2014 EIFF experience, a fascinating study of character and role, which is both involving and confident enough to leave much to the viewers own perspective and judgement.

The central protagonist Peggy (later Margaret) is, for a lead character, unusually voiceless, but still a fully realised and believable character.  She opens the film seemingly passively accepting the role in life laid out for, just like everyone around her - financially successfully career, married, first baby on the way.  Then two things shake her belief in this life for her. The first is a personal tragedy, when she suffers a miscarriage, the second is a sympathy card from one high school acquaintance who has shaken off the 'expected' route through life and role. These two events shake Peggy's acceptance of her role in life and she sheds various elements propping it up one by one while she tries to work out what exactly it is she wants.

Peggy's journey, just like a real person's isn't predictable or formulated to fit a preconceived arc for the film, and the film examines her development in several interesting and fresh ways.  One thing that particularly struck me is for much of the film, we don't really hear from Peggy - people speak over her or ignore what she is trying to impart, she is unsure what to say, or the scene is edited before she is able to speak.  She can only express her innermost thoughts by writing them in a notebook, and even this is then written on the screen rather than voiced by the actress.  It is a testament both to the writing and the acting that the little that Peggy does say, and how she comes across silently, are strong enough to make this a character that the viewer can invest in and care about. Her reticence is a symptom of her uncertainty and a powerful symbol of how she has been put into a box that only allows her limited ways to express herself.

Another element explored by the film in a thoughtful way is how people filter another person's tragedy through their own perspective in a way that can alienate or take it away from the person who suffered it.  The story is driven by Peggy's reaction to her miscarriage and the film-makers' empathy is shown by the way that she is allowed as a character to deal with this in her own way and on her own terms.  But for the other characters, many are almost resentful or offended that she doesn't deal with it in a way that fits their idea or perspective of how it should be done.  Her husband makes vague attempts at support and sympathy but is annoyed that this doesn't instantly snap her out of her sadness.  Her friends want to paper over it with shopping and nights out to make her feel better, probably kindly meant, but the last thing Peggy needs. They then are annoyed that she lets it impact on her marriage in a way they don't see is fitting.  It is another aspect to Peggy's voicelessness and of the roles she is expected to fulfill - she is not allowed to express or experience the grief in a way that makes sense for her.

A driving force through the film, one of the things that is most successful, is that it presents Peggy's story in a way that lets her experience shape the story and through that develops the character, but also does it in a non-judgemental, reasonably ambiguous way.  It allows the audience to develop a relationship with Peggy and the changes in her character (which always feel believable) on their own terms, where many film-makers might have scripted it in a way to tell us how we should feel about Peggy's choices.  And even though, because we are focused on Peggy, the people around her are a little less sympathetic, the film does not feel judgemental towards them either.  The film does critique materialism and a certain conforming type of society, without being scornful to people who exist in a world where sometimes the more comforting solution is just to buy something to fill the gap your feeling or to go along with what's expected of you.  It also doesn't suggest that by just casting off the things that are restricting Peggy that she will somehow find some magical answer to life or "find herself", it shies away from these cliches. This is a film that knows there are no easy answers or solutions to hard situations and also understands that people aren't a series of tropes and characters aren't just created by what they say, but that people are complicated and characters should have nuance and ambiguity to be real.

So it should come as no surprise that I found this a really memorable, fulfilling,, thought-provoking and engaging film. It wouldn't be to everyone's taste, and many people may not quite have enough patience for Peggy especially when some of her choices aren't the one the viewer has chosen as the "right" one. But in letting this character make her own mistakes and choices, on her own terms, and for her own reasons, the film does what her friends and family are less keen to do - choose her own role and find her voice.

No really, Academy, just let me choose - Oscar preview part 2

So a quick note on Director....

It looks like it might go to Alfonso Cuaron, and he is a terrific director and Gravity is an amazing cinematic experience but the directorial choices that Steve McQueen makes for 12 Years a Slave are utterly brilliant.  That scene ****SPOILERS**** where Northup is left hanging while ordinary life continues around you is just one of the scenes where McQueen refuses to let you look away or gives you an easy edit or cut to make the audience more comfortable. Slavery-era Louisiana is evoked as brilliantly as space is in Gravity.  But in some ways before of the films being lost in space is more comprehensible than existence of the cruel reality of slavery (even if it is historical fact).  There is something in the way that McQueen directs the film that makes this unimaginable evil system be comprehensible and believable but also never less than shocking.

Now, let's go film by film, in reverse alphabetical order.

THE WOLF OF WALL STREET:  One of those films where I spent most of the time with my jaw dropped.  I know some people feel like it was lionising these time of people but I felt like it got the balance just about right.  For it to work, the film couldn't just sit there in judgement, it had to show you the world through Jordan Belfort's eyes, to really show just how appalling they are.  And given  ***SPOILERS*** the way he hurts (at one point nearly very seriously) his family, and betrays many of his friends, surely means that no-one could see him as a sympathetic character.  It is impressive how much the film goes for it and it is spectactularly put together.  But it is not the most memorable or impactful film on the list.

PHILOMENA:  Philomena's biggest strength for me is the way it perfectly flits between humour and sadness, getting a hard balance right.  Judi Dench and Steve Coogan are fantastic and the script is terrific.  However, although very moving without being depressing, it feels more solid than a really special, imaginatively made film - it doesn't need any style because the story is strong, but it means it didn't stand out for me like some of the other films this year. This is probably why I remember it as a film I was touched by and involved in while I was watching it, but don't remember it knocking my socks off.

NEBRASKA:  Definitely one of my favourites on the list, and if some weird shock where 12 Years a Slave or Gravity doesn't win, then I wouldn't be upset if Nebraska won.  It is a deceptively simple film but also engrossing and affecting and original. The black and white adds to the atmosphere through the terrific cinematography, the performances are universally excellent, the score complements the film perfectly and the script is hilarious.  The only thing it doesn't have that the two frontrunners have is it doesn't feel quite as much as an important 'Moment' in cinema as they do.

HER: Another wonderful, original film that creates it's own truly engrossing world and makes you feel like you are there in this unfamiliar but utterly real world.  Joaquin Phoenix gives a slightly more dialled down performance than he often does, and is all the better for it. My first favourite thing is that the film doesn't take the 'sci-fi' elements further than it needs to just to be clever but keeps it as related to the current time as possible whilst being distinctly futuristic. My other favourite is that the relationship between Theodore and Samantha continually develops in an unexpected and unpredictable but wholly credible way, one of the ways in which the film feels so fresh.  It doesn't stand a chance of winning but I'm just glad such a distinctive film got nominated.

GRAVITY:  It is pretty rare to experience a cinematic experience like Gravity (especially when seeing it in IMAX 3D).  I actually felt motion sickness the first time I watched it in the early moments in space.  It is still hard to believe that they didn't actually, secretly just film it in space.  And it is so breathlessly gripping, I think I tense up every time I see a clip. But it's not just a visual experience, some people have been sniffy about the story, and obviously you can't start trying to think too hard about the possible plot holes, but what also worked really well for me was that the journey Ryan went on it didn't really matter whether she lived or died, either would be have been satisfying.  It's truly stunning, and although I think 12 Years a Slave is the better film overall, it is as incredible achievement in film as I have seen in the last few years or am likely to see in the next few to come.

DALLAS BUYERS CLUB:  This is definitely a film about the performances and Matthew McConaughey is magnificent.  The story is interesting throughout and told at just the right pace.  If I had one particular criticism (and it is one that is frequently true of real life stories, so is not a major flaw) is that afterwards it felt like any detail of the wider world was only allowed in if it fitted the narrative that they were trying to tell and so it sometimes felt a bit forced or blinkered. But this was only a minor thing, and not something that necessarily came to me while I was watching it, just on reflection.  Another excellent film, that maybe didn't quite blow me away, but was a fascinating tale nonetheless.

CAPTAIN PHILLIPS: Nearly as tense and gripping as Gravity, which is what you expect from Paul Greengrass, and he absolutely delivers.  The other thing that makes it a Greengrass film is the attempt to bring balance and set the story in the wider context without hammering the message over your head. The pure breathless rush of how the film is put together is it's strength along with the two central performances.  Tom Hanks is utterly superb, probably the best I remember ever seeing him and it is awful that Christian Bale was nominated over him, and Barkhad Abdi is mesmerising in support.  If there is one false note, it is that last few seconds which seemed a bit WOOOH AMERICA in a way that didn't fit with the rest of the film and left a slightly odd taste in the mouth, as if George Bush had been allowed to direct the last 10 seconds.

AMERICAN HUSTLE:  And now to the film I don't get the level of love for.  Am I the only person who loves Three Kings and I Heart Huckabees but doesn't think that David O Russell's last three films have been on the same level.  Whereas his earlier films were original and unique, the most recent three have been solid, generally good but comparatively pedestrian, and a little meh.  American Hustle is weirdly paced (basically there probably was an awesome film waiting to get out with a different edit) and the tone was all over the place - was it a caper, a ballsy comedy, a drama? It ended up as a slightly weird, and overlong mesh of all of them.  Jennifer Lawrence's part seemed to have been extended to fit the fact that she'd just one an Oscar and slightly unbalanced the pacing.  The last quarter or so had some truly hilarious moments and was the most enjoyable, but it was a shame that the whole film couldn't have delivered this all the way through.  It just felt a bit of a disappointment and although I enjoyed it (and maybe it will improve on another watch at some point in the future), I can't understand all the love and nominations.

12 YEARS A SLAVE:  I'm not sure I can put into words how utterly brilliant I thought this film was.  Part of it was down to the subject matter, but I have rarely reacted so viscerally to a film, I was shaking and crying in that ***SPOILERS*** scene where Patsy is whipped over the soap and then the wounds are being cleaned after.  The way that the film manages both to focus right in on a personal story in the most moving and shocking way, but also to demonstrate how the wider slavery system worked and survived is astonishing - pulling off either one to the degree it does would have been an achievement in itself. It builds a picture of slavery by convincingly portraying the way the system corrodes every person that comes into contact with it, whether free or enslaved.  It is packed with startling and memorable performances from start to finish - how else to explain that the brilliant, heartstopping performances from the likes of Sarah Paulson, Alfre Woodard and Adepero Oduye have barely been mentioned?   The direction and cinematography is perfect, making the audience face head on the horror being experienced with the use of extended takes and limited edits. It's an amazing, stunning, horrifying and moving experience that surely has to win Best Picture.

The 'ha! I totally know more than the Academy...." 2014 Oscars preview post - part one

In my defence, I have seen all the Best Picture nominees which I get the impression is something I don't have in common with most Oscar voters, so I possibly do know more. Ok I really don't but that isn't going to stop me going on a long ramble. Oh, that will probably be a very spoilerific ramble too (but will try flag it up).

Let's start with some of the major categories, and then have a spin through the Best Picture nominees.

Best Supporting Actress:

Absolutely a category full of great performances, but I am going to get very, very angry if Lupita Nyong'o doesn't win.  12 Years a Slave is the kind of film filled with so many amazing performances I can't get out of my head (in less strong years, you could probably nominate Alfre Woodard on the basis of her one scene), and yet along with Chiwetel Ejiofor, Lupita Nyong'o is the standout that you really can't forget.  It's not just that she nails the most horrific and upsetting scenes in such a powerful way that at one point I almost couldn't breathe, it is that she couples this with being just as affecting representing her character Patsy's everyday reality, the little escapes into dreaming, the continual crushing oppression of her situation.  She is brilliant throughout and in my view the most unforgettable of all the nominated performances.

I do feel a little bad for saying I will be angry if Nyong'o doesn't win.  Because it's not like the others aren't really good.  Sally Hawkins is such an amazing actress in everything I have seen and she more than holds her own against Cate Blanchett in Blue Jasmine and if it hadn't been for 12 Years a Slave, I would probably be rooting for her the most.  Julia Roberts is the best thing in August: Osage County (and, for me, the only person along with Julianne Nicholson who actually got the tone right for their performance), playing along with the melodrama without going into full on scenery chewing (Meryl Streep, you are awesome in all ways, but I am really looking at you with that comment!).  Jennifer Lawrence is very, very funny and a lot of fun in American Hustle (and someone how being convincing with a character that is probably supposed to be about 10 years older than she is) but good as she is, I'm assuming she only won a BAFTA because she didn't last year or something.  And obviously I'm not going to get massively annoyed if June Squibb wins because she is so unashamedly and bluntly hilarious in Nebraska, and so utterly convincing with it, I'm not sure she was acting.  It didn't hurt that she had some fantastic lines to deliver, and whether anyone else could have done them so well, I don't know, but compared with Nyong'o and Hawkins, I don't feel like she (or Lawrence) had enough of a varied and rounded character given to her to make her performance quite as impressive.  Overall, it is the incredible range of emotions that Nyong'o brought to her performance that made it the stand out one for me.

Best Supporting Actor:

I don't think it's just because of how much I hate 30 Seconds to Mars, but I'm really not getting why Jared Leto is so far the frontrunner for this award.  Not that he wasn't very good, he really was, but his should have been the truly sympathetic character and yet,(****SPOILER****) I didn't feel as badly as I expected to when Rayon died, because I hadn't really connected to the character as much as I expected. There was just something a tiny wee bit in the back of my mind that felt like I was seeing someone performing a part (which I suppose in fairness, does fit with Rayon's character) that put a thin sheet of glass between me and the character.  Jonah Hill was very good in Wolf of Wall Street but not enough of a stand out for me to win.  I'm not even going to say much about Bradley Cooper. Hey, he didn't spoil the film, which is an improvement on usual. And maybe he got nominated for wearing hair curlers. Oh god, I just realised Bradley Cooper and Jonah Hill are both two time Oscar acting nominees.  Do you know who wasn't a two-time Oscar acting nominee? Orson Welles.  Bradley Cooper has two more Oscar nominations than Joseph Cotten.  I'm cracking open the vodka....

Also not nominated for two Oscars (yet) is Michael Fassbender, which brings me to the two people I would like to win, Fassbender or Barkhad Abdi.  I'm going marginally towards Fassbender, just because I am still shocked he wasn't nominated for Shame.  Fassbender plays just about the most vile person imaginable and yet he is never two-dimensional and somehow brings through and makes it credible that Epps truly believes the twisted logic that he bases his treatment of slaves on.  One of the greatest strengths of 12 Years a Slave is the way in which it shows how this system became something that endured - how it was virtually impossible for a slave to rebel or escape.  One of the most horrifying aspects (and also convincing ways in which slavery is reinforced) is how life or death, getting through the day or suffering horrific punishment, often rested on the whim of the slaveowner.  But instead of giving us a one-dimensional villain, Fassbender brought through why Epps whims turn one way or the other, why he is so utterly brutal, making him a chillingly all to believable human being.

Abdi also plays brings something extra to what is a critical, but could be unsympathetic character. Not only his he absolutely magnetic, but he ensures you recognise how the character has found himself in that situation but with enough of an edge that you don't forget that what he is doing is illegal and violent.  It is by delivering both these sides to the character that allows Tom Hanks (who really should have been nominated) show a more ambiguous attitude towards his captors.  It is really hard to get your head round that his was Abdi's first role.

Best Actress

Clearly this is going to Cate Blanchett and she was absolutely compelling and brilliant so it is no surprise.  It wasn't the easiest character to play and to nail so completely, and there are probably few other people than Blanchett who could have done this.  Although Jasmine would be horrific to know in real life (both before and after her breakdown), you never stop being interested in her throughout, which is entirely down to Blanchett.

As for the others, I still can't believe Emma Thompson wasn't nominated for Saving Mr Banks. Sandra Bullock is absolutely fine in Gravity but is not as memorable as the visuals and tension of the movie.  Judi Dench is lovely and perfectly pitched in Philomena but it's not as striking a performance as Blanchett.  Amy Adams is the best of the cast of American Hustle, is interesting and unpredictable throughout and massively elevates the film but again she's not quite as outstanding as Blanchett.  And although Meryl Streep is massively entertaining in August: Osage County, I found her performance way too over the top in a way that made it so clear this was an adaptation of a play.

Best Actor

I hope this goes to Chiwetel Ejiofor or Bruce Dern but it looks like it's going to Matthew McConaughey (which I'm probably going to repeatedly misspell!) So am I the only person who thought McConaughey was way better in Mud this year? He was so good in Mud.  Not that he isn't terrific in Dallas Buyers Club, he really is, the film hinges on him and he brings everything to it and brings more dimensions to the performance and character than might have happened with other actors or other 'real life films'.

I have no idea why Christian Bale was nominated. He's absolutely fine in the film, but better than Tom Hanks in Captain Phillips (definitely not) or Robert Redford in All is Lost (nope, not better than him either). I think David O Russell has dirt on half of Hollywood or something.

Wolf of Wall Street showcases one of Leonardo di Caprio's best ever performances, and he absolutely makes the film, without holding anything back.  He has to make it believable that all these people would follow him into misdeed but never stop us realising how awful Jordan Belfort is, and he nails it.

But for me, the two actors who are the most powerful and the most subtle are Ejiofor and Dern. Dern is so one of those performances whose true brilliance sinks in long after the film.  Woody could be a caricature but it is such a wonderfully believable and true performance.  There is a slight aspect to the tone of the film that could make the audience feel like they are supposed to be mocking Woody, but there is no way that Dern will let you do that through his performance.  He keeps it so restrained but also very compelling, melancholic and the right amount of charming.

But my overall vote goes to Ejiofor.  Solomon Northup isn't a traditionally heroic protagonist - if he was, the film would be 12 Days a Slave.  Northup has to make the decisions that allow him to survive rather than what might be considered the most noble but Ejiofor shows you every emotion of those decisions and makes him seem a greater person for it.  Steve McQueen has spoken how Ejiofor is the audience's way into the film, and the way to make sure we experience the alien experience of slavery with Northup and Ejiofor absolutely nails it. He is so incredibly convincing, it's almost hard to describe his acting as you don't really notice it, you just feel the character and what is happening to him.  But whether the character is trying to make his presence felt, or trying to fade as much into the background as possible, this incredible personal strength emanates from Ejiofor. He is superb and memorable and wonderful and really deserves to win.

Part 2 coming up - Director and Film.