Wednesday, 19 March 2008

London to Brighton

Find out more about Paul Andrew Williams' blistering feature film debut by following these links:

Read a range of reviews for the film. Is there a common thread of praise or scorn? What are the things that reviews tend to focus on? Add a summary to your viewing notes.

Find out what the budget was. Did they recieve any extra funding? How long did the script take to write - how long to shoot? Find out some detail about the production and add to your screening notes.

Write your personal reponse to the film. Did you like it? What did you like about it/dislike? Also consider the representations of gender and criminality in the film. Be specific and use correct film terminology where appropriate.


Ash-a-ley said...

I guess i'll start it off lol, we watched it erlia today.

Obviously the storyline wasn't something which generally you would want to watch. However it seems to me that it is much more about showing a point. Showing the gritty, horrible side of Britain which we forget is there. Ok, prehaps what happened in the film may not happen in real life, but there is still aspects of the film which do happen.

I do however think that we will all agree it is a pretty horrific film. I think the thing that makes it most Horrific is the fact that alot is left to your imageination, and this can be what makes it alot worse than it already is, because nothing can be worse than what you imagein happening as the audience, especially in the scene where you don't see anything but you can just hear it. I wouldn't watch this film again for the pure fact that the storyline was so horrific.

The technical elements of the film i did think were good, especially the use of flashbacks, because it revealed slowly what the actually events were, i think this was particuarly effective from where the film started off.. because it immediately starts to make you think what happened to the two characters.

There is most definatly a big contrast between this film and obviously most of the Working Title films, especailly the Rom Coms lol. I think this can be because of the fact that it was a lower budget film and independently funded, which allowed it to be a movie which took more risks. And completely represent two opposite sides of britain, and britishness. haha they still liked a good cuppa tea tho.

I thought i would write this while it was still fresh in my mind.


jonathan of rose said...

Righty ho... obviously the reviews I've found centred on the film's harrowing nature (and the acting, which was generally very realistic. Considering how child actors can be really bad, Joanne was portrayed excellently). James was right about the general UK/US split in opinion- to be honest, I detected a fairly annoying opposition to British trends of "social realist", gruelling film. Then again, maybe they see too much of it.
I wouldn't say it was anywhere near perfect. But I did care about the central Joanne/Kelly relationship, even if I knew bad things were bound to happen to them. And though I did find the contradictions of Derek's character funny at times ("look, shag an old man for me"), by the end I was feeling very disturbed. I guess in that sense, the film achieves what it sets out to. Technically, the contrast between the rolling fields seen from the train and the scummy city seen from the Stuart Allen's car was subtly done. Conversely, I thought the "two cups in the wind" bit tried a bit too hard to be symbolic. The paedo bits were a perfect example of what your mind sees being worse than any explicit portrayal, though.

So...yeah. Anyone else thinking along the same lines?

ponkalulu said...

I'm thinking along the same sort of lines, Jon. Basically; disturbing, realistic and believable in most places. I think one reason the Americans might be anti-gritty is because they want to keep their stereotypical image of us as tea-drinking, afternoon-tea enjoying, upper class "toffs", who live in big apartments, etc and enjoy exploring our history.

They seem to have enough grit of their own to deal with, why would they want to deal with another country's too?

Of course the reviews center arounbd the horrific nature of the film, to not comment on it would make you seem ignorant, particularly as it is vthe main theme and WHOLE point of the film!

I thought the film was disturbing, obviously, but well-done. I liked the symbolic shots, but I do think the shot of Kelly walking away at the very end, back to her old life, was a bit long. Though I did like the use of quick choppy editing against the long shots.

AS everyone's said, the use of sound but not being able to see the action is more terrifying than trying to show what is happening in a realistic and scary way.

I really liked the use of mystery and suspense of what was happening, and for example leading the audience to think that Kelly is Joanne's mother, then start to wonder, and then find out. Nearly every aspect of the film's plot was revealed in this way, and although I liked the way it all tied together in the end, at times I did find it a bit frustrating. I liked the image of Stuart Allen lighting his cigarette at the end in a sort of "screw you, Dad" way, and I also did notice that EVERY shot he was in, he completely dominated in one way or another.

That's about it! :D


Stacey said...

I really loved the gritty nature of this film. even though the story line was horrific i thought it was believable. and is such a contrast to the workingtitle films that are supposed to show true britishness. i think this is going to be one of my 3 films i am going to study.
even though this post is late better late than never haha! xxx