Reviews

The Nouvelle Vague originated from an ideology postulated in Cahiers du Cinéma in the '50s, specifically the idea that film could no longer be ruled by its narrative (which was often an adaptation of other media, particularly critically-acclaimed literary works) but should be completely dictated by the director or, as he was called when fulfilling this role, the 'auteur'. Thus the reactionary countermovement of the Nouvelle Vague proposed a sudden shift from narrative to formal and experimental factors as indicators of quality. Concerning this focus on the formal aspect was the preference of the Cahiers du Cinéma Critics for the mise-en-scène, namely the long take and deep-focus aesthetic (Cook, 2004; Gibbs, 2002).

Indeed, the auteur theory or politique des auteurs continues to dominate in the discourse surrounding film, especially in journalistic circles. However, auteur theory has evolved since the Nouvelle Vague, as Kate Ince has illustrated in her analysis of François Ozon; it is no longer the aesthetical techniques in a director's body of work but recurring themes that identify an 'auteur' (2008). The change in meaning of 'auteur' is a clear index of the extent to which the 'broken thread' as Olivier Assayas called it has been reattached.

In view of Ince's analysis, which uses the concepts of the Cahiers du Cinéma critics in a diametrical way, it seems that the abandonment of the 'nouvelle vague auteur' has fully disseminated in the academic discourse of film studies. The director is no longer seen as being able to dictate every aspect of the film production process, the only thing he has complete control over is the thematic content (Maule, 2008). As a consequence of the reinterpretation of the auteur theory, content analyses have become more commonplace leading to a declination in the number of formal analyses. For the purpose of complementing Ince's analysis of Ozon's work this essay will perform a close stylistic analysis of the film style in Jeune & Jolie (2013). In addition, it will provide empirical evidence to the claim that the post-nouvelle vague directors reintegrated and re-evaluated the narrative film tradition and style.

Consequently, Assayas asserted that directors such as André Téchiné, Maurice Pialat, Jean Eustace and other post-nouvelle vague directors "re-attached the broken thread". In other words they reconciled with the film tradition that was rejected by the Cahier du Cinéma critics. Thus, filmmakers were no longer limited to a long take, deep-focus or, alternatively, an experimental film style. By adapting the existing stylistic tactics, which were institutionalised during the first half of the 20th century, films could once again be a medium to convey narratives.

The methodology of the stylistic analysis is rooted in the cognitive film theory of David Bordwell, who proposed an empirical way of analysing the formal aspects of film in Figures Traced in Light. This essay will mainly utilise concepts from the first chapter, titled 'Staging and Style'.

Firstly, Jeune & Jolie is created utilising the continuity editing of classical Hollywood, what Bordwell has postulated as the system of editing that least obstructs the viewer in his construction of the narrative while watching the film (1985). Since Ozon opts for this mode of editing it seems evident that he puts more emphasis on the narrative than on the formal aspect of his film.

In the second place, Ozon utilises the traditional schemata of opening a scene with an establishing shot, followed by a recurring shot-reverse-shot scheme in which the major participants in the conversation appear alone in frame or is seen over the shoulder of another character (Bordwell, 2005). He uses the schemata for 18 scenes throughout Jeune & Jolie and therefore it constitutes the large part of all poly- and dialogues. Bordwell has noted that this schemata is one of the oldest, most institutionalised and accordingly the most understood method of showing a scene involving dialogue. Thus, once again Ozon elects to emphasize conveying the narrative instead of experimenting with the film form.

Thirdly, the characters in Ozon's film dominate the frame and direct the camera, owing to the absence of any open frames; either montage or camera movement reframes the main character when he/she is about to leave the frame. This is most pronounced with the protagonist Isabelle, played by Marine Vacth. The way she is framed differs from the mood of the scene, generally falling into three major categories: BCU or CU for the emotional intense scenes, VLS or LS to show her progressing alienation from her environment and personal relationships, and lastly medium shots for neutral scenes.

As a final point, Ozon incorporates not only the film style of the pre-nouvelle vague French Cinema, but also the whole of Western film tradition, dating back to the beginning of the 20th century. This is logical given the way the solution to a specific staging problem is passed on from filmmaker to filmmaker on a global scale, as western films are distributed throughout the entire Western world.

Returning to the insistence of Ince that Ozon is an auteur on the basis of his content, this limited stylistic analysis has proven that he does not assert his personal mark on the aesthetic of the film. However, Ince has correctly concluded that Ozon dictates the themes in his film, leading him to be the "first mainstream queer filmmaker" (2008, p. 31). To conclude, in the contemporary French film industry an auteur is no longer determined by his style but by the recurring themes in his oeuvre. Film style has once again become a universal tool to help immerse the audience in the film and convey the narrative of the director.

Bordwell, D. (1985). Narration in the fiction film: London, Routledge 1985.

Bordwell, D. (2005). Staging and Style Figures traced in light : on cinematic staging (pp. 1-42). Berkeley; London: University of California Press.

Cook, D. A. (2004). A history of narrative film (4th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

Gibbs, J. (2002). Mise-en-scène : film style and interpretation. London: Wallflower.

Ince, K. (2008). François Ozon's cinema of desire. In K. Ince (Ed.), Five directors : auteurism from Assayas to Ozon (pp. 157): Manchester University Press.

Maule, R. (2008). The Difficult Legacy of the Nouvelle Vague: Olivier Assayas and French Film Authors at the End of Auteurism Beyond Auteurism: New Directions in Authorial Film Practices in France, Italy and Spain since the 1980s (pp. 81-105). Bristol: Intellect.

'New Indian cinema' contains a broad spectrum of various genres, directors and other classifications of films. It is in essence the collection of all those who oppose the dominant film code of Bollywood in alternating ways (Verma, 2011). One of the most interesting films is Ritesh Batra's The Lunchbox (2013), as it feels more like a European art house film set in Mumbai than a traditional Indian film.

To accurately denote how The Lunchbox differs from the dominant Bollywood code a clear definition of the latter is needed. Ganti has postulated that the English-speaking world created the term 'Bollywood' in the '70s, when the biggest Indian productions generated international interest for the first time. The coagulation of 'Bombay' and 'Hollywood' was a reference to the influence of Bombay film productions on the Indian cinema culture as they are shown nationally and internationally. A more recent interpretation of the term refers to the Bombay cinema as the only non-Hollywood film industry that is globally dominant and present. However, the actual use of the term indicates a specific film style instead of a particular film industry; there are 'Bollywood' films that are not made in Bombay (2004). The primary aspect of the archetypical 'Bollywood' production is the melodrama, both in content -the masala mix of many genres, and aesthetically -in the staging, colour use and acting (Mishra, 2002; Mooij, 2006).

An important point in the comparison to North-American film history is the continued dominance of the 'Bollywood aesthetic'. Whereas Hollywood experienced a crisis in the '60s, which led to a change in film style due to the rise of new Hollywood and the end of the production code, major 'Bollywood' productions have largely remained unchanged in their aesthetic since the advent of widescreen in the '50s. Lutgendorf has noted that this cinematic aesthetic was already present in the foundation of 'Bollywood', namely the pre-modern Indian storytellers that "were already fond of flashbacks, lyrical interludes, surreal landscapes, and vast and crowded Cinemascopic tableaux; their language was visually intense, almost hallucinatory: screenplays awaiting the screen." (2006, p. 250)

The most important aspect of the 'Bollywood aesthetic' for this essay is the rejection of the realistic portrayal that is dominant in Western film culture. This preference for the constructed, the supernatural was, as mentioned above, present in oral tradition long before the advent of cinema. To break with this aesthetic is thusly moving away from not only the dominant film style but also Indian storytelling in general. This is why The Lunchbox appears to the spectator as a non-Indian film, because it conveys a story in a way that mirrors the Western narrative film tradition through its realism.

Firstly, Batra utilises no non-diegetic music or song and no voice-over. His film contains two songs in a repeated scene, he shows the lunchbox carriers singing on the train both times. This results in an accurate representation of Mumbai with diegetic music. The Lunchbox only hints at the 'Bollywood' dance scene when two characters are discussing an old hit song that originated from a 'Bollywood' film. In summary, the film acknowledges the dominant film style, but rejects the constructed nature of independent or integrated dance scenes in its goal for realism.

Furthermore, Batra employs a -in contrast to the vibrant style of 'Bollywood', dull colour pallet, giving Mumbai/Bombay a gritty and bleak outlook, akin to the character of a modernised urban environment. The Lunchbox has many dark scenes, in contrast to many 'Bollywood' productions that are always well lit. This darker aesthetic is also translated into the content, as the film deals with topics such as loneliness, infidelity, addiction and estrangement. Batra wants to portray the whole picture of Indian society, not just the good and beautiful parts as is done in most of the 'Bollywood' productions. Above all he wants to explore the social conditions through individual characters, in other words not a general realistic aesthetic but a specific form created by Michelangelo Antonioni, i.e. introspective realism. The adaptation of this style is further exemplified in the many shots where the protagonist is the only object in focus, symbolising their estrangement, a schemata Antonioni perfected in Il Deserto Rosso (1964) (Cook, 2004).

In addition, The Lunchbox displays many scenes in the style of the slow cinema where the film time and the real time are equal. The most striking examples are the scenes that present the protagonist consuming the daily lunchboxes, all in long takes. Cook notes in his book from 2004 that this stylistic technique also originated from the work of Michelangelo Antonioni, who introduced it in L'Avventura (1960).

Conversely, the only filmic aspect Batra retains from the 'Bollywood' aesthetic is the cinematic aspect ratio of 2.35:1 (the standardised CinemaScope format). This indicates that he still envisioned The Lunchbox to be shown in theatres and cinemas rather than on television. Batra does not eschew the economical aspect of the Indian film tradition; he does not aim for the same audiences as 'Bollywood', but still strives to reach niche crowds in smaller venues and multiplexes.

Overall, Batra has rejected the dominant 'Bollywood' tradition not out of a reactionary action. He wanted to realistically portray the social problems that arise in a modernised urban environment. The 'Bollywood' aesthetic, with its melodramatic staging, masala story structure, colourful pallet and energetic dance sequences, is not suited to convey stories about estrangement and isolation. The Lunchbox adapts from Michelangelo Antonioni, a filmmaker that also dealt with the topic of modernisation and how it impacted those who experienced it. Subsequently, given the motivation behind Batra's appropriation of Western film tradition, it is unfair to devalue his film as a languid way to appease international audiences, as was the case in Sarina Masukor's review of the film (2015). The Lunchbox handles its external film language for the purpose of reflecting on and criticising the Indian society and culture that has undergone modernisation, a fact that major 'Bollywood' productions often neglect in their narrative structure.

Cook, D. A. (2004). A history of narrative film (4th ed.). New York: W.W. Norton.

Ganti, T. (2004). Introduction Bollywood: a guidebook to popular Hindi cinema (pp. 1-52). London: Routledge.

Lutgendorf, P. (2006). Is There an Indian Way of Filmmaking? International Journal of Hindu Studies, 10(3), 227-256.

Masukor, S. (2015). Old Recipe, New Flavour: Ritesh Batra's The Lunchbox. Metro(183), 70-73.

Mishra, V. (2002). Bollywood cinema: Temples of desire: Psychology Press.

Mooij, T. (2006). The new Bollywood: No heroines, no villains. Cineaste, 31(3), 30-35.

Verma, R. (2011). Beyond Bollywood: Indian cinema's new cutting edge. The Guardian, 23.

Film theory professors are inclined to force their students to find and reflect on nonsensical connections, such as mulling about the relationship between a recent Italian film and the most historically important Italian genre. This was my try to integrate La Grande Belezza in the frame of Italian neorealism.

Firstly, a clear definition of 'genre' is needed to approach Italian neorealism from this perspective. Structural film theorists created the term 'genre' in order to detect underlying patterns in a group of otherwise unrelated film texts in opposition to the prior focus on the oeuvre of a distinguished director (Altman, 2006). Given their origin, it is logical to assume 'genres' are contained -and thereby defined, wholly within the film text. Altman refutes this seemingly independent nature, stating that critics and spectators themselves generate and modify mental expectations for each genre (2006). Accordingly, the context, in other words the social and political situation surrounding the film text, is at least partly responsible for the generally accepted meaning of a particular genre. In the continuum from text-dependent to context-dependent genres, a specific genre is situated near the extreme of the context side, namely Italian neorealism.

To elaborate, the Italian neorealism was a reaction to the propagandistic use of film during the fascist regime of Berlusconi from 1922 to 1945 (Wagstaff, 2007). The Italian film directors of the immediate post-world war II strove, similar to many counter-movements, to a complete opposition of the prior film production. The realistic aspect of their films is therefore not solely based on an aesthetic reason, but also on political and social motivations. Ben-Ghiat has even stated that the Italian neorealist cinema was part of the transition period of Italy towards a democratic structure, film was more suited than any other medium at the time to express the need to reintegrate the humanist ideals of the Enlightenment into the national image and culture (2008).

Contrastingly, Altman has noted in his article of 2006 that some historians have linked the realistic nature of the neorealist movement to a forced aesthetic due to the absence of production materials and general poverty. Bazin diverges from this purely practical view as he evaluates the neorealist films as a reminder that realism is in fact an aesthetic choice. He attributes the choice for this aesthetic with political reasons, relating the Italian neorealist movement to the revolutionary cinema of Eisenstein, Pudovkin and Dovzhenko (1967). Although on an aesthetical level the neorealist cinema is more similar to the social realist cinema under Stalin.

In comparison, Paolo Sorrentino's main aim in La Grande Bellezza (2013) could be deemed to be similar in its intention, i.e. presenting the social and political reality of a specific place and time. Additionally, In terms of space it has overlaps with Roberto Rossellini's Roma, città aperta (1945) and Vittorio De Sica's Ladri di biciclette (1948). However, even though La Grande Bellezza contains many connections with Italian neorealism on a textual level, no film critic or spectator would ever deem it to be a neorealist film. The context of post-world war II Italy is too strongly interwoven with the label of 'Italian neorealism'. It is therefore impossible to make another neorealist film, no matter how closely it follows the aesthetics and content.

In light of the previous conclusion it seems to be more productive to view Italian neorealism not as a genre such as it was defined at the beginning of this essay, but as a film movement that liberated the Italian film production from its propagandistic abuse by the fascist regime. Italian neorealist films had to strive for simplicity in order to achieve this goal of purification, thereby being forced to limit their possibility of content and aesthetics (Bondanella, 1993). However, since the context has changed filmmakers are now no longer bound to these strict rules when they want to convey a realistic portrayal of the contemporary social and political situation.

Plus, Hsu writes in his article of 2006 about the recent trend of incorporating many different genres in a single film text and the overall blurring of the distinct dividing lines between genres. These circumstances suggest the unlikely nature of any filmmaker restricting himself to the narrow regulations of the genre of Italian neorealism. La Grande Bellezza, which displays influences of the films of Rossellini and De Sica yet incorporates a greater variety than just those sources, is more common.

Specifically, Sorrentino's film contains surrealistic scenes, adopts stylistic schemata from the CinemaScope aesthetic of the early American widescreen, plays with colour contrasts to add symbolical elements to the scenes, references the visual style of other media such as music videos, and contrasts wildly varying tones and atmospheres throughout its runtime. In conclusion, regarding the style of filmmaking La Grande Bellezza is as far removed from the simplistic archetype of a neorealist film as possible. A more apt comparison is the bombastic and multiperspective Roma (1972) by Fellini.

The consensus in genre theory dictates that genres change over time as they are reassessed and redefined by all involved agents. A genre that is not able to change due to its dependency on the context, as is the case with Italian neorealism, is therefore destined to die out. In the specific case of Italian neorealist cinema many film critics and theorists point to De Sica's Umberto D. (1952) as the end point of the movement.

However, Paolo Sorrentino and many other international filmmakers have proven that even though Italian neorealism has ended as a genre, it is still influencing contemporary film production and this will likely continue in the future. The fundamental motivation of the neorealist filmmakers was to liberate cinema, a goal in which they succeeded. Other directors have opted to celebrate that freedom, instead of clinging to the movement that provided their freedom. La Grande Bellezza is a good example of a film made in this liberated style thanks to the collection of influences that Paolo Sorrentino integrated within his work.

Altman, R. (2006). Film, genre: London, British Film Institute 2006.

Ben-Ghiat, R. (2008). Un cinéma d'après- guerre : le néoréalisme italien et la transition démocratique. (Cinema after the War: Italian Neorealism and the Transition from Fascism to Democracy). Annales. Histoire, Sciences Sociales, 63e année(6), 1248.

Bondanella, P. (1993). Viaggio in Italia The Films of Roberto Rossellini: Camebridge University Press.

Wagstaff, C. (2007). Italian neorealist cinema : an aesthetic approach. Toronto ; Buffalo, N.Y.: University of Toronto Press.

There has never been a better example of the need to have as little prior knowledge before watching a film as an indispensable requirement to enjoy said film.

Firstly, try for a moment to imagine having heard none of Zack Snyder's ridiculous notion that Sucker Punch is an empowering feminist work; it increased the scrutiny regarding the plot devices he used, which led to all those who rightly deemed that revenge rape story lines are completely unrelated to female empowerment. When just viewed as a story on its own, then I feel most fail to see the balance (or at least as close as you can get to that concept given Snyder's aesthetic) Sucker Punch achieves in addressing topics of abuse in all kinds without shying away from the consequences and without exploiting the acts themselves to generate interest. In short, I had no problems with the story or in the way it was portrayed.

In addition, a lot of viewers have complained about the covers of some of their favourite songs, ranging from the Eurythmics' Sweet Dreams, Björk's Army of Me, Queen's We Will Rock You the Pixies' Where is my mind and the The Beatles' Tomorrow never knows. I for one hold no strong feelings for the original versions of these songs (would even go as far as to say those last two are better than their original versions, mainly because I dislike the Pixies and Beatles) and was pleasantly surprised by the apt selection of accompanying tracks to the varied action sequences.

Lastly, I saw the director's cut, which is mandatory for an ambitious and indulgent film such as Sucker Punch; if you go hard, than go all the way (the closest comparison I have in this regard is the overly absurd 功夫 (Kung Fu Hustle)). Maybe this version is more clear and understandable than the theatric version as I had no problem discerning the plot and all the thematic subtexts in one sitting.

I do have the feeling at times I was watching an extended in-game cut scene, but I did not mind it at all, because this lend itself to exploring a range of video game staples, namely Nazi Zombies (thanks Call of Duty: World at War) and a variety of Japanese anime tropes (especially the excessive panty flashing in the first action sequence).

If I had to summarise, I immediately accepted Snyder's intend with Sucker Punch and he had me intrigued from start to finish. Blame my soft spot for convoluted and pretentious story lines that thrive solely on minimal information delivery, because I quite liked the ending as well

Immersion as a capitalistic strategy Kevin Macdonald made Touching the Void in the middle of his career, when he had only made documentaries up to that point. The dramatic elements of the film foreshadowed his two following Hollywood productions The Last King of Scotland and State of Play. MacDonald has continued to alternate documentary and fiction film productions since then, most notably Life in a Day, which was composed solely of video clips from Youtube. The link between Life in a Day and Touching the Void is the manner in which MacDonald tries to immerse the audience to grab and hold of their attention. Admittedly, the method of the first is more experimental and connected to the recent trend of participative documentary. Although the providers of the clips had no influence on any aspect of the production process, so it is more correct to indicate Life in a Day as a semi-participatory documentary.

In contrast, Touching the Void utilizes the claim of reality inherent to documentary film to entice the viewer into watching it. That is to say, the techniques MacDonald employs to immerse the audience in the story are based on capitalistic motivations and profitable tactics. The inherent disposition towards a realistic portrayal of events is therefore not an end but a means to acquire greater audience interest. MacDonald's film applies the same scheme as popular television drama-documentary programs on channels such as National Geographic and Discovery channel. The most apt comparison is Locked up Abroad, a program that conveys the misfortunes of the subjects several decades after the facts. Even more, both embellish the reconstruction of the events over the actual narration through interview of the characters; the reconstruction becomes the most important part, people want to see what happened, not hear about it.

Consequently, all MacDonald needed for his drama-documentary was a good story he could dramatize even further. He found his story in the novel Touching the Void by Joe Simpson, who also appears in the film next to the other two persons involved in the accident, Simon Yates and Richard Hawking. The film appropriates their verbal recollections as a starting point for the reconstructions of the climbing accident in the Andes. MacDonald exploits the fact that the events portrayed are based on real events, it adds to the drama of the narrative of his documentary. He follows up on this dramatization with techniques that originate from the narrative film tradition.

To start with, as Richard Falcon has mentioned: "no fiction writer would dare to invent so implausible a story" (2004). The narrative of Joe Simpson and Simon Yates is too unbelievable in a fiction setting, Hollywood had plans to adapt Joe Simpson's novel into a production starring Tom Cruise but they realized that Touching the Void can only function as a drama-documentary . The interviews need to keep reminding the viewer throughout the duration of the film that the narrative is indeed based on actual incidents. It is this need for plausibility, whereby the entire plot is revealed as the viewer is aware of Joe Simpsons survival at the start of Touching the Void, that forces MacDonald to dramatize the reconstructions in order to make a lucrative documentary.

Specifically, theatrical music accompanies all but a few scenes throughout the film, ranging from sad and depressing -to emphasize the torturous position of Joe Simpson, to religious music during his triumphs. In addition, MacDonald also employs various dramatic sound effects to amplify the impact of certain accidents. These audio queues contained in Touching the Void contribute to the sense of 'being there', or how film critic Bruce Feld put it: "His work is so seamless that it is difficult to keep in mind that the actual event occurred in 1985, 18 years ago, and that we are not actually watching the harrowing climb itself." (2004)

Thirdly, the reconstructions of the events rely on cinematic schemata to appear realistic. MacDonald abides by the rules of the continuity montage to avoid jarring the viewer and subsequently obstructing his or her immersion. However, Touching the Void has an advantage due to the warped perception of the Western audience regarding mountaineering. They overvalue the realism because it strongly contrasts with unrealistic fiction films such as Renny Harling's Cliffhanger (1993) or Clint Eastwood's The Eiger Sanction (1975).

Additionally, actors play Joe Simpson and Simon Yates in the reconstructions in order to inhibit the discrepancy between their current and former selves in terms of age and image. MacDonald achieves two goals by casting these actors, it increases the immersive capability of the reconstructions and it takes full advantage of the dramatic nature of the narrative (Ward, 2008). In the words of Stella Bruzzi: "the role of the performance is, paradoxically, to draw the audience into the reality of the situation being dramatized, to authenticate the fictionalization." (2008)

To conclude, Touching the Void started out as a potential Hollywood production, yet the unbelievable narrative could not function in a fictional setting. Nevertheless, MacDonald made his drama-documentary adaptation of the book with the same capitalistic motivation. Given that he could not rely on the star power of Tom Cruise, MacDonald had to dramatize the story and heighten the immersive nature of the reconstructions, leading to a film that was as much a thriller as it was a documentary. Touching the Void was successful owing to this combination of educational and entertainment value. The film made close to 14 million dollars at global box offices and passed the preliminary round for the Oscar for Best Documentary (Box Office Mojo, 2004). In conclusion, MacDonald has shown with his documentary that to appease the audience and film critics, realism is less important than the dramatic and immersive nature of the narrative.

Probably 黒澤明 (Akira Kurosawa)'s most realistic take on his humanism; one should try to do as much good as he/she can, but should also expect resistance at every turn in this endeavour. That goes double for the societies we live in today, were we are so interconnected you cannot accomplish anything on your own, you will have to rely on others and while it can be difficult to motivate yourself, just imagine how borderline to impossible it will be to convince those others to partake in your actions out of something as old-fashioned as altruistic philanthropy. People being too self-centred, departments more interested in maintaining their continued existence by evading their responsibilities, it all still rings true today.

Yet, lest one wallow in the cynicism that pervades parts of the film, he/she should remember that individuals can still achieve meaningful feats even in the face of such adversity. Let that be the most optimistic message 生きる (Ikiru) conveys. Plus, I give it extra credit for conveying said message without even a hint of moral obligation or patronising attitude.

Максим Горький (Maxim Gorky), the novel author, has a direct link with the origin of cinema, as he was one of the first to write about it; on the 22th of June in 1896 Gorky witnessed one of the earliest film productions of the Lumière brothers, an experience that would be the basis for 'in the realm of shadows'.

Gorky was impressed by film's potential to be an universal language, the ability which Мать (Mother) illustrates by adapting his written work to the screen so even the illiterate Russian people could understand his story.

Всеволод Пудовкин (Vsevolod Pudovkin)'s style is more akin to the social realism (although this is influenced by the fact that the novel can be categorised as social realism) that Stalin would prefer, in contrast to the more abstract and jarring montage of Сергей Эйзенштейн (Sergei Eisenstein).

A particular form of montage that he used in this film is worth mentioning, namely the fragmentation of action. Pudovkin 'cuts' the action into several different shots that only show a part or fragment of the action, when assembled in a montage the viewer's mind fills in the blanks (cf. Gestalt psychology) to create the illusion of a complete action. The most known example of this technique in Film is probably the shower scene from Psycho. This in itself proves the impact the Russian film school has had on film practices in general.

To conclude, Мать (Mother) is historically important and on some parts technologically innovative. However, if it seen on itself and in comparison to other works of the time, for me it does not hold up as well as most film theorists and critics would have you believe.

The most-used narrative scheme in American documentaries, which has influenced many other national trends in that genre, is to drive the point home by repeating it, often ad nauseam. Hubert Sauper wisely uses a different tactic, showing as much sides to his subject as possible. Many perspectives are shown in a neutral way, the moral evaluation, problem definition and causal interpretation is left to the viewer.

The contextualisation that is used to introduce the subject emphasises this; we, the western audience, are alien to the concrete situation in South-Sudan. Every bit of information we receive through the media is filtered and framed is such a way that we have no clear view on the state of neocolonialism in Africa.

Instead of the standard, Western political-economic discourse (mainly the exploitation of Africa by so-called 'helping' investors), Hubert Sauper also presents the results of religious rifts (the main ones are foreign imports, i.e. Christianity and Islam), the Chinese political-economic views on both Africa and the USA, the views of local civilians and leaders, the ecological effects of the exploitation and, most importantly, the forced adaptation of the English language (and Western culture in general) to be taken serious and be able to communicate with the Western World.

To conclude, Entente Cordiale (We Come as Friends) is a good documentary, as it criticises our limited knowledge of and view on African culture after we wrongly deemed them to be freed from colonial forces.

1955, the year that Nicolas Ray showed America the alienated teenagers and consequences with Rebel Without a Cause, quite similarly to this film. Yet, Rebel without a cause approaches the subject through the eyes of the teenagers, Blackboard Jungle talks about the problem as experienced by the adults, immediately making it much more patronising and judgmental.

Warner Bros. pictures, the studio behind Rebel without a Cause, has always been a more working class studio, which gives them more authority to handle problems of the public.The fact that Metro-Goldwyn-Mayer, the most middle- class American of the big studios made this film contributes to the mocking character of the film. Especially the beginning text, stating that 'America needs to know about these problems or else the United States are doomed!'

As it stands, the film begins with this air of superiority and never recovers from it. The inclusion of 'Rock around the Clock' in addition to great performances of Glenn Ford and Sidney Poitier could be considered saving graces if you were able to look past this systematic flaw, I was not.

The adaptation of a graphic novel to film may seem more easily attainable than other media, it can still suffer from the same problems. Hirokazu Koreeda, with his attention to details, did a marvellous job with this film. I noticed many cabiria- movements throughout the film, I suppose mimicking the movement of the reader's eyes.

Koreeda was also a good fit for the subject of the story, his last film Like Father, Like Son also handled relations between reunited family members. This time the most defining aspect is the role of the female in Japan, still a very paternalistic country, yet as the film shows they have no difficulty living on their own. Every film is an image of its time and Our Little Sister shows that times have changed, this case for the better.

The cinematography was very beautiful, to the point were I would recommend trying to watch Our Little Sister on the big screen. The long-shots of natural views are breath-taking. Furthermore, the script and the film feel very precise, no doubt the outcome of Hirokazu Koreeda writing the screenplay, directing and editing the film.

The animation is spotty at times; it is evident that the greatest amount of effort was spent on the opening and ending fight sequences, leaving all scenes in between at a lower level of quality.

Furthermore the adaptation of the novel had caused a loss of nuance, making this inferior to the original source. Technology was not really (there were instances that it was) present in Kishimoto's original manga, now that it is he uses a popular motive of the Japanese New Wave, namely the idea that technology is taking over the life of man and this should be adverted as it is a regression. It comes over rather forced and blatant in the film as in the novel.

Yet, despite these flaws I cannot help but like this film; nostalgia hits, hard. I have grown up with the Naruto series and this is the end point. If nothing else, it really works as a closer, making me want to read it all again, which I probably will in the future.

Seen as the first artistic Belgian film A film containing Dutch (Flemish and even more specific an Antwerp dialect), German, French and English, you cannot get more Belgian than this on a language level.

1955 was the year the French, German, English and Italian national film production had resurrected and this was infectious for neighbouring European countries, even those were no film culture had resided. Belgium is a special case (as it is in many, if not most, aspects) for Seagulls Die in the Harbour is the "first artistic endeavour in the art of film in Flanders and even Belgium" (Erik Martens, head of division 'verspreiding filmcultuur' VAF, 2015) and after it, Belgium had to wait eleven years, until The Man Who Had His Hair Cut Short for a film to reach the same standards.

There was no government funding for Seagulls Die in the Harbour, Bruno De Winter had to search for sponsors, who had an impact on the esthetics of the film as they demanded Antwerp and its harbour to be shown in all its glory. This is most present in the flashback, as various famous (maybe I am not the best judge, as I grew up in Antwerp) touristic landmarks are shown. The absence of a government system subsidising Flemish film production is the major cause of the complete dearth of quality films between 1955 and 1966.

Of the three directors Rik Kuypers was the most able to handle a camera, and even he was just an amateur, Ivo Michiels and Roland Verhavert had been film journalists up to that point. The binding factor of these three men was their cinefilia, which is reflected in the esthetic of the film; Meeuwen sterven in de haven (Seagulls Die in the Harbour) possesses a film-noir, expressionistic atmosphere, reminiscent to The Third Man.

The film handles a sensitive subject for most Flemish in the post-war era, namely the sense of guilt felt by the Flemish nationalists and even sympathisants, as the Flemish nationalist party had collaborated with the Third Reich in hope to acquire independence. It would last until the seventies before Flemish nationalism recovered from that fatal blow, but even today people still easily use the word 'fascist' when they speak about the NV-A (the new Flemish Nationalist party).

The protagonist in the film, played by Julien Schoenaerts (yes, he is the father of that one Belgian actor), has a strong sense of nostalgia and melancholy to the times before the war, before the people were physically, but more so mentally destroyed. He cannot live in a country were everyone despises him. This sense of shame is a motive in the works of all the three directors, all held Flemish nationalist ideologies.

The relation between Gigi (the girl of six years old) and the protagonist has only one function, to convince the audience that he has a heart of gold an is in fact a 'good' guy. It would go to far as to purely describe it as an act of revisionism, but it does play a factor.

Yet, for all the importance of this film, historically, esthetically and symbolically, purely as film it is not great. Most of the actors had only acted on stage before, the three directors all made their debut with this film and the film suffers from identity crisis in its effort to portray the beautiful side of Antwerp to please the sponsors, display the shame of the Flemish nationalist and the fact that he in fact is not bad.

The benefit of this identity crisis is the room for different interpretations, as can be seen by the success Seagulls Die in the Harbour attained in Russia; communist could read the role of the American liberators as the primary force of all consequences in the film and anti-communist saw a protagonist rebelling against his government.

Because of this it is likely that more Russian have seen the film than Belgians, because even we almost never care for Belgian films, then and now.

Even in the fifties Hollywood was adapting comic books? Thankfully the film was unsuccessful, otherwise the comic book film craze Hollywood has institutionalised now would have originated in those times. According to Aubrey Solomon and the Variety weekly it did not break even at the box office, with a budget of 2,970,000$ and an estimated total earnings of 2.6 million dollars. Hollywood was still protective of their films, so it did not earn anything outside of the theatres.

Henry Hathaway did not lose his love for fast cutting he displayed in Rawhide, even in the early CinemaScope era. This is further proved by the aspect ratio of 2.55 instead of 2:35:1; the time before the put magnetic sound and optic sound on each film version, reducing the space for the picture itself. You could say the fast cutting style was determined by Robert L. Simpson, the film editor for both films. However Robert L. Simpson has shown to be willing to have long takes, as is shown in As Young as You Feel, Call Me Madam and The Best of Everything. So I think it is fair to credit the fast pace, especially for an early CinemaScope film, to Henry Hathaway. He did conform to the early CinemaScope standard consisting of heavy use of long shots and very long shots.

You can really tell this was adapted from a comic book for kids, I had my suspicions, which were later fulfilled by the acknowledgment of my nostalgia-filled parents. There are many scenes that look like they were picked out of a random 'adventures of Valiant'. In my opinion they did not translate well to the big screen, especially for the epic spectacle it fruitlessly tries to be.

Another problem was the combination of the early Bausch and Lomb anamorphic lenses and Technicolor, this required enormous amounts of light for the camera to capture the film. Quite a problem then, when the apotheosis of the film occurs in the dead of night; maybe it was better on the big screens in those times, but I could barely follow the action.

Robert Wagner is a very limited actor in his role, he reminds me of Arnold Schwarzenegger in Hercules in New York (yes, that bad). It is evident he was casted for his physical feats and not his acting chops. I am also not fond of the performances of Janet Leigh and Debra Paget, both overacted horribly.

To conclude, I do not recommend this film, even if you happen to be a fan of the old comic books.

Warning, this review contains criticism on the United States of America, reader discretion is advised.

Firstly, the film is well made. On the one hand it starts out slow and some of the acting is sketchy, especially the mother and the reverend brother. Were I more optimistically inclined I would say his portrayal was religious satire, but being realistic, I exclude this point of view; it is hard enough to find religious satire in contemporary Hollywood productions, accordingly the presence of it in Hollywood in 1931 is highly unlikely. On the other hand the technical aspects are great for a production of its time, namely apt use of camera movement and good sound editing for such an early 'talky'.

The film is commendable to any viewer who wants to explore the golden age of Hollywood, the early spoken films and the start of the prison genre.

Now my take on the content of the film, which as previously stated contains some criticism on the ideology and working of the United States, in particular the 'Bible belt' states. The southern states, having lost their right to hold slaves after the ending of the civil war (which did not mean the slavery system was abolished in all forms in the years following the death of Abraham Lincoln), have found a new, just as profitable, way to exploit human beings. This is the only description I can give to the system of the chain gangs.

The scene which conflicted most with my sense of justice was the defense of said chain gang system; a desecration of human rights and glorification of egotistical capitalism. How can a land be 'of the free' if capitalism is more important than individual rights; the effect of the economisation of all aspects of society, while also pretending Adam Smith was right about the free market (the economical crisis of 2008 proved otherwise, as did the one in 1973 and 1929). 'Land of the brave'? Yes, I can definitely see the people who opted to stay in the United States as brave.

Vertov utilises the whole array of available camera and montage techniques to portray a normal day in Russia, while also showing how it is made; fast motion, slow motion, stop-motion, freeze-frame, thawed-frame, playing film backwards, double exposure, etc. A part of the film comes over as a documentary of how a film is made, namely the balance of focus and the daring stunts of early cameramen.

What is being filmed is typical for the 'agitprop', i.e. everyday life of the proletariat, here sometimes put in contrast with the lavish lifestyle of the bourgeoisie. Vertov put some dialectical elements in the montage, most notably the diagonals in the earlier parts of the film, other times he draws parallels, e.g. between the working class and the cameraman/director (in my opinion Vertov did this to assert he and other filmmakers belonged to the same group) or between the washing of a woman and the washing of the city.

Other communist elements are also present, the one that stood out the most was the glorifying of machines and the relation between man and machine (the total opposite of Japanese New-wave). For the most part the film escapes explicit propaganda, mostly due to the non-narrative form (it is easy to see why Stalin stopped this kind of cinema, as propaganda it did not work for many did not understand the meaning behind the dialectic montage).

I needed to acclimate to the normal way of viewing movement after the film had ended, being made strangely aware of the similarities and differences between my eyes and the 'eye' of the camera. It had an hypnotic, psychedelic effect.

To conclude, I would recommend this film, but only to those who have some background information on the Russian constructivism, as otherwise this could come over as too nonsensical and pointless (like all those purely structuralist films, e.g. Wavelength).

Film is an art, and Griffith was the pioneer of this vision, he saw himself as a great genius and the 'father of narrative cinema'; when he left American Biograph after his film Judith of Bethulia he went to Hollywood and put an advertisement for himself in the paper that contained a list of all his previous films, he was certain a studio would recruit him.

This complacency is also on show in the very first shot of the film, namely the trademark outline for the text, containing Griffith's name in the upper-right and -left corner and his initials on the bottom. It is quite evident he loves himself very much.

I see a lot of reviews here trying to justify the racism in the film by saying that in 1915 everyone was racist. Then how come the film immediately sparked protest after its release? The NAACP was successful in removing some of the racists parts of the film; it was cut from 1544 to 1375 shots. Because Griffith made the film without a script and those cut scenes were destroyed, we can only guess what other ghastly things were on them -the fact that the extremely racist South Carolina Parliament scene was not cut, does make me wonder just how bad those removed takes were.

In typical Griffith vanity, he felt attacked and violated for the public had stained his genius and masterpiece. He went to make a whole three-and-a-half film to vindicate the 'Intolerance' of those who opposed his racist depictions. The audience did not like this unsubtle message and Intolerance became one of the biggest flops in Hollywood history (the fact that it was such a complicated film for the time was also a big factor, but just let me believe in this delusion of poetic justice).

It the sneering tone or the rating did not convey it yet, I absolutely loathe this film. The depiction of Afro-Americans as uncivilised, alcoholics, rapists and other depictions you would assign to the concept of untermenschen, makes my blood boil. There is a big difference between denigrating a group of people (as the Indians have been subject of in many Westerns) for the sake of the narrative and the way Griffith denigrates a whole social group (believing in the separation of the human race in 'sub-races' is in itself racist). The only time Afro-Americans are portrayed as sympathetic is when they are submissive; Griffith states this as 'the Aryan birthright' of the white South.

The worst part of Griffith's film is the revival of the Ku Klux Klan in the United States, he has Afro-American blood on his hands. This fact in itself is enough for me to give this the lowest rating possible. I do not care for this 'encyclopaedia of what film was capable on a technical level', if Griffith had not made this film another director would eventually have mode a similar film, one I would have actually been able to enjoy.

In the schedule of Cinema Zuid this was one of the films I had never heard of before. Looking at the ratings here, on RYM and on Letterboxd, the cinephile audience has too. Quite a shame as this may be the first film that criticises the American dream, more specifically the hardships one of the lower class experienced when trying to assimilate with those of the upper class.

At first I held no sympathy for the protagonist Stella as I found that the troubles she was creating were of her fault. At the midpoint of the film I had to accept that the screenwriter and maybe the author of the original novel, Olive Higgins Prouty, was of the mindset that people of certain classes cannot change their tastes or habits; this reminds me of Pierre Bourdieu's theory of class distinction, based on aesthetic taste and habitus. The film has a deterministic view on these acquired dispositions; Stella grew up in a poor family, therefore she will never understand the ways of the upper class. She can strive to meet the high standards of the upper class, but everything she tries (especially the way she dresses) comes out as kitsch for which she is laughed at by the people she wants to accept her.

When you accept this hypothesis (I found it quite hard as I saw Stella as a smart woman able to change), Stella becomes much easier to empathize with. In her mind upwards social mobility is everything and she will sacrifice everything to get it for her and her daughter.

Unfortunately, this progressive subject is the only interesting and strong point of the movie, the camera-work is fixed and theatrical, the acting is mediocre for all actors except Belle Bennett in the second half of the film. To conclude, it is a film that is more interesting than it is enjoyable.

Erich Von Stroheim was a controversial director in the golden age of Hollywood, he was a student of D.W. Griffith having acted and been assistant to the former filmmaker. He did not only inherit the practical skills of Griffith but also the vision of himself as an artist who would make films the way he wanted them to make; he would not let any studio executive dictate the way he made his film, even if they were eventually cut in a way more suitable to the perceived public at that time.

The troubled relationship between Von Stroheim had already climaxed when he was forced to leave the production for 'Merry-Go-Round' in 1923, after which he was fired by the same man, Irving Thalberg the general manager of Universal. Luck was not on Von Stroheim's side as even though he had filmed 'Greed' under MGM, on April 10 of 1924, when the film was still in post-production, MGM merged with another production studio, putting his old rival Irving Thalberg in charge of the cutting.

So of the 85 hours of footage, cut down by Von Stroheim himself to a first version of 462 minutes -which allegedly was only shown to 12 people, was eventually cut by the studio to 140 minutes (the cut I got to see, I believe). However the length was not the only problem the film had in appealing to the general public as its pessimistic an misanthropic content was not suited to the 'roaring twenties' in which all other films of the time had happy endings and lighter subjects. The studios still lost money on the project and a lot (It only made half of its production cost of 546.883$ without inflation). It was a lose-lose situation.

The film were way ahead of its time, only garnering admiration and praise in the 1950s. It is easy to see why; the beautifully scenes all shot on location, the harsh realistic story of man's darker side, the great directing in which Von Stroheim experimented with techniques that would inspire many other filmmakers after him (e.g. the use of deep-focus in the wedding scene) and a memorable ending that works perfect for the story.

Personally I had no problems with the 140 minutes cut in terms of missing story elements or explanation to the motives of the characters. I cannot comment on the so-called "best film of all time" 462 minutes, as can no-one with that version forever lost thanks to the greed of studio executives.