F*th*r G**k h*r* p*st*ng th*s w**k's r*g*l*r c*l*mn fr*m L*t**r* who the AFA, it seems, would have locked away safely from the eyes & ears of all "A*str*l**n f*lm l*v*rs"... He (our columnist Latauro) poses some interesting questions regarding censorship downunder in this week's report... annnnd ol' Father Geek here in the great FREE state of Texas would like to see some offical answers... If not, maybe free-thinking artists should just start making their films elsewhere... Austin for example... we'll show anything here...
It's been a long time since I've seen my own blood.
AICN-DOWNUNDER
AICN-DOWNUNDER
Since I've been writing this column, Australians have seen BAIS MOI and KEN PARK banned. We've seen IRREVERSIBLE and ANATOMY OF HELL come close. We've seen prominent Australian film critics such as Margaret Pomeranz and David Stratton facing off with police during illegal screenings. We've seen films vilified for containing the most shocking thing in the world, that which is more horrifying than any act of violence of malevolence: sex. Yes, the afore-mentioned films have either been banned or come close to being banned because of sex.
The most recent cases were IRREVERSIBLE and ANATOMY OF HELL, both French films. According to the press, it was an organisation called the Australian Family Association that contacted Federal Attourney-General Phillip Ruddock and insisted that these films were not fit for Australian Audiences. So, what was the exact objection? Given both of these films carried an R18+ rating, legally forbidding anyone under the age of eighteen to see them, why did the AFA consider these films to be inappropriate to adults?
A few weeks ago, I decided to research the AFA and find out exactly why they
objected to these films. After much searching, I discovered that no
information pertaining to the petitions appeared on their website, so I sent
the following email:
To: Australian Family Association
To Whom It May Concern:
Sincerely,
I received no response to this email, so I decided to press on with the more
detailed questions regardless:
To: Australian Family Association
Dear Sir/Madam,
Sincerely,
I looked forward to their response, but it never came. So I decided that
wheel squeaking was the way to go.
Not surprisingly, there was no reply.
If you take a look at the AFA's website (http://www.family.org.au/), you'll
find that they're concentrating primarily on the subject of stem cell
research. You'll also find that their "AFA Journal" page hasn't been updated
since November of 2003, and their "Family Update" page hasn't been updated
since December of the same year.
So why the secrecy? Why is there no explanation of their position on film
censorship, given it was their lobbying that convinced the
Attourneys-General to insist the Office of Film and Literature
Classification to take another look at ANATOMY OF HELL and IRREVERSIBLE?
Well, that's what I'd like to know. The reason I'm pursuing this is that I
don't want to wait for the next battle. I don't want to have to sit it out
until the AFA objects to the next film out of Europe containing sex. I'm a
film-goer, and I deserve an explanation. Who is this organisation, and where
have they come from?
I admit that I've taken cheap shots at them before. In one column I made a
reference to a possible invasion of Poland - a joke that seemed to be very
popular with readers - though I was considerably drunk at the time, as I had
several friends around who had decided to ply me with martinis while I was
trying to work. Despite the high-positive response I get to the jokes made
at the AFA's expense, I regret them. They are cheap shots, and if we want
any sort of reasonable debate on the subject we need to stop it now. And
that's what I'm doing. As someone who has devoted a significant portion of
their life to love of film, I clearly have a vested interest. I am biased.
But we're not going to get anywhere if we simply name-call and don't listen
to opposing arguments.
Therefore, I ask this: if the Australian Family Association isn't prepared
to respond to my private questions, will it respond to my public ones? Now
that I've published these letters on Ain't It Cool, will it see fit to
respond? This is a serious issue, and I'm not prepared to wait until the
next controversial Catherine Breillat film to address it. This speaks to the
very nature of free speech; of expression. How can we claim to live in a
free society if our very art is being censored and banned? On the other
hand, I agree that it needs to be regulated, or we're left with anarchy. Are
those our choices? Fascism versus anarchy? No. Democracy needs to be
somewhere in the middle, and we owe it to ourselves to define that line; if
not define it, locate it with a little more accuracy.
I sincerely hope the AFA responds to this editorial, and if they do, I
promise that the body of their response will remain complete and unedited.
If the AFA does not respond, I will continue to email them a minimum of once
a week. If there is no response, I will phone them. If their response is
unsatisfactory, I will contact the offices of the Federal Attourney-General
and the State Attourneys-General. I'm going to keep pushing this issue until
we get the response that we deserve.
Watch this space.
Ana Kokkinos, director of HEAD ON, will next make BOOK OF REVELATIONS,
co-written by Andrew Bovell. The film, which features a dancer who
disappears for twelve days before mysteriously returning, will be financed
by the FFC.
Australian short film IRONS, written and directed by Anthony Langford, has
been selected to be shown at the New Zealand film festival Raetihi. See? A
perfect blending of Australian and New Zealand news. Just what this column
prides itself on. Best of luck, Anthony.
The brilliant Clara Law will see her LETTERS TO ALI screened in Venice this
Semester. To the entirety of AICN-Downunder's Venice readership I say: go
see this film. This kid's got spirit.
Well, it's mostly crap in the top five this week. What's impressive? The
fact that a documentary is at number three spot despite the fact is hasn't
come out yet. God bless preview screenings.
An actual documentary featuring actual footage opens in selected release,
the sequel everyone's been waiting for cements Vin Diesel as a man who will
do anything for a fast buck, and yet another Australian film fails to excite
anyone besides its director. I've been surprisingly slack with my MIFF reports this year (although not so
surprising considering I haven't had time to go to any screenings...).
Luckily, NZ's own "dimnix" is here to fill us in on all the cool stuff
coming our way, courtesy of the Wellington Film Festival. I've stuck my
SPARTAN review down below, but in the meantime here is dim's look at what's
currently lighting up the festival circuit:
"Figured I'd do my bit for the AICN Downunder column, seeing as I live in
the home of NZ film, Wellywood, but never give you any scoops.
Right now the Wellington Film Festival is on. It's reached it's final
couple of days and I dont think I'll be seeing anything else, but I have
managed to catch 3 really great movies. The program this year has gotta be
their best yet. Over the past few years the NZ film festival (which is held
in several areas throughout NZ at the same time) has been getting bigger and
better, and it seems it's alot more popular this year. Last year I went to
Cabin Fever and the cinema was almost empty, but all 3 of the films I caught
this year were almost full. Aaaanyway, I'll give a couple of observations of
the festival and then do some quick reviews. Oh, by the way...the films I
caught were Korean
action-thriller-mystery-romance-holy-fuck-it's-just-awesome OLDBOY, Finding
Nemo's evil stepsibling OPEN WATER, and the excellent british rom-zom-com
SHAUN OF THE DEAD.
Anyway, heres some observations from the Wellington Film Festival:
-The Embassy theater really is in great condition after it's extreme
makeover to host the ROTK premiere last year.
-The ticket system was good... showings after 5pm could be prebooked, but
tickets for anything before that could only be bought on the day.
Fahrenheit 9/11 only had one showing, and it sold out instantly, but it
doesnt matter because it's out in normal cinemas now anyway.
-There was one guy at all 3 screenings I went to who laughed WAY TOO loud
and for way too long. There'd be a slight joke, we'd all chuckle, and this
guy would piss his pants for 10 seconds or so. Annoying, but kindof
amusing. I wonder if he was there by himself...
-I saw the 3 films I recognised immediately in the program, but wish I
could've seen The Corporation (bad showtimes for me) and Super-Size Me (sold
out). Oh well. Anyhoo...on to reviews!"
Reviewed by dimnix
I was immediately excited when I saw this one in the program. It was in the
first few days of the festival and it was the first film I saw. Before I
read it's description in the program, I actually knew very little about
Oldboy. I knew all the AICN people fuckin loved it. I've been hearing in
the chatroom ever since BNAT, "Oldboy is amazing", "oldboy is incredible",
etc. Which told me very little about the film itself. But once I read the
story outline, I couldn't fucking wait. The set up is awesome. And for
those who havent heard the setup, here it is:
Oh Dae-Su is a charming guy. Except when he gets drunk and gets arrested.
His buddy comes and bails him out, and they go walking along the rainy
streets of Korea together, late at night. But then, his buddy goes into a
phonebooth, and when he comes out...Oh Dae-Su is gone. Where is he?
Well...Oh Dae-Su is being kept in a motel room prison. He has a television,
shower, bed, and everyday gets fed a plate of fried dumplings. He plans
escapes, teaches himself to fight, and prepares to face down whoever
imprisoned him. Oh, and he finds out his wife has been murdered and that he
is the main suspect (a lovely fact he learns through his television). So,
things are generally pretty shitty for him, but get this: he is held in this
prison for 15 years. And then, one day he wakes up ontop of a building
(which was built during his 15 year imprisonment right over the phonebooth
he was kidnapped by). He wants to know who did it, but more than that he
wants to know WHY.
You cant not love that setup. It's the perfect mystery. The audience was
held by this movie from beginning to end. It's absolutely mesmerising. I
dont wanna give any story spoilers, except to say that as the film goes on
it shifts tone a few times and always remains interesting. The twists and
turns pull you deeper and deeper into the world director Chan-Wook Park has
created, and it becomes hard to blink. Thats how good it is.
How are the technical aspects? Well, the film looks amazing. Really high
production values, great cinematography, awesome setpieces, and an all round
amazing job. The music is great, pumping stuff. Kinda matrix-y but it
fits. The atmosphere is addictive...it's just flawless.
I guess people might wanna know whether to expect an action film or not.
Well, this film is a mix of genres. It's a drama, a thriller, a mystery, it
has great comedic bits, but...does it have fight scenes. Fuck.Yes. Matrix
Reloaded thought they needed hundreds of CGI clones and unreal moves to make
an engrossing fight scene...but it doesnt have anything on the hallway fight
in Oldboy. People who have seen it will know what I mean. Basically, it's
our hero, Oh Dae-Su, versus a dozen or so guys in a cramped hallway. It's
filmed from the side, and it's done in one shot. And it blew my mind.
There are other fights in the film too, including a great climactic one done
almost with the music being the only sound heard (to great effect), but the
hallway scene is the one that's stuck with me. Fucking awesome.
One last note... the ending. This kindof reminded me of Kill Bill 2. Not
that what occurs in the ending is anything like what occurs in KB2, they are
very different stories and situations, but KB2 caught me off guard. I went
in expecting a great epic fight with Bill to close it off, but QT went low
key, completely against my expectations and managed to make an ending which
not only defies expectations and the genre but also works perfectly. I
didnt expect it, but it was perfect. The ending of Oldboy is not what I
expected. Things get much more complex, and deal with very uncomfortable
issues, and it goes in directions I didnt see coming. And it works. And
plus, in being unexpected, it kept the film surprising and interesting.
Some people might find it a bit uncomfortable, some might not like it... I
myself was unsure at first, but it was a brave, bold move by the director.
So, good on him.
Reviewed by dimnix
I've been interested in this one ever since I first heard about it quite a
while ago. I've gotta admit, the thing that originally drew me to it was
the whole "the actors where out there with real fucking sharks!" angle
they've been pushing in the interviews and articles. It seemed like a crazy
idea. I saw the trailer, which didn't really do much for me, but I still
found the whole idea insane and I was curious to see the outcome.
For those of you who dont know, heres the setup. This is based on the true
story of a man and woman who were left out in the open water by a diving
group in the great barrier reef. They took out a big group of tourists, and
left two of them there. That alone creeps me the fuck out. Imagine being
in that situation? Imagine what that couple would've done, how they
would've reacted? It's creepy stuff, but I think these kind of questions
comes to everyone's minds when they hear these kind of stories. Well,
writer-director Chris Kentis decided to make a movie out of it. They had
fuck all money, so they took a very blair-witchy approach to it: They took
the actors out to the water, plunked them in the ocean, and attracted sharks
and other sea life to swim around their actors. Yikes. Apparently the
actors spent 120 hours floating out in open ocean. And the sharks were
real. Again, Yikes.
So how is the film?
Well, the first impression you get is in the opening scenes. It's in these
scenes that the digital video look of the movie really shows up. The sound
isn't great, and it looks like the sort of thing people would make with
miniDV cameras and an iMac. So, it's a bit jarring. But really, dont let
it affect you. It gets alot better. The main characters are Susan
(Blanchard Ryan) and Daniel (Daniel Travis), a couple going on vacation to
help sort out some tensions. They go off to the caribbean, and spend their
first day doing usual tourist stuff. Throughout all of this, you're
thinking "yeah, move it along...wheres the water stuff?", but rest assured
it doesn't take long. After a bit of pointless nudity (Blanchard Ryan is
buck-ass naked on the bed for one scene, for no reason whatsoever, but I'm
not complaining), they head out in the morning to go diving. While their
diving, theres a miscalculation with the numbers of people (somebody fucks
up big time), and when Susan and Daniel resurface...the boat is gone. Damn.
And now, the movie gets really good. The script is good, and the characters
react to the situation in a very natural way. At first neither of them want
to panic...they keep reassuring each other "the boat will be back soon".
But the clock ticks on. They get stressed. Their discussions and arguments
seem very natural in the situation they're in. It's hard to imagine what
anybody would do if they were stuck out in the ocean, no land in sight, just
bobbing up and down in the water. But, the script does a good job.
What is amazing about this film is that it's never boring. For most of the
film it's just the two actors floating in the water, but it never feels
repetitive or boring and is infact always extremely gripping. It's hard not
to watch as the characters slowly fall apart, begin to panic, turn on each
other, and then react as the shark attacks begin. By keeping the situations
changing, it's always interesting. The time of day keeps showing up on the
bottom of the screen too showing the passing time. As for the
sharks...well, this is being marketed as a 'shark movie'. It's not. It's a
movie about being stuck at sea. But there are sharks, and they are
hella-creepy. The shark attacks arent exactly JAWS stuff, it feels real.
And in seeming real it makes the situation scary, without ever being gory or
over the top. At first there are just some nibbles at the divers, but as
the clock ticks on things get worse and worse. And yeah, it gets scary.
There were a few screams in the cinema.
Just note: This is NOT a feel-good movie. As the film reaches it's end,
things get just plain horrible for the characters. The night time attack
(where you can only ever see anything when lighting strikes) is intense.
And yet, the film has this calm, beautifully done ending. The film's final
scene is just perfect... it's realistic, emotionally effective, and it looks
stunning. The best images in the film take place at it's end, and it'll
stick in your head. Open Water is no typical horror film. It feels more
doco than a movie, and thats where it's horror comes from. It's a situation
that anybody would be horrified to be in, and it's shot and done in a real,
natural way. The reality gives it the horror. The lonely image of two
little people floating helpless in the ocean will stick with you. So, I
definetely recommend it as an inventive, creative, effective indie film.
Just dont go in expecting JAWS.
Reviewed by dimnix
I saw this today, so it's still fresh in my head. What was especially great
about the Shaun Of The Dead screening is that the writer/director, Edgar
Wright, was there! I didnt even realise he'd be there, but before the film
started a spotlight came down on a microphone next to the screen, and after
a quick introduction he came walking out to big applause. He told the crowd
is was great to be in Wellington, the "town where Braindead was shot!", and
quickly introduced the film and told us he'd be available afterwards for a
Q&A session.
And then the embassy screen came to life, and Edgar's rom-zom-com began.
Oh man... I've been hearing good things about this movie, but
really...everyone should see this. It's just so much fun. It was a quick
decision whether to see it or not, but I am VERY glad I did. Heres the
setup: Shaun (Simon Pegg) has been having a shit time. His girlfriend's
dumped him, he doesn't get on with his step dad, and he's going nowhere with
his life. And then he wakes up Sunday morning with a hangover. What his
flatmate Ed (Nick Frost) and him dont know is that FUCKING ZOMBIES ARE
EVERYWHERE. And this is what makes the first act of the film so much fun.
They see a zombie girl in their back yard and utter "fuck she's drunk". It
isn't until people keep walking around with holes straight through them that
they decide to have a sit down, a cup of tea, and think about it. They
decide on a mission to drive over to Shaun's mum's house, pick her up, go to
Shaun's (ex)girlfriend's house, pick her up, then head to their favourite
pub where they can sit down, have a pint, and let the situation cool down.
And ofcourse, it's not that easy.
What's great about this movie is that it isn't a typical one liner slapstick
comedy. This film is just like any other zombie movie. The zombies have
great makeup, stumble around in large groups devouring people, and look like
your usual zombie mob. The human characters are just as helpless as
characters in all zombie films, and they ofcourse have the usual thing where
one of them gets bitten and starts to turn. It has scenes with people
barricaded in buildings, dozens of zombies smashing through the windows. It
has a horribly gorey scene where a man has his guts torn from his stomach
and eaten in graphic detail. So what makes it funny? The characters, and
what they do in the context of the situation. They dont go all action
hero...nope, they wander around hungover, having no fucking clue whats going
on. They take great fun in running around groups of zombies smacking their
heads in with a cricket bat. They have stupid irrelevant conversations
while standing infront of a (slow moving) zombie mob. The comedy in this
film is perfect...it's dead-pan stuff, and the audience was in hysterics.
They take the piss out of zombie cliches, such as their ridiculously slow
movement. In one scene, Shaun and Ed go through shauns record collection,
selecting records to throw at two approaching zombies. They sit there, with
zombies a metre away from them, flipping through records and going "no,
thats a classic. That one's rubbish, throw it". Great humour.
There is a section of the film where the humour takes a quick vacation, and
it's a full on zombie onslaught. With this film you get it all. It has the
horror, the gore, the zombies, fantastic comedy, and little mini action
scenes (including the already mentioned cricket bat stuff). The film is
100% enjoyable throughout, and I see it becoming a classic, the type of film
it's great to watch at any time. Cant wait to see it again.
And, once again...the ending is fabulous. Just, perfect stuff. I was
laughing my ass off during the final scenes, which also features a cheeky
reference to 28 days later ("rumours the zombies were caused by rage
infected monkeys have now been dismissed as complete bullshit"). Theres
also an Evil Dead reference early which made many audience members laugh.
See this movie. You'll love it.
A quick comment on the q&a: The director was a really friendly guy and gave
great, detailed answers. Not alot to report, he talked alot about casting
and the music in the film, but he did say that while they considered a
sequel he's all zombied out for the time being. And revealed to the
audience that he's no Guy Ritchie fan.
Reviewed by Latauro
You want your poster-friendly summation that will dictate whether you'll end
up going to see the film or not? Fine. "This film is what would happen if
David Mamet was asked to translate 24 into a feature film." - Ain't It Cool
News
If you don't love Mamet, you're not going to like this film. You've got to
love him for his Mametesque dialogue. You've got to give him leeway. They
say the sign of a bad writer is that he makes all his characters sound the
same. Well, I consider Aaron Sorkin to be a modern-day Shakespeare, and his
characters sound fairly similar. But can't we grant exceptions to
screenwriters who redefine screenwriting? When Mamet and Sorkin and Whedon
and Darabond and Chase are doing things that other screenwriters only dream
of, can we not cut them a little slack? Can we not allow for the fact that,
within the confines of that writer's constructed world, the characters speak
according to the rules of that world? Are we so confined in our acceptance
of filmic worlds?
That may well have made no sense (I'm not even going to tell you how much
red wine is in me as I attempt to write this review), but the writing is
key. And I loved the writing in this. Sure, it was more obviously Mamet than
just about anything else he's written, but I still love it. I loved STATE
AND MAINE and THE SPANISH PRISONER, and consider both masterworks. So I have
a soft spot for Mamet. And when he has a middle-aged secret service agent
jump up from her book and declare a potential bomb to be her "happy
birthday", then I'm so fucking there. I'm so into writers who are so
unashamed in their belief that they have a better way of speaking than the
norm that I'll go long with it. I love worlds where everyone talks in a
hyper-intelligent or hyper-metaphorical manner.
Val Kilmer is Jack Bauer Lite, with a slightly more philosophical view on
his place in the world. He doesn't want to have to think beyond his
position, he wants to be given orders. And, naturally, he's placed in a
position where he has to think. Where the interpretation of right and wrong
is in his hands. That's when the story really takes off. When everything
becomes a new level of dangerous.
This is Mamet, pure and simple. I mean, the man's a genre unto himself. And
if you don't know whether you're going to like this film or not then I
suggest you go back through his directorial back catalogue. There's a way he
constructs story and character to fit his dialogue that is so far and away
in its own category that it becomes unfair to compare it to other films. Not
that his work would necessarily beat the crap out of everything it came into
contact with, but there's Film and there's Mamet. And it's harder to compare
SPARTAN to I, ROBOT than it is to compare it to STATE AND MAINE. So I'm not
going to bother.
What I will bother with is this: see this film if you're sick of conspiracy
clichés and want to see a different take on the genre. See it if you're sick
of hearing about how much Val Kilmer suck and you want to see him in a
different role. See this film if you want to be entertained for two hours of
your life; if you don't want to know what's going to happen three scenes
from now because every other Hollywood film follows the same formula. I'm
not saying this is an incredible work of genius, but it's one I'm glad I
caught at the cinema, and one I'll be adding to my DVD collection. Make of
that recommendation what you will.
- Kevin Spacey joins Christina Ricci in Terry Gilliam's
murder-mystery-fantasy-thriller SNOW WHITE AND THE SE7EN DWARVES
- The Farrelly Brothers sign on Vin Diesel to star in sci-fi spoof THE
RIDICULES OF CHRONIC
- Plans to make a $120 million adaptation of WALTZING MATILDA with Russell
Crowe, Nicole Kidman and Hugh Jackman fall through when producers realise
that the poem only really covers about ten minutes of screen time
To: Australian Family Association
From: Latauro @ AICN-D
To Whom It May Concern:
Sincerely,
NEWS
AWARDS AND FESTIVAL
RAETIHI FILM FESTIVAL
VENICE FILM FESTIVAL
BOX OFFICE
Here's the current money winners downunder...
RELEASED THIS WEEK
Here's the new releases downunder...
REVIEWS
OLDBOY
OPEN WATER
SHAUN OF THE DEAD
SPARTAN
NEXT WEEK
Peace out,
Latauro
AICNDownunder@hotmail.com
