Saturday

I was going to say in my review of Exiled that it reminded me of Shakespeare. I stopped myself, obviously, because I thought it was a bit of a stupid comparison. But I don't think I was too far off. Shakespeare worked within a lot of conventions. In the sense of the plot, you pretty much know what's going to happen in a Shakespeare play. You watch it mainly because of the language. In that way, I think Johnnie To's films are similar. The Hong Kong gangster movie is prolific. They've been making them since the 80s, I think. There must be hundreds by now. So, Johnnie To is working within conventions and expectations. He's not trying to surprise you with his plot or his characters - they're all very familiar. His innovations are subtle. The emphasis is on skill, on hard work, on how well he applies the conventions, and when and where. The mere fact that his film is showing at the ICA gives you a hint that these aren't just violent movies. They're carefully crafted. PTU (somehow similar to City on Fire) had much more to say than Exiled, although I found myself thinking both were in many ways about the illusion of home: the exile whose last words were 'let's go home', and the PTU officers who just wanted their shift to end safely.

Friday

Two Johnnie To films in one week? You might think I've gone Johnnie To crazy, but perhaps that's not such a bad thing. PTU was also a very good movie. I saw it reviewed as 'After Hours with guns', which meant I almost definitely had to see it. A cop loses his gun and spends the rest of the night, with the help of a group of PTU (Police Tactical Unit) officers, trying to get it back. We are submerged into the different levels of the Hong Kong police and the criminal underworld working for and against each other in various ways. The nighttime cityscape, backstreets and deserted alleyways are pretty eerie. This film is much more gritty compared to the highly stylised Exiled. Not to say this film doesn't have style, only it's much more brutal. It all builds brilliantly to a big, albeit meaningless, gunfight at the end. There is a sense of humour here, but it can be cruel. Strangely, it seemed like it was from the 1980s, rather than 2003. I definitely liked it, although my pleasure probably would've been doubled if it wasn't for the couple of annoying students sitting behind me constantly giggling through their noses. More thoughts on Johnnie To tomorrow.

Thursday

What did you think of Hollywood Homicide? I remember seeing the trailer and thinking 'well, that looks great'. It certainly has all the ingredients for a good fun buddy-cop comedy/drama: two brilliant actors (Harrison Ford and Josh Hartnett) playing two interesting characters. They're both detectives trying to solve a case, whilst also trying to make some money on the side (Ford's character is a real-estate agent, Hartnett's is a yoga instructor and aspiring actor). What's not to like? Some of the banter between them is pretty good, and the annoying tone of Ford's constantly ringing phone is great. But, as far as I'm aware, this film sunk quicker than the Titanic (the boat, not the film, which obviously did very well). Perhaps the jokes just aren't good enough, or the chemistry not quite right. I also think the basic plot and crime they're trying to solve could've been more compelling. They're submerged in the world of gangster rap, but treat the scene almost offensively. I intend to watch it again to see closer what went wrong. I do like buddy-cop films. Overall, though, you have to say it's a movie with great unfulfilled potential.

Wednesday

My first reaction to theguardian's 1000 films to see before you die (200 issued every day this week) was 'why?'. I mean, what are we supposed to do with this list? No explanation is given. Clearly it took a lot of effort, thought, and previous knowledge to put together. Was this only so they could sell more papers, as in my case they are? The only thing they seem to vaguely advocate is going to their website to discuss the list. Do they really care about our opinions that much? That seems a rather strange outcome. Perhaps we are expected to read the whole thing and make sure we've seen all of them, literally, before we die? More probable, of course, is that it was an exercise in attracting, and keeping, readers - in building an image of themselves as an artistic, left-wing newspaper. Personally, I'm going to collect them all and keep them on a bookshelf somewhere. Then, on a day when I feel like watching a film but can't decide what, I might look through it. Their list isn't necessary, there are other ways of doing this, and it's claim to be 'unique' is annoying, but it's good enough.

Tuesday

Another day, another great film. Last night it was the turn of Exiled, by Hong Kong's director Johnnie To. The London Paper says he is a source of fanboy love, which may give you a hint to the type of movie this is. It's basically a John Woo gangster film, but for our generation. The characters aren't quite so sentimental, and the fight scenes are a lot better. Perhaps you'll say, as The London Paper does, that it's thus not original, and not worth seeing. But I enjoyed it immensely. The plot is predictable, up to a point, but I think this is what's enjoyable about these films - you are satisfied by them, rather than surprised. It did lose direction two-thirds through, but gained it all again for a great finish. The fight scenes really were spectacular - especially through the hospital and down the staircase. It's worth the money just to see them, but there are jokes, and some really great moments in-between. Otherwise, the dialogue is pretty sparse, which is a good thing. And I don't think I'm alone in appreciating this movie. One of To's earlier films (which I hope to see on Thursday) is currently showing at the ICA.

Monday

I found out two new things about the director Jean-Pierre Melville at the weekend. First, his real surname was actually Grumbach, but he changed it to Melville because he liked the American author. Second, he was perhaps instrumental in the development of the 'jump cut', and other aspects of French New Wave cinema, whilst not actually being considered part of the movement himself. I believe I've only seen one of his films Le Cercle Rouge (or, The Red Circle). It was such a brilliant film, however, that I really should've watched more of his work by now. Others include Un Flic, Bob le Flambeur, and Les Enfants Terribles. I think there's a season of his movies happening as I speak on FilmFour. Look out for them if you can. He's an underrated director.

In other news, theguardian this week are producing a list of 1000 films to see before you die. Quite excessive, as you can imagine, and I'll try to give my reaction to their selection in the days when I'm not reviewing films.

Sunday

I think a good question for a scriptwriter to ask themselves when they write a scene for a film is 'who are we?'. I'm not trying to identify the place of our species in the universe, or answer a question related to the existence of consciousness. Instead, I'm interested in who the audience is meant to sympathise with in any one instant. This question needs to be asked and answered every time you're writing. It helps focus the scene, and clarify the roles of your characters. In many cases, filmmakers have lost and confused audiences because they failed to ask this question. It's not always answerable. Sometimes we sympathise with several characters, and sometimes with none. But it's important to ask it because it relates to knowledge and narrative, and the basic structure of the film itself. We can't readily sympathise with a character who knows more than us but isn't saying so - or who we know more than. They become alienated from us. We can't relate to them. Of course we've come along way from having characters who were universally likable, but there has to be some sympathy even for the most evil, or at least some sympathy with the logic of their decisions. What do you think?