Sunday

[And yet more great stuff from Alex.]

Here's an important lesson to realise about cinema. The economics of film are predicated on you only seeing a film once. Most people go to the cinema, rent or own DVDs - not all three. Most people therefore only pay once for a film (even if you might watch it many times on DVD). What does this mean? It means the studios just need to get you to buy your ticket (or DVD), they almost don't care what happens to you once you're watching.

For small films quality is important because fewer people will walk in the door in the first place, so these films need to count on viewers convincing their friends to go and see the movie. Even for large films where the story is original, posters might not be enough. They still must have positive evangelism from viewers to go out and explain why it's worth seeing the film (even though advertising plays an important role at this level). Finally you have the "Pre-Sold Franchises", in these cases you will hear people say things like "I don't care how bad the reviews are I have to see that movie". Just look at the continued box office success of the new Star Wars films despite the critical panning. The fans still own all of the DVDs and went to the movies "just to see if they ruined it", same with Transformers, same with Spiderman.

Spiderman was interesting because it, and the first sequel, were actually good movies. I don't know how that slipped through the net, but hopefully the success of that and the new Bond film will remind execs that there is an audience out there who weren't sold on the original and they can be tapped only with quality. Two of my friends had never seen Bond until Casino Royale, by reaching out with quality the studio has been rewarded. I hope they take it to heart. Either that or they run out of cartoons to turn into movies. I've talked here about cartoons and so on, but the same is true for all adaptations. The reason that Hollywood turns so many books into film is not just because there are good stories in the books, it's because people will have already heard of the book. In the final part tomorrow I'll talk about the process of adaptation.

Saturday

[More from Alex.]

Adaptation is tricky for film but lucrative. Cinema is essentially a nervous medium. We want it to be bold but with so much money at stake Hollywood wants to be sure.

"Sure things" can't be bold. The best thing "sure things" can be is mediocre; sure things can also be terrible of course. The surest sign of artistic success is the divisive rating; some people loved it, some people hated it but everyone talked about it. Almost always a film that nobody hated is also a film that nobody loved.

You can't make an omelette without shooting some film - they say. Or at least I say. Or at least I said right then.

Adaptations seem like they are safer. They are known as "Pre-Sold Franchise" because the studio believes (probably correctly) that they don't have to do the work to get you to go to the cinema the first time. If you know what Transformers is already then the studio doesn't have to convince you to go and see it. Bad reviews matter less as well. Tomorrow I'll talk more about why people adapt films.

Friday

[In an attempt to get me back into the same timezone as the rest of you, Alex has kindly written some articles for me. Hope you enjoy them!]

Kubrick didn't enjoy the process of adapting the novel Red Alert. Too much of the plot had to be thrown away; he felt that it had basically become a farce, things just suddenly happened for no reason. Of course creatively this worked quite well for him and us as we got Dr Strangelove. After this experience Kubrick concentrated on adapting short stories believing that they were an easier fit with the cinema. (Obviously he made an exception for Barry Lyndon, resulting in Kubrick's longest film – it has an interval). Personally I feel novels are more akin to a television series, the chapters of a book representing the episodes.

The immutable laws of medium are thus:

Film / Television : Show don't tell
Plays: Tell don't show
Novels: Think

The last one might not be obvious, but the greatest structural advantage of the novel is that the author can explain something that happens within the head of a character.

When telling a story one must choose which medium fits the story the best. The question we must ask is why then would anyone ever adapt anything? I'll talk about the reasons tomorrow.

Thursday

The other effect that seeing so many more films in the cinema this year has had is that I find I do enjoy them much more in a theatre. Since I started, many of the movies I saw have since come out on video and I've subsequently bought them - Children of Men, Black Book and Host, for example. They are still great films, but I noticed the loss of the big screen and sound. I wasn't as engrossed as I was the first time. I've become much more attuned to the differences between the cinema and the home experience and have come to value the former greatly. On the other hand, however, seeing them at home means you're not so seduced by the size and sound. At home, you're capable of seeing the film flaws easier, I think. Although, it may just be that watching a movie the second time is not as good as the first.

Wednesday

I may be overly confusing you at the moment by posting four days late but still keeping the original title. Thus, lounging around this Saturday afternoon you are receiving Wednesday's post. It will all make sense soon, I promise. Anyway, over the last year I have perhaps increased my cinema-going by more than one hundred percent. Not only that, but it has had an effect on how many films I see at home too - buying, renting, or watching them on television. And writing these articles means I am thinking about the art of cinema almost every day. What effect has all this had on me? you may be wondering. I feel much more confident analysing a film now. I've seen so many that I've developed a range of tastes within me. I know what I like and don't like to see, and what I've seen before. My knowledge is far from comprehensive, but I start to see clearly within a few minutes of a film beginning the form and the stylistics and how to break them apart. I no longer worry whether my reviews will include everything. It's impossible to include everything, and I know I will make mistakes. I don't worry when I enter a film if I'll be able to form a judgement of it, or whether my judgement will be correct. I always know I'll have plenty to say, and that there is no such thing as a 'correct judgement'. I hope, for you too, it's been a beneficial learning period!

Tuesday

You may not have heard of Breach. It's been out for almost a month now. There were posters, and I think I once saw a trailer on TV. But otherwise its release was fairly limited, and its reception quite muted. However, every review I read recommended it, and so yesterday I saw it. The story concerns the real-life events of an FBI agent who is handing secrets to the Russians. A young agent, played by Ryan Phillippe, is sent undercover as his assistant to take notes on everything he does, and find evidence of how he is leaking information. Whilst this may not sound original, the true nature of the story gives this film a weight it wouldn't have had otherwise. Really, though, this film is a character study of a man betraying his country. You never entirely dislike, or like, him. The director has kept a good balance. Unfortunately, beside Chris Cooper, Ryan Phillippe's performance is not that good. The dialogue sounded false and strained, and he didn't match the intensity of Cooper. As always with real-life stories, the pacing of events is hard to adapt to that of a movie, but here the job is done well. Most of the drama revolves around moments of 'he's coming back, get out of his room now!', which are quite routinely but nonetheless effectively done. Overall I'd definitely recommend this movie. It's intelligently and seriously made, with great performances from Chris Cooper and Laura Linney.

Monday

Unfortunately, I drank too much on Sunday night and incapacitated myself all Monday and most of Tuesday. I will try to get back on terms with Stranded Cinema as quickly as possible. In my convalescence I was lent the complete series of Heroes on DVD (I don't know if my friend acquired this illegally or not, and I didn't ask). I had been watching it on BBC 2, but have now propelled myself far ahead of such terrestrial dawdlings. Although I've said here previously how television has begun to narrow the gap to cinema recently, I think Heroes must be considered as something that surpasses that distinction. It is compelling. However, very little actually happens in each episode, and it can be frustrating. The series overstates its own importance a little. It could be condensed a lot more. Also, if you take away the special powers, you realise you are left with little more than a soap opera - a daughter feeling alienated from her parents, a struggling single mother etc. So, this is good, but I wait to see how it ends and where it goes (I believe a second series is on the way soon).