What is The Last Movie You Watched?

Yes. I am afraid i found "Shame" rather dull - and have never had the courage to watch his film about Bobby Sands.

I recall an installation which i think i saw at Tate Modern of Scottish soldiers in kilts falling over. But it may have involved more than that.

Shame -dull? I can't think of Michael Fassbender ever being dull.

What annoys me at the moment is the distribution of films -I haven't seen Nebraska because it wasn't shown in my town; there is a bias toward London and the bigger cities, which is why I had to go to Birmingham to see 12 Years or wait until the end of the month. There used to be a time when it would take at least 6 months for a major American film to make it to London yet it would open in Paris around the same time as its American premiere. These days London seems to be privileged over other parts of the country, as far as I know, Metro Manila only showed in London even though there are lots of Filipinos who might have wanted to see it who don't live there. I accept that Frozen and the other teen flicks will dominate local cinemas, but there are 6 screens in even my town cinema so I don't get how they can't show a greater diversity of films. In the end it means waiting 6 months or however long it is for these films to come out on DVD, as I don't subscribe to online streaming.

I think the "art house" films really tend to play only in the bigger cities - as the major distributors will concentrate their more commercial films where there are fewer screens. So Cambridge or Oxford get good films because their demographic and having cinemas that cater to the student audience. I'd be surprised if Metro Manila ever plays in smaller towns - or even places lie Liverpool of Birmingham. I went to see a film about the German choreographer Pina Bausch in a suburban cinema in London last year -. it was shown on their smallest screen and we were the only two people there. It is this sort of thing which makes distributors very reluctant to risk anything which won't be sure of getting reasonable houses anywhere other than mass centres of population.

Man of Steel.

the more i see this version, the more i come to adore, cherish and re-respect
the old Christopher Reeves (first 2 films) i didn't see or enjoy the romantic bond and relationship with Amy Adams' Lois Lane as i did with margot kidder. and i thought Man of Steel was much more of action-filled intent with todays's CGI effects. and not near as worked out a character/plot as the original 1978 and 1980 version. i got much into Reeves' Supey character much more than i did with Steel's Henry Cavill. i thought Man os Steel was solid, a good film....but not great. Not a classic.

12 Years A Slave. SPOILER ALERT! Slavery was bad. Zzzzzzzzzzzz

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

I think the "art house" films really tend to play only in the bigger cities - as the major distributors will concentrate their more commercial films where there are fewer screens. So Cambridge or Oxford get good films because their demographic and having cinemas that cater to the student audience. I'd be surprised if Metro Manila ever plays in smaller towns - or even places lie Liverpool of Birmingham. I went to see a film about the German choreographer Pina Bausch in a suburban cinema in London last year -. it was shown on their smallest screen and we were the only two people there. It is this sort of thing which makes distributors very reluctant to risk anything which won't be sure of getting reasonable houses anywhere other than mass centres of population.

---

I am not sure it is fair to cite a film that is already a few years old and which by definition has limited appeal (but is a wonderful film in spite of that comment). I think in the case of Nebraska there could have been a few evening slots to show it in, they show The Counsellor on one evening this week, for example. I know cinemas in main street have to make money, but as I said there are 6 screens and I can't see the point of showing a teen movie at 8.45 on a Tuesday. I don't expect them to show either the Osage County film or the Dallas Buyers Club unless they get awards. But it has always been like this and I don't see much change coming.

American Hustle

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Stavros

12 Years a Slave (Steve McQueen, 2013)
For some reason this film is not being widely distributed in the UK and as it is not scheduled to play in my town until the end of January I went to Birmingham to see it. I also read the original book before going. Solomon Northup's account, also 12 Years a Slave can be read for free at this link:
http://docsouth.unc.edu/fpn/northup/northup.html

The book is not too long and can be read in a morning or an afternoon. It is written with considerable verve and confidence by a man who refused to be beaten into submission by slavery, and whose potent sense of justice gives the book an important dimension in the decade before the Civil War. Northup after his captivity often muses on the Constitutional right to 'life, liberty and the pursuit of happiness' as something denied to Black Americans, yet never loses faith in either constitutional or natural law as his route to freedom. The contradictions between the Constitition and reality are as stark as the fact that Northup prospered among white Americans in the North yet was betrayed by two of them desperate for money, treated harshly by them in slavery yet in time emancipated by them. Similarly, the Christian faith which he professes is also used in the South to justify both slavery itself and violence. Crucially, perhaps, Northup argues that slavery brutalises the slave owners and that the only remedy is abolition.

McQueen is fairly faithful to the book but edits in scenes of a sexual nature that are not in the book; and edits out other characters: he replaces a key figure, Henry Northup, the man who emancipated Solomon's father, with the trader Parker; the black slave who is murdered on the boat heading south in the book dies of smallpox; the proud Black woman Eliza, who, separated from her children slips into despair, dies in the book, but not in the film. Solomon has three children in the book, only two in the film. If anything, there are more beatings and lashings in the book than in the film, and Solomon's attempt to escape is not featured as an event in itself. I would rather have seen more time developing Solomon's character as a free man in Saratoga and filling in the background on his skills as a carpenter and raft-maker; and more time with the pivotal figure Bass (played by Brad Pitt in the film), whose encounters with Solomon are dealt with in more detail in the book. In effect he has one short and one long scene in the film. The figure of Uncle Abram is lost in the film although the scene at his funeral where they sing Roll, Jordan, Roll is one of the most moving in the film, not least because at first Solomon resists joining in. The photography is superb, the acting outstanding and the overall impact of the film is intense and powerful. It is useful to contrast this factually based and serious film about slavery with the meretricious hysterics of Django Unchained. One is a film worthy of attention, the other worthy of the bin.

---

Thank you for the link to the book. I saw the movie and want to see how faithful it was to the book because I was left a little empty because they did not examine him escaping or what happened in the courts afterwards. The man described in the closing credits was not the man portrayed in the movie. Just my 2 cents.

I understand your reaction, Ed. I think the film could have been in three parts: the life as a free man, the life as a slave, and the aftermath of his release which is dealt with in captions before the credits, as all three are compelling narratives. Also the inability to prosecute successfully underlines the limits of freedom that Solomon actually had. But in any film of this sort the editing is where the book becomes transformed into a film and a more faithful film of the book would have been too long -or at, say, 4 hours (same length as the dreadful Gone with the Wind) too long for most audiences these days.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Prospero

I think the "art house" films really tend to play only in the bigger cities - as the major distributors will concentrate their more commercial films where there are fewer screens. So Cambridge or Oxford get good films because their demographic and having cinemas that cater to the student audience. I'd be surprised if Metro Manila ever plays in smaller towns - or even places lie Liverpool of Birmingham. I went to see a film about the German choreographer Pina Bausch in a suburban cinema in London last year -. it was shown on their smallest screen and we were the only two people there. It is this sort of thing which makes distributors very reluctant to risk anything which won't be sure of getting reasonable houses anywhere other than mass centres of population.

---

It was a (minor) criterion in my decision to move to York from Cambridge, where there is an excellent arthouse cinema. The pluses for Cityscreen in York, aside from the opportunity to watch non-mainstream films in a civilised environment at reasonable prices, are a riverside location with terrace, a fine restaurant and bar, and all in a brand-new state of the art building. I've been going there at least once a week.