Casualty in the Bank

So, I've been living in Bristol for about seven months and I've just spotted my second local celebrity (the first being Justin Lee Collins who can be seen on his own reading a paper all over Clifton on a Saturday).

The second was a bit more exciting and unexpected. Unfortunately, I can't recall the name of this second celeb, but he's been on Casualty for a number of years (not quite Charlie's longevity, but close), and other TV programmes... possibly East Enders.

I walked into Lloyds Bank in the centre of Clifton Village, queuing up behind a man in a wheel chair. We're being held up because a man (said celeb) has just handed over bag loads of coppers. Sigh. I can see the disappointment in the cashier's eyes as she weighs the change and bags it up in more manageable amounts. They have a bit of a joke as she asks him how he'd like the cash in return. He puts it on his card.

They share a bit more banter, then he turns and that's when I recognise his face. He looks a little sheepish as he leaves the bank.

I have a bit of a giggle to myself. Times must be hard: I haven't yet been desperate enough to empty my penny bell jar since the credit crunch!

Please Let Me Go

The second film in two weeks to leave my heart pallid was Never Let Me Go. I wish I could have gone - away from this drivel.

Based on a screenplay by Alex Garland (of The Beach fame), Never Let Me Go is a creepy, boring slightly Sc-fi film that is too mixed up to serve you up anything meaningful. For a start, setting a film about children born to be harvested for their organs in the 70s/80s is wrong. That kind of futuristic mumbo-jumbo should be set in a time that is unfamiliar to us, so we can at least try and believe the world they live in.

Seeing trout-pout Keira K et all at a distinctively normal-looking boarding school, doing fairly ordinary things, in a slightly stunted way doesn't make you want to believe that something really gross is happening to them. The only thing that reminds you that they're captive is the 'asbo'-type scanner bands they wear on their arms. As they never try to escape or seem remotely interested in attempting to engage with the outside world, it not only makes them boring characters, it also stunts the drama potential.

Unfortunately, this film is a concept film. I think Never Let Me Go has been wrongly-advertised, because you think it's going to be kind of a costume drama with depth. Once I realised it was a concept film, I couldn't believe the characters, couldn't care for the characters because they didn't try hard enough to defy their destined life-path. It's slow moving too, and not enough happens - there's too much talking and not enough doing. I was so bored I was looking for continuity glitches: I never do this intentionally. I saw two modern cars, one drove by in a scene where the lead characters go visit 'Madame', and another parked close to their retro 80s car outside 'Madame's' house. Bad mistakes that took me further away from the 'action', and made me more mad that it wasn't set either in present day or future.

The only real pleasure I gained from watching Never Let Me Go was seeing Weston-Super-Mare as the backdrop to the cafe and pier scenes. Being a Westcountry girl, I feel very proud to see a childhood and teenage haunt being used in features... more money for the local economy and all that. Hurrah for Weston.

New. Egotistical. Director.

I hate it when a new director stunts his growth into featuredom.

Take my latest example: James Mullan. He's the 'New Egotistical Director' of 'Non-Educated Delinquents, a film that could have given Shane Meadows a run for his money (edgy social realism but with Non-actors this time). Instead Mullan has added a few over-superfluous scenes that actually take you completely out of the reality he creates and leaves you feeling cheated and dumb-founded.

There are two scenes in particular that I have to mention. The Jesus dance scene and the finale scene where the lead boy walks (unscathed) through the middle of a pack of lions with the boy he maliciously rendered handicapped a few years previously. Utterly ridiculous. Considering that the rest of the film is as naturalistic as is possible (sets, use of grainy 70s film, local non-actors), it seems so strange to undo all the good work by cutting in two scenes that should have been axed at the scripting stage.

But why did the script editor/producer allow the scenes to stay? Well, it's a case of vanity and it's a glaringly obvious case of new ego. Directors have a vision, and in the early stages: as in, when they're making shorts - they can do pretty much whatever they want to as that's what sets them apart and gets them nurtured and trained up for featuredom. However... once directors start making features: they have to cater for much larger audiences and that means they are supposed to water things down. But by this point, their egos have been bolstered and have grown into giant triffids that thrive on drama.

"How can I make this film an award winner?"... is what they start thinking. This is the point where their 'artsy' ego steps in. "I know, I'll put two highly-unrealistic, cringe-worthy, abstract scenes that people will praise for their 'symbolic resonance' and 'diverse metaphors'." Pants.

If you're making a film based on true events, with amazingly natural non-actors and set in the past: stick to that world. Don't play with the nuances that were going to quite possibly give you a nod towards greatness.

Put the ego away and concentrate on creating a film that sticks to its guns and delivers what it says on the tin.