Lovefilm

I use Lovefilm to get DVD rentals. I may have mentioned this in the past. I am aware that there are new technologies coming in all the time and that soon I will be able to download and/or stream films straight on to my computer, but at the moment postal rentals are working well enough for me thank you very much. Until now.

Some months ago I put a couple of films on my Lovefilm list, 'Public Enemies' and 'Inglorious Basterds' both came out a fair amount of time ago now and I still have not seen them. For months now the two films have sat at the bottom of my Lovefilm list with the caption 'unavailable for rental' listed alongside. Initially I thought that this was due to them not being released yet, but I have since found out that this is due to Lovefilm being unable to rent out certain films from Universal Studios. It transpires that Universal are only allowing certain retailers to rent out their films, so if I want to see either of these titles I'm going to have to start an account with Blockbuster. I am not going to sign up to a second rental company just to see a couple of films, Blockbuster costs £1 extra a month for the same service as Lovefilm provide. Also, I have no intention of allowing them to get away with what is effectively blackmail against me - since if I switch to them that's what they've done.

Apparently Lovefilm are not paragons in this regard either, since they have also recently negotiated a deal to have exclusive rights to the French film 'Mesrine' - see this article in today's Guardian (which prompted me to write about this).

So this is the 'choice' that the film industry is offering me, the 'choice' of having to sign up to a specific provider or going without. How long before the film industry realises that it is divisive and destructive to carve up the film rental rights between providers? This practice will only end up driving otherwise honest film-goers into the realm of the illegal downloads.

I am hoping to borrow a copy of each of these films off someone at some point if anyone can oblige...

Invictus

It's not really a controversial opinion to think that Nelson Mandela is one of the greatest political leaders who has ever lived. That's what I think, and being a rugby fan too I was very excited about this film. Mandela came into power in the early 1990s as the head of a country struggling to move itself into a modern era and throw off a recent racist past. Mandela put aside any desire to get revenge on those who had held him in prison and sought to work for a brighter future for South Africa, even when it meant fighting against friends within his own organisation. This was optimised by his refusal to take away the colours and identity of the South African Rugby Union team, which had for years been seen to represent apartheid in the nation.

This is all inspirational stuff, the problem is that this isn't a very filmable story, or if it is filmable then it should be much much shorter. There are only so many times that a film about the aftermath of apartheid needs to tell us that the black and white populations of South Africa don't trust each other very much. Towards the start of the film there is an unfathomably long scene (and then a whole series of scenes) in which we see Mandela's security detail (back and white) not getting along but being forced to work together. Then there are several scenes in which some black people tell us that they don't like the Springboks. Then someone refuses to wear a Springboks shirt, then there is a vote to change the name and colours of the Springboks etc... I think I got it the first time - the Springboks are unpopular.

In short, I was disappointed to discover that I was bored. It isn't enough to have an inspirational story to tell, you have to tell it in a way that's engaging and keeps me awake. Watching 'Invictus' was kind of like reading a dull history book that hadn't been edited properly and kept repeating important information. The film was almost too true to history, the world cup final of 1995 was not a classic and consisted entirely of kicks. The South Africans won it in extra time by running down the clock in a scrum - this is depicted here, and for all the close up shots of big fat men straining against each other (probably meant to represent South Africa's struggle out of the dark ages of its recent past or some such) it is distinctly undramatic.

If it wasn't for the extra-ordinary performances of both Morgan Freeman and Matt Damon (they are both excellent) I think I would have been severely disappointed. It really doesn't need to win any Oscars.

The Truman Show

I'm assuming that everyone reading this has seen the Truman Show (if not - SPOILER ALERT!!), however I don't know if you well all agree with my opinion that it was one of the most important US films in the 1990s. Not only does the film take the possibilities of 'reality tv' to an as-yet-unfulfilled extreme, but it tells a story about a genuinely good character and celebrates the foibles of humanity (good or bad) in an age where there is genuine apathy in the world.

To me though, the most important part of the film - an aspect that is commonly overlooked - is its role as an anti-religious tract. It's an allegory for the story of Genesis, in which Adam's expulsion from the Garden of Eden is re-interpreted as a victory for the sprit of humanity rather than a fall from grace and ultimate sin.

Truman is Adam, the television studio in which he has lived his life is his own personal Garden of Eden. He is safe, he has friends, he is loved by all and has a wonderful life; but it isn't enough. What he really wants is freedom from his prison, a prison that might be paradise, but a prison none-the-less. At the end of the film he tries to escape by sailing away to an unknown land but ends up hitting the edge of the studio. As a last desperate act to keep him where he is the Truman Show's creative genius and producer speaks to Truman as if from nowhere, his booming voice telling Truman his life inside the studio is perfect in every way while outside the studio lies insecurity and difficult times - the normal trials and tribulations of being human. Truman muses this for a moment before deciding to reject the studio and the voice of God in favour of his own humanity. It's a triumphant moment, one that makes me tingle every time I see it - reproduced here through the magic of youtube.

The Silence of Lorna - pretentious

A lot of people are turned off arthouse cinema. I generally like to be a bit more open-minded, and when I heard about 'The Silence of Lorna' I thought there was going to be a real chance of seeing a great film. The synopsis is simple, but has plenty of potential. The main character - Lorna - is an Eastern European immigrant into Belgium who is trying to obtain Belgian citizenship through a sham marriage to a Belgian loner. She is approached by an underground friend of hers, would she like to earn some extra money by doing the same for a Russian businessman once she has her citizenship confirmed? An interesting premise yes?

Sadly 'The Silence of Lorna' demonstrates why so many people are so fearful of what they perceive to be incomprehensible and pretentious world cinema. The interesting premise is essentially squandered by senseless cuts and holes in the plot, which are probably extremely 'artistic' to people who care - but don't really help with telling a story. One utterly incomprehensible cut shows Lorna chatting to her boyfriend, then in the very next scene she is calmly identifying his body at the morgue. Maybe that's meant to represent the suddenness of death, but it just confused the hell out of me. I even had to check out the message boards on IMDB to find out if I'd missed something or if my DVD was kaput, but it turned out that the director is simply pretentious.

'The Silence of Lorna' embodies many of the things about art house cinema that make it inaccessible to some people and put many others off entirely. I was not impressed, but then I'm probably 'wrong'.

Damages - my current favourite TV series

It's quite fashionable these days to watch boxed sets of American television drama. I became a fan of West Wing and The Wire by watching them long after the release of the original few seasons on DVD rental. I generally like to follow the new televisual releases from the states in the hope of stumbling across a new gem. It was therefore with trepidation that I embarked upon watching a new US series - Damages. After all, I had never heard of this before unwrapping the paper on my birthday - how could a series that none of the literati at the Guardian website had ever told me I needed to watch ever be any good?

The first season of Damages is a story told almost entirely in flashback. The opening scene of the series presents us with a tentative glimpse at the present, of a woman running dazed with blood on her hands is being picked up by the police. We cut to 6 months in the past and are thrown into the life of this woman - Ellen Parsons played by Ross Byrne - as she embarks upon her legal career in New York City working under the ruthlessly efficient prosecution lawyer Patty Hughes (Glenn Close). Ellen is immediately put to work on Hughes' biggest case, a prosecution against the super-rich business mogul Arthur Frobisher (Ted Danson). She stars out starry-eyed but soon realises that she is being used by those around her and needs to harden up and play their game.

Far from being a straight drama about a law firm, this is a twisting psychological thriller in which people are used up and spat out by a legal system that cares not for the law, rather it caters to the strengths of the personalities and ruthlessnesses of those who apply it. As the series progresses, small snippets of the 'present' are revealed as the main story edges closer to the time when we know that Ellen's boyfriend will be dead and she will have blood on her hands. What causes these terrible events to happen? How and why is Patty Hughes involved in Ellen's personal life? All questions that are slowly and tantalisingly answered.

Glenn Close is awesome as Patty Hughes, the vicious lawyer and ruthless boss of her own law firm who schemes out the lives of those around her and yet shows moments of weakness when presented with things she knows she cannot control. The first season (all I have seen so far) wraps up most of the necessary loose ends while gathering up those that remain into into an exciting teaser for the next. Clearly the format and plot of the second series is going to be dramatically different, but if the writers of the show manage to tap into the depth of the characters they spent the first season creating I don't see how it can be anything but another astonishing 12 episodes of television.

Watch this space then. If it carries on being as good as this it might be worth an update.