My thoughts on Mark O’Connor’s Irish film Manifesto

After hearing that there was someone who had read out a manifesto stating that there was a ‘new wave’ in Irish cinema my interest was piqued. Who would have the audacity to say that the system as it stands is not the future on foot of the Box Office success of The Guard? Director Mark O’Connor (Between the Canals), fresh from having two films premiere in the Galway Film Fleadh, read this out before one of them. But how does the document stand up? Is his theory on the new wave of Irish film ahead of its time at best or premature and a little pretentious at worst?

The first thing to say is that this is a brave thing to do for a relatively unknown filmmaker. There is no real advantage in some ways to putting yourself out there like this and inviting scorn. The overall message of the manifesto, it seems, is to provoke a reaction and start a discussion as to where our National Cinema is heading. O’Connor is not without confidence (one of his new films is called Stalker: that takes nerve) and one hopes that this doesn’t backfire on him within the industry. In general terms I would not disagree with most of what he says. I think that the availability of cheaper equipment and the use of internet raised funding initiatives have fundamentally changed how films can be made. I think that if a slew of films were made this way what would happen would be relatively in keeping with what happens in other countries. There would be some really bad films (not everyone that can pick up a camera should) but there would also be some bold and challenging ones. There may even be a masterpiece or two in the next few years. I think the keys to the executive bathroom in Ireland’s filmic world have been out of bounds for too many people for too long. Other voices need to be heard if we are to have any hope of growing our cinematic output and reputation in the future.

I am on the record as being a Charlie Casanova fan but I also know I am in a minority. I think O’Connor was to some degree detrimentally divisive by stating that you either liked it (Charlie Casanova) or you didn’t recognise how good it was or indeed understood it. The film is somewhat problematic and while there is every chance its reputation may be enhanced in the next few years it is simply wrong to dismiss critics of the film as people that do not understand it or that are just too used to the Hollywood formula. Let it be called a bad film if needs be. It is every critic’s right to call a film crap if they so choose and the people that did, should be engaged in this debate as much as anyone else. If there is a new wave of Irish film there needs to be inclusivity and support to help it along. Pushing people who ‘don’t get it’ to the side will not help. I think while O’Connor talks of this as the beginning of protest film it is not necessarily to be taken literally. He could be talking about the fact that low budget filmmaking can be more daring and radical because of less financial risk. The manifesto could seem to be a call to arms in this regard.

So will there be a long lasting effect of all of this? O’Connor’s films were warmly received at Galway and there is an optimism that there are other films coming along that could do well. Silence by Pat Collins is in cinemas at the moment and doing quite well. It is a terrific film, well reviewed and seems to have found a niche audience. Citadel and Pilgrim Hill were two other films that were talked about enthusiastically at Galway with the latter singled out for praise by Donald Clarke in the Irish Times. That this film was made for next to nothing would seem to bear out O’Connor’s general point about micro budget filmmaking within the manifesto and it is a point that is worth considering.

There are some interesting films being made here, some with tiny budgets and skeleton crews. If some of these films can get distribution on a regular basis there is cause for some optimism that we can have a National Cinema that can compare to others. And if we can find an audience in the cinemas on a regular basis for films that would not need much to claw back investments it could be a successful future model for our films. But O’Connor has to be careful not to alienate people within the industry too much. There should be room at funding level for micro budget filmmaking but that does not mean that bigger budget filmmaking should be ignored. It is my opinion that the money for bigger budget filmmaking should only come when there is satisfaction that the screenplay is production ready. There have been films made for considerable amounts of money over the last few years that clearly could have benefitted with more work on the script. I will not name names but anyone with an interest in Irish film will know what films they are. I think that there is room for more eclectic and less formal filmmaking at the micro budget level where the risk of investment is less severe. An increase in the amount of low budget films produced here over the next few years would be exciting but perhaps more importantly if they could get distribution and marketing behind them, there may well be an audience for them as well.

I would like to know where people who are involved or indeed just care about our National Cinema stand on this issue. You can leave comments below on this subject and I will answer and debate each one. You can also engage in a discussion on twitter with me (@jaycoyle) if that is your preferred media. I am hoping to interview some people in the Irish film industry to get their thoughts on our cinematic future. Indeed my first interview will be published on this blog very soon. That interview is with the writer of the Irish film manifesto himself, Mark O’Connor. He had some interesting things to say about our cinematic past and future. If you are involved in the film industry in Ireland and you would like to be interviewed, please contact me here or on Twitter and I will get back to you. My aim is to have a broad selection of interviews on my site to see if there is any consensus or vision as to how we see our National Cinema’s future.

Ireland on Screen: I want to scream

Beginning last night with Jim Sheridan’s The Boxer, RTE began its latest attempt to support Irish film with an Ireland on Screen season. It will run for two weeks and will have a number of premieres during that time. As a concept this is a very good idea, showcasing Irish film for people who would not be overly familiar with recent output. But the devil is in the details and as soon as you read through the listings several problems emerge.

The first thing that comes to mind is that there is no real structure to the season. It was only announced the day before it was scheduled to begin which means no real time for advertising the season. This is important as some advertisement is probably necessary for people who have no specific interest in Irish film as a whole. As far as I am aware (and I missed The Boxer last night so I could be wrong) there is no real attempt to put the season in context. Would it have cost too much to maybe have someone introduce each film or even just the season? An Irish film academic or film fan, maybe a director or actor, hell even Dave Fanning. It would be refreshing to have someone to say where each film stands in the overall canon of Irish film. Alas this does not appear to be the case.

Another issue is that there is no standard times or days that each film is being shown. The season lasts only two weeks for some reason, the films are scheduled on various days and truly bizarre times. The Boxer kicks off the season at 11.30pm! This is madness if you want to draw viewers in. A quick scan of the schedule could only lead you to believe that it was decided by a World Cup style draw. Films, days and times put into a giant hat and picked out randomly. This is not good. All of this would be forgivable (indeed since Moviedrome there has been a reluctance to introduce film at all on TV which is a real shame) if it wasn’t for the biggest problem of all.

The main issue is simply the choice of films on offer. Looking through the list is groan inducing. There is always going to be some films that will be on any season for familiarity reasons. This is to help get people to watch who otherwise may not bother. This season is full of those kinds of films. This is not a criticism of the quality of any of the choices, more that there is a dull and safe feeling to their inclusion. Films like Michael Collins, The Boxer and In the Name of the Father are too familiar to offer something different. To be fair there are a couple of films I do genuinely want to see, namely His and Hers and The Runway. But where is the sense of risk? Where is the low budget and unfamiliar films of the last few years? Where are films such as Snap, As if I am Not There, Between the Canals, Garage, Hunger, Guiltrip, Accelerator, The Other Side of Sleep, Kisses, Pyjama Girls? There is an argument that at least RTE are making an attempt to help out the Irish film industry here, indeed they also invest financially in Irish film to be fair. But one can’t help feel that there is a real missed opportunity to showcase a diverse selection here. And that is the real pity.

Here is the list of films being shown

Film Review - Silence (2012)

Silence is a film that is hard to categorise in Irish film terms. There is a feel of a documentary about it, which is hardly surprising given Pat Collins’ background in documentary filmmaking. It is a work of fiction with a strong grounding in reality. This is a film on its own terms: not aping other countries successful genres. Yet in Irish box office terms (with a somewhat limited run in cinemas) it is doing quite well. This film seems to have been marketed as an art house and not just as an Irish film. This is a bold approach, letting the film speak on its own terms, not weighing it down with the pressure of being just ‘Irish’. There may well be a lesson here about how we market the Irish films in general. This is a discussion for another time perhaps.  

Eoghan (Eoghan Mac Giolla Bhride) is a sound recordist living in Berlin when he gets a job offer to record sound in rural landscapes away from man-made sounds in Ireland. As narrative plot and story goes, this is pretty much it for Pat Collins’ Silence. But plot is not particularly important in a film such as this. It is an episodic, impressionistic film and the emotional and physical journey undertaken by Eoghan is the heart of the story. The film begins with Eoghan recording loud and bustling sounds in the busy city of Berlin and ends with him in a quiet house in the northwest of Ireland. How and why he gets there is the heart of this quite beautiful film.

Silence is a film that touches on many themes: such as the need in some people to get away from a busy world: the need to try and get back to nature. Yet there is also a sense that it in Silence, Collins is hoping to recapture a simpler time, when people perhaps led more meaningful lives. As much as Eoghan tries to escape the world and man-made noises to reconnect with the land he has been away from for 15 years, it is impossible to get away from what is inside of him. There is the indefinable part of him that wants to remember who he is and where he came from. His journey is ultimately within himself.

This is a beautiful film to look at. Ireland has rarely looked this good on the big screen. Yet this is not done in a ‘greatest hits of Ireland’ tourist board way. The cinematography is there as a reminder to the main character and indeed the viewers of the beauty of the country we live in. What is represented here is not the country as shown by bad American films (P.S.I Love You) but an Ireland which is intensely beautiful and wild. The landscape becomes rougher and more wonderful as Eoghan makes his journey home. This journey is interrupted by meetings with various people along the way. This serves as a breaking of the silence of the film and as a chance for Eoghan to explore to conversations and songs the country he has missed in the years he has been away.

Silence is a film that will not be to everyone’s taste. It requires a re-adjustment to slip into the pace of the story. This pretty much puts it out of reach of the Transformers 3 crowd who would doubtless run a mile from it. But anyone with an interest in cinema for grown-ups (remember when films were made for us?), who can get into the rhythm of the film, will find much to enjoy. This is a deeply poetic and personal film, one that should appeal to a broad range of people. There is something quite joyful in this journey and something deeply rewarding in sharing it. While attending a recent public interview with Collins he expressed some doubt as to where the funding for his next feature will come from. He stated that he had interest in doing another fiction film - funding permitting. Judging on this fine film, the Irish Film Board could do a lot worse with its money than back another film from this gifted director.

Silence is on in The Lighthouse Cinema until the 22^nd August.

Underground Film Festival 13 - 16th September

I received this press release for the Underground Film Festival. Last year its opening film was Charlie Casanova and the closing film was Tin Can Man. I, for one, will be heading to it to see what Irish films are being shown plus it has what looks like a really interesting underground and cult section with Jack Sargeant as guest. I like the fact that it is close by (in Dun Laoghaire) and that it is a smaller and more intimate festival than the Dublin Film Festival and Galway Film Fleadh. Should be an interesting festival.

I have attached links below if anyone would like to check it out.

http://www.undergroundcinema-filmfestival.com/

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Jack_Sargeant

Film Review - Knuckle (2011)

There is a trend in documentary filmmaking for the filmmaker to put his or herself in the film. No more the outside observer, filmmakers such as Nick Broomfield and Michael Moore have made this practice feel very familiar in the last decade. The director of Knuckle, Iain Palmer, whilst not visually present in the film, does become a major character in the film: interacting quite a lot with the subjects of the documentary. This is to some degree expected as he has made this film over 9 years and the subjects of the film would certainly have come to know him quite a bit. The flipside of this, however, is that Palmer risks his objectivity and one of the uncomfortable feelings watching his film is that he has become one of the gang. In fairness to the director he does point out the risk of this himself in voiceover during the film.

Knuckle tells the story of bitter feuds between various traveller families which seem to have been going on for decades. The central feud is the one between the Joyce Mc Donaghs and the Quinns. The modern incarnation of the feud seems to be a murder of the one of the members in London in the early 1990s. There seems to be no end to the fights and hatred that emanates from these two families. The men are the decision makers and fighters who are in charge of everything. The women seem to be submissive and, in this documentary, are rarely on camera.

This is a serious documentary with some appalling violence throughout as fights are organised. There is humour here however as the precursor to fights usually revolves around one member of the family sending a video challenging a rival for a fight and profanely insulting him. Anyone who has ever watched American wrestling will be struck by how eerily similar the videos are to the pontificating of the wrestlers being interviewed. But the fights themselves are brutal and bloody. You can feel every punch landed. There is admirably no sanitising it for the audience. Palmer is a filmmaker who clearly has the respect and trust of these men. There is unprecedented access to a community that is generally closed off. There is an argument to be had that he is only showing one particular part of the traveller way of life and it is probably a fair criticism. But in fairness to Palmer the title of his film points out exactly what he was looking to document.

There is one scene where Palmer finally gets a chance to talk to the women of one of the families. This scene is quite revealing as it shows an unexpectedly progressive attitude towards the cycle of violence that engulfs them. One is left wanting more of that kind of input. There is also the feeling that despite the rivalry and feuding that exists that there is another reason altogether for the fights and this is money. Up to €20,000 has been bet on some of these fights and one can’t help wonder if that figure is only what people are prepared to admit to. If this is a strong reason for the fights it adds a cynical edge to an already unpleasant business.

Knuckle is a tough watch. It is about an unpleasant subject yet it is hard to take your eyes from it. Palmer has crafted a fascinating and brutal documentary that enthrals and appals in equal measure. The people in the film are colourful and entertaining and come out with some hilarious phrases. Yet it is hard not to feel saddened by the limited viewpoint of the world that the men have in these two families and the lack of influence the women have. It is this in the end that is the great tragedy and not the fighting itself.

Film Review - One Hundred Mornings (2011)

‘I knew it was coming, I didn’t expect it to happen so quickly’.

This phrase is uttered in a quiet style by Tim (Robert O Mahoney) whilst drinking vodka early on in Conor Horgan’s quietly superb One Hundred Mornings. When the end of the civilised world arrives one imagines it would happen the way it is shown here. It seems to have ceased to exist not with a loud crack but a sickening whimper. What is left are pockets of people clinging together hoping that something, indeed anything will happen to bring back familiarity. Instead we have empty towns and an Ireland where the Gardai are carrying shotguns.

Two couples, Jonathan (Ciaran Mc Menamin) and Hannah (Alex Reid) and Mark (Rory Keenan) and Katie (Kelly Campbell) are holed up in a cabin in Wicklow. There has been an unspecified event that seems to have brought general western standard of living to a standstill. Food is being rationed and the electricity has been out for quite a while. There is an older neighbour (Tim) who is friendly but distant with the group. The two couples are living on top of each other and nerves are frayed. Supplies are dwindling and they lack any real weapons to defend themselves. Clearly something unprecedented has taken place and as outsiders begin to learn that this group still has supplies, the threats start to multiply.

It is not difficult to read this as a mirroring of our times. The theme is not particularly subtle but its execution is done very subtly and without fanfare. To Horgan’s credit he gets the information out, not with chunks of exposition, but with visual clues throughout. There is no real talk of what happened but instead we get visuals: the accumulated detritus under an abandoned car’s windscreen wipers. Even Jonathan’s smoking one cigarette a day to make them last gives a sense of the time that has passed and the time left ahead of them. There is a subplot here involving infidelity within the group but unusually it does not become a dominant issue. There is a cold logic to this. If you are facing starvation that would probably take precedence over everything else.

Perhaps the most striking aspect of the film is in the tiny incidental pleasures in glimpsing things that were always taken for granted. There is a scene of great joy when normalization returns briefly. To say more would be to spoil it but it shows how much we take for granted and how much we miss things when they are gone. The tiniest pleasures for the most fleeting of moments work well here and are believable and organic within the story. The cinematography by Suzie Lavelle is quite beautiful making full use of the wonderful Wicklow locations. The score by Chris White is sparse and is used brilliantly to accentuate the loneliness and hopelessness of the situation. The acting is pretty good from the four leads - if a little uneven. Mc Menamin stands out in the ensemble as one to watch. O’Mahoney as the neighbour who does great work in the amount of screen time he has.

There is a brilliant shot of Hannah scrubbing clothes in a stream that calls to mind those famine drawings of women doing the same thing. And it is to those times that the film reaches back to. A time where people left and took their chance someplace else or stayed and died. It is this nihilistic viewpoint which is the film’s key strength. It works within the film and also as an analysis of the times we now find ourselves in. One Hundred Mornings is probably the first film to address the mess Ireland currently finds itself in and like the politicians we depend on, it offers us no way out of it. As a film dealing with end times this is not one of the zombie persuasions which give you easily definable heroes and villains. It says straight out that the enemies are ourselves and that we better make some difficult choices before it is too late. All this may does not give you the feel good DVD release of the summer, but it deserves to be seen by a large audience who can appreciate a low budget and superbly realised film.

Out on DVD Monday 23^rd July.

Film Review - Perrier's Bounty (2009)

The Gangster film as a genre is one of formula.  Like any other genre, there are standards and tropes we come to expect to be in most, if the not all, of the films. There is the innocent guy generally with a girl to protect. He has a set amount of time to get either a product or money to a crime boss. The crime boss is generally not introduced until about a third of the way through the film but his legend is established in other characters conversations. And there are usually a couple of henchmen who do the dirty work for the main boss.

The origins of the gangster film is American with the 1912 film The Musketeers of Pig Alley by DW Griffith one of the earliest examples. The American gangster film sits proudly alongside the Western as one of America’s finest contributions to film history. What is very interesting is when the genre is subverted or filtered through another country’s culture. The most obvious examples in the US are Quentin Tarantino’s 1990s films Reservoir Dogs and Pulp Fiction and Guy Richie’s Lock Stock and Two Smoking Barrels in the UK.

The main problem with the films listed above is not with the films themselves but rather the influence of them on films that came after. In the US in the 1990s there were a lot of films described as Tarantinoesque which were nothing but a pale imitation of his filmic style. In the UK it has been arguably worse. While Lock Stock is no masterpiece, it stands as a towering achievement when stood beside some of the quite appalling films that came after. But what flows through the US to the UK will inevitably flow into Ireland as well. And it is this flow which brings us to Perrier’s Bounty.

Perrier’s Bounty is directed by talented Irish filmmaker Ian Fitzgibbon (Death of a Superhero) and written by Mark O Rowe (Intermission, Boy A). It possesses a heavyweight cast including Cillian Murphy, Brendan Gleeson, Liam Cunningham and Jim Broadbent. There is a serious pedigree here. The plot is a fairly basic one. Michael McCrea (Murphy) has a day to return money owed to gang boss Darren Perrier (Gleeson). Add to this mix, his father (Broadbent) - who turns up to make peace with him - and Perrier’s two henchmen (nicely played by Don Wycherly and Michael Mc Elhatton) who are a constant threat. The film is set up within the classic gangster structure.

First thing to say and it pains me to say it a little as I had heard good things, this film is a mess from start to finish. It falls into the familiar trap of the post Tarantino generation of having every character sound exactly the same. All the characters talk in a quite frankly bizarre way, spurting forth with cod philosophy at every turn for no real reason. It starts to grate 20 minutes in and by the end of the film you are almost pleading with them through the screen to stop talking. This is a serious flaw and a real pity as there are some good lines of dialogue throughout. It is just that they should only have come from one character. Instead they all just came from the screenwriter.

The acting throughout the film is uneven with Murphy playing it like his heart isn’t in it. Cunningham does the best overall with not much to go on. He has become one of our great character actors and should have really been a bigger star than he is. His delivery of a great line is one the films few highlights. Looking a woman up and down in a bar he describes her as ‘dirty, like a bag of carrots’. Gleeson is ok, but he has done this thing before in better films than this. My heart weeps for Broadbent who is comically miscast. His bizarre accent, swaying between English and Irish is absurd. One wonders what possessed him to take the part. There is also a slightly cringe worthy narration from Gabriel Byrne, the purpose of which is to seemingly mock film narration. It doesn’t work. All it does is call to mind narrations that work such as Sam Elliott’s in The Big Lebowski.

Overall, Perrier’s Bounty is not worth the effort to see it. Rowe’s previous screenplay Intermission makes better use of his writing talents. This is a muddled film, caught between aping the 1990s English gangster film and trying to add something through an Irish filter. It succeeds at neither. All involved have gone on to bigger and better things and for that, one imagines, they can breathe a sigh of relief after making this film.