Digital Art Exhibition: Engagement Party – A2D Converters

During the first three month of 2012, a range of artists will be living, working and creating brand new artworks at Phoenix Square, taking inspiration from this unique cultural building and its surroundings…

A big thank you to everyone who kindly donated their old, unwanted or broken electrical goods over the last month. The results of your generous contributions can be found in our Cube gallery.

Engagement Party have been transforming your contributions into something else, something different, something … other than before.

Engagement Party have created a lament for the old school, analogue technologies that once seemed as fresh and exciting as the latest computers, tablets and smart-phones that have become such a dominant part of our culture.

Their playful installation imagines a final resting place for all the things that have been so unceremoniously left by the wayside as the rapid development of digital technologies continues.

Engagement Party are regional artists Peter Bowcott, Graham Elstone, Thomas Hall, Robert Squirrell and Tommy Sweeney.

Photography – Alan Morton & Chris Tyrer

Staff Reviews: Dreams of a Life by Lucy Pickering, Front of House Assistant

The poster for this film has been unsettling me for a few weeks at Phoenix Square. How could a young woman lie dead in a London flat for 3 years without anyone – family, friends, and colleagues – noticing she was missing?

Starting from the end, the film combines dramatisation and interviews with people who knew Joyce Vincent; mostly old flatmates, ex-colleagues, local journalists and a couple of ex boyfriends. Through these director Carol Morley creates a timeline from Joyce’s childhood to the last days of her life, giving the audience a sense of what she was like and inevitably creating a narrative from the (often contradictory) pieces of information given in the interviews.

The interviewees paint Joyce as an attractive, bright, outgoing and gentle woman.  Somebody who people would gravitate towards, and even aspire to be like.

I was particularly looking forward to seeing Zawe Ashton’s performance on the big screen, after seeing her on stage (in Salome at Curve) and on TV (in Channel 4’s Fresh Meat). She embodies the descriptions of Joyce Vincent from the interviews in an often eerie and lonely performance, in which she barely speaks to anyone else.

Joyce was brought up by her four sisters after her mother’s death when she was 11. As an adult she moved constantly all over London, often drifting in and out of friendships and relationships and at times deciding to completely insulate herself. One interviewee described her as not having her own interests but adapting to the lives of her partners, adopting their friends and interests. With unfulfilled dreams of being a singer, she had ‘respectable’ office jobs, but never seemed to stay at them for very long. Another particularly poignant description of Joyce is as ‘a woman who didn’t have a past and didn’t have a future.’

The film is darkly fascinating as the audience pieces together the parts of her life, trying to make sense of her tragedy. Even when depicting Joyce at her happiest, it inevitably has an undertone of sadness. One of the most moving scenes is a comparatively long shot of Joyce (Ashton) wearing a tight dress and singing into a hairbrush ‘My Smile is Just a Frown Turned Upside Down’ by Carolyn Crawford.

This cinematic adaptation of Joyce’s story is tragic. She wasn’t an elderly woman with no remaining family or friends living in the middle of nowhere. It is almost unfathomable that in this age of surveillance, a woman could just fall off the radar.

I think everyone has moments of feeling lost or lonely and this film will make even the most self-assured reflect on their lives and relationships. You go into this film with so many questions and while the mystery around Joyce’s death remains unresolved, Morley’s film opens up lines of enquiry and effectively humanises her story.

Lucy Pickering is a Front of House assistant at Phoenix Square and Media Officer at Curve theatre. In addition to film and theatre her loves include music, cycling and gingerbread. @misslucy_p

Staff Reviews: Coriolanus and 50/50 by Fran Jaffa, Front of House Assistant

Coriolanus

Things I must not do during this review:

1. Be rude about Kenneth Branagh

2. Rant and gibber on about how dreamy Gerard Butler is.

Poor Ralph Fiennes. You direct, produce and star in one Shakespeare adaptation and people will never stop calling you ‘the next Kenneth Branagh.’ What makes is worse is Kenneth Branagh has played Coriolanus (of course), and before Ralph Fiennes did. Actually he’s not the only one. Over time this interesting and at times controversial role has been played by Laurence Olivier, Anthony Hopkins, Ian McKellen, Christopher Walken and Morgan Freeman, among others. Despite this impressive list of names, The Tragedy of Coriolanus is one of the less popular, less familiar of Shakespeare’s plays, possibly because it’s one of the few that are rarely studied in schools. It may in fact be this which drew Feinnes to the text initially, as well as his previous experience of the role, since he makes no secret of the fact he considers teaching Shakespeare in schools detrimental to people’s enjoyment of the plays. Shakespeare is not made to be read, in his opinion people should be encouraged to speak it, or act it, to really connect with the language. An opinion which can be seen in his adaptation of this, the second longest of Shakespeare’s plays. Despite the fact that the text itself has been “aggressively” edited, as he describes it, what remains is performed by people with a real grasp of the language and in such a way that it is actually easy to understand and follow without prior knowledge of the plot.

Various adaptations of Coriolanus have been made over the years, all with highly politicised messages and relating to times of civil unrest. It is this universality that Feinnes wanted to get across, the locations could be anywhere (our first scene is set in “A place calling itself Rome”) and the events could be at any time. Obviously any time with automatic weapons and Skype, but it is clear that the emotions and principals of the film can be easily compared to various politically uneasy situations in the present day. That said, he never makes any direct comparisons, or actually any decided political standpoint. In his 1964 adaptation, Bertold Brecht used Coriolanus to demonise politicians and made the Citizens (or Plebeians) the heroes. But then, Brecht had a lot of bones to pick with a lot of people, whereas the impression I get from this film is that Ralph Feinnes simply likes it and feels it can be related to on a wide scale.

His Coriolanus is singular, stubborn, hot-headed and pretty un-likeable but at least he is honest and adheres strongly to his own code of values, as opposed to the politicians who surround him who are, to a man, slimy, oily, creeping, back-biting propaganda masters. Even the loveable and loved Menenius, (played to avuncular perfection by a rumpled Brian Cox,) is part of the relentless spin doctoring that goes on in all politics throughout time, or so it would seem.

Vanessa Redgrave pretty much steals the show though with her powerhouse of a performance as Volumina. Described as Shakespeare’s strongest female role, she storms through this film, capturing wonderfully the manipulative, slightly odd Mother/Son relationship. She does a subtle job of leaving poor Virgilia (Jessica Chastain) decidedly second in his estimation, along with their token small son who has two lines in the whole thing but is used mercilessly as an emotional bargaining chip by his Grandmother, as she struggles to regain control of the monster she created.

The camera work is a little uncomfortable, I have to admit. Initially very effective in the opening battle sequence and at moments throughout, but by the end of it, I was getting a little tired of close-ups of Ralph Feinnes face as he delivered his most epic lines.

Overall, Fiennes delivers a very powerful film, a relevant adaptation of a 400 year old play that will stay with you well after you leave the cinema.

50/50

So it turns out Joseph Gordon-Levitt has an odd shaped head. Who knew? He’s also heartbreakingly adorable and a pretty damn good actor. But this was common knowledge before director Jonathan Levine cast him as the lead in this bromance-meets-cancer-meets-rom-com. The film is apparently based around the life of writer Will Reiser, which probably accounts for its ability to tug all the heartstrings without self-indulgence or wallowing.

Joseph Gordon-Levitt plays Adam, a nice guy with a nice house, a nice(ish) girlfriend and a nice Indie soundtrack who finds out from a spectacularly uncaring doctor (who is just a little bit too much of a caricature to actually be a comment on the medical profession at large) that he has some unpronounceable form of cancer which, he later finds out from the internet, gives him a 50/50 chance of survival. After the initial shock ‘What me? But I recycle?’ etc, the film follows him as he sets about telling his friends (or friend) and family, doing the awkward ‘are we serious enough for you to stick with me through cancer?’ thing with his girlfriend, horrifying Seth Rogan (the friend) by pre-emptively shaving his head and settling himself on the couch of equally adorable therapist-in-training Catherine McKay (Anna Kendrick).

The phrase “Hollywood Cancer” has been thrown with some spite at this film, mainly due to its reluctance to show in-depth the horrible, ravaging side-effects of chemotherapy and to be honest, I did find myself thinking ‘shouldn’t he look…well…worse?’ on a couple of occasions. The baldness is a shock but once you get used to the lack of the endearing, floppy locks the only thing that really makes him look sick is the shadows under his eyes and the down-turned mouth as Rogan points him out to any women he can find. That said, if this film can be accused of anything, it’s looking on the bright side so hard it’s almost blinded. Which isn’t a bad thing, it means that the moments when the bleak reality strikes ring true enough to silence the audience as we all subtly fish for our tissues.

On the whole I think this film does pretty well at “dealing with the issues.” Anjelica Huston is spectacular as Adam’s Mother, just the right amount of worrying, interfering and supportiveness. Although there are points in this film where I wanted to shake each of the characters and tell them to stop talking about how hard this was for them, for one second they all come together to make a very warm, human film about how normal people might respond to this kind of situation. Think Third Star, but with Seth Rogan in it. And actually even he is very good, and not the running gag of idiocy too much, possibly because he is, in fact, playing the part he took on in real life (apparently) in relation to Reiser, though with more well timed, tension relieving gags I imagine (though who knows, he might just be like that!). There are some genuinely hilarious moments and some genuinely moving moments and the whole thing doesn’t feel too bleak and hopeless by the end of it. The script is light-hearted but delivered in such a way that it doesn’t feel forced, despite the efforts to elbow in every pop-culture reference they could find. The only warning I will issue is that it might cause you to look at your best friend and wonder what they would actually look like with their head shaved completely bald … just a suggestion…

Fran works at Phoenix Square as a Front of House Assistant and has a thoroughly useful degree in Drama. Her interests aside from films are mainly tea and cake. Occasionally biscuits.

Staff Reviews: Midnight in Paris by Martin Barker, Screen Lounge Assistant

I should start off this review by stating that I am a massive Woody Allen fan. However, anyone who follows his films will know that some of his more recent efforts have been, well, quite hit and miss. However, for my money Midnight in Paris is one of his best in a long time. Woody explores an issue that he has hinted at in many of his other films. To pick out a quote from Deconstructing Harry, “All people know the same truth; our lives consist of how we choose to distort them.” This is the scenario that the main character of this film finds himself in.

Gil (Owen Wilson) is a successful yet unfulfilled Hollywood script writer who yearns to become a successful novelist, and live out his dreams in Paris. Whilst on a tag along holiday with the parents in law, Gil mulls upon his love of the city and yearns for his ideal golden era of the 1920’s. Meanwhile his wife Inez (Rachel McAdams) scoffs at his fantasy. She’s more interested in getting married and settling down to an easy life, where Gil brings in a good amount of money, something her parents are in agreement with. Whilst there, Inez bumps into an old friend Paul (Michael Sheen) who displays too much cultural arrogance for Gil to handle. However, it’s when Paris hits midnight (strangely enough) that the film really gets going. On a walk one night, Gil just so happens by chance, to bump into the likes of Hemmingway, Picasso, Fitzgerald and Dali but to name a few, whilst also falling for the charms of the beautiful Adriana (Marian Cottillard). All of this leaves Gil will a lot of questions to ask.

Woody Allen has always shown a love for capturing cities, New York his most famous, London recently and now Paris, and how he captures it. You couldn’t be blamed for yearning to exit the cinema and jump on a plane to Paris when viewing the opening sequence, accompanied by an excellent soundtrack featuring much of Allen’s beloved jazz. But I would urge you to hold on for an hour and a half! What we get is one of Allen’s most fun films of recent times, with some great Woody Allen lines delivered brilliantly by Owen Wilson, in what I think has to be one of his best performances I’ve seen. At times you can’t help but imagine Allen reading the same lines. He is supported by an excellent all star cast, with many faces popping up you will recognise including the first lady of France Carla Bruni.

Midnight in Paris is a beautifully shot, brilliantly scripted and excellently acted film which will leave you with a smile on your face as you leave the cinema, whilst also waiting eagerly for Allen’s next work. The Woodster clearly still has a lot to offer judging by the film. It’s good to have you back Woody, time to book my tickets to Paris, Au revoir!

Martin Barker works in the café bar and when not struggling to balance your meals from the kitchen to the table or watching films, he enjoys live music and exploring new places.

Staff Reviews: Shame by Ruth Woods, Box Office Assistant

Steve McQueen’s new film had already created a lot of discussion before most people had seen it. This is probably to do with its theme. Sex addiction. The story centres around Brandon, played brilliantly by Michael Fassbender, and within the first ten minutes we have an understanding of his world that just seems to be on a continuous loop. A world that involves hiring prostitutes, downloading pornography, relieving himself at work and at home and always looking for another conquest. The same way a drug addict is looking for their next hit. The opening sequence is beautifully narrated by Harry Escott’s score and very little dialogue is used or needed to describe how he lives his life. We see him meet an attractive woman on the subway. They don’t speak to each other but all the flirting and lust is displayed with simple looks and glances.

The arrival of his sister Sissy completely changes the mood and environment he has created. There is an obvious tension and a suggestion of a traumatic childhood that is kept a mystery. A scene in which Sissy (Carey Mulligan) sings “New York, New York” produces one of the most intense scenes of the film. The emotion that Mulligan displays whilst singing is heartbreaking and there was a beautiful silence from the audience after she finished. You get the feeling that you are watching a story about two very broken and damaged people. Brandon struggles to get used to Sissy living in his world. There are awkward moments between them and the boundary of their relationship becomes slightly blurred after she accidently walks in on him relieving himself again. Some people have commented that there is a suggestion of an incestuous relationship between the two characters. However, there is something very childlike about them. It is as though we have reverted back to a time when they were younger and felt safer.

Brandon is ready to deal with his demons as he ventures out into the real world and goes on a date with his co-worker Marianne. The date scene provides some comic relief in the form of the waiter (Robert Montano) who gives a lovely scene stealing performance. There is something very sweet and old fashioned about their date. As Brandon walks her to her subway stop and there is no invitation for sex. It seems that Brandon might be ready to try a relationship with someone he has genuine feelings for. However, like any addiction isn’t easy to stop, Brandon needs his fix in whatever form he can get it.

This film is very bleak and uncomfortable to watch at points. Very few films have managed to capture the darker side to New York that makes it seem cold, grey and seedy but McQueen has done this perfectly. Michael Fassbender and Carey Mulligan are excellent and they both give outstanding performances. Although filmed in New York, the film was made by a British Director, funded by British companies and stars two very talented British actors. It’s an excellent example of how much talent there is in British cinema.

Be fully prepared for what you are going to watch as “Shame” doesn’t hide its subject matter. Cynics may point at this as a fictional addiction, an excuse created by someone who just enjoys a lot of sex. However, this is far from a film just about sex. What it shows is the heartache, discomfort and anguish an addict faces. This is a brilliant film from Steve McQueen. But not one to watch with the parents!

Ruth Woods works as a Box Office Assistant at Phoenix Square. In her spare time she likes to stalk her favourite actors. Currently: Benedict Cumberbatch who lives at 221b Baker Street.

Staff Reviews: Tyrannosaur by Fran Jaffa, Front of House Assistant

There is a certain look that people have as they walk out of this film, that makes me feel like we should be handing out complementary kittens or hugs or hot chocolate at the very least. Paddy Considine’s first shot at directing is completely relentless and utterly unflinching, right from its violent outset.

The film centres around Joseph, played by Peter Mullan, a character we see from the very beginning swinging between bursts of rage, remorse and self-loathing as he tries, not hugely successfully, to turn his life around. It’s a heart wrenching portrayal of a man who has lost faith not in the world, but in himself. He can see how cruel, violent and uncaring he can be but cannot seem to stop himself. We can almost see how, as a young man these moments of clarity might have been followed up by attempts at kindness, reconciliation and apologies but as age and bitterness have set in, all he is left with is the certainty that he shouldn’t be around nice people and is beyond help.

Enter Hannah and a spectacular, mould-breaking performance by Olivia Colman who tries to “fix” Joseph with her particular brand of naiveté and religion. I have seen Colman’s character dismissed as just another working-class cliché, another portrayal of a world where “all the women are black and blue” in certain reviews. However, personally I feel that is a shallow and unfair appraisal of a wonderfully complex performance. Anyone watching this surely couldn’t dismiss her as a one dimensional plot device. A perfect example is a scene in which her abusive husband begs for her forgiveness. She gives it, convincingly and wholeheartedly, until he looks away and the fury and hatred in her expression mixes heartbreakingly with her characters natural compassion and the forgiveness she genuinely wants to bestow.

While some have claimed that this film simply reinforces every negative social stereotype going, it seems clear that there are more shades of grey in this film than a dementor’s cloak. Joseph is not the bad-guy-turned-good. Hannah is not the grovelling, snivelling, abused woman turning to God to try to ignore it and they don’t fall in love and fix each other. The only person who could be described as predictable is James (Eddie Marsan) who is just flat out evil. There are no major redeeming features to Marsan’s wonderfully scary, almost unhinged bad guy, but even he isn’t as rotten right through as you might expect. Bring tissues.

Fran works at Phoenix Square as a Front of House Assistant and has a thoroughly useful degree in Drama. Her interests aside from films are mainly tea and cake. Occasionally biscuits.

Staff Reviews: Snowtown by Natasha Linford, Screen Lounge Assistant

Justin Kurzel’s feature debut follows the true-life crimes of Australia’s serial killer John Bunting, played brilliantly by Daniel Henshall. Snowtown is not your typical crime-drama, Kurzel achieves striking effects and an engaging narrative in each scene by allowing the film to gradually unfold in a series of images and transitions. Rather than simply telling us the facts, he exposes them to the audience in piece-meal fashion and leaves us questioning every detail.

The film opens by setting the scene of a bleak, deprived neighbourhood in Southern Australia, focusing on one family in particular. The harsh social realities are immediately impressed upon us as when the mother, Elizabeth (Louise Harvey) goes on a date, leaving her sons in the responsibility of a neighbour, they are sexually molested. There is vulnerability and helplessness within the boys, emphasized when the neighbour photographs them, capturing an innocence which is rapidly deteriorating due to their seemingly inescapable position. 

As Snowtown develops we are introduced to the character John (Henshall) who, with his charming, charismatic persona at first appears to be a knight in shining armour on a mission to turn the lives of this family around, offering a father figure for the children and a partner for the mother. This role model figure is especially affected upon Jamie (Lucas Pittaway) a teenager, struggling to grow up in an environment of sexual abuse and mistrust (we later learn that his older step-brother bullies and rapes him.)

Clearly this is not an easy watch, yet Kurzel has created a film that is as thought provoking as it is shocking. John’s sociopathic motives become entwined with Jamie’s desperate vulnerability as John’s grooming of him escalates from attempting to emasculate him and helping him stand up to his oppressors to making him an unwilling accomplice to his murderous crimes. One of the most disturbing aspects of the film is John’s infiltration of an already victimized community; he becomes the voice of the neighbourhood, as during evening meetings he rouses animosity against different minorities, calling for action against homosexuals and drug addicts whom he believes to be impingements upon society. He believes that his extreme actions are justified as he is undertaking a cleansing of society, viewing certain individuals as worth no more than the animals that he hacks up.

The sound design of the film is extremely effective in creating the intense atmosphere and unsettling viewing experience that this film provokes, unpleasant sounds such as the squelching of kangaroo guts in a bucket or the scratching on lino of a dying dog add to a feeling of intimate, closed in involvement. The film is also cut with the sound recordings John forces his victim to create before murdering them and leaving them as telephone voice-mails.

This film is not for the faint hearted, with certain scenes proving difficult to watch as they show images of extreme brutality, torture and violence. However, I would nevertheless highly recommend it as a compelling and powerful watch that despite dealing with such horrific subject matter, is shot beautifully and will leave you thinking for a long time afterwards.

Natasha works at Phoenix Square front of house in the cafe/bar. She is in her final year of an English and American studies degree. She thoroughly enjoys most things which are deep fried.

Staff Reviews: The Artist – A View From the Projection Box

A “new” silent film. It almost sounds like a contradiction in terms. But that, ladies and gentlemen, is most definitely what we have here. Following a hiatus of some 84 years (give or take a couple of Chaplin masterpieces; a handful of mid-1930s jewels from Japan; the odd avant-garde breakthrough; the umpteenth revival of METROPOLIS; and a particularly unforgiveable monstrosity courtesy of Mel Brooks) silent filmmaking, or to be more precise, silent film exhibition makes a triumphant and seriously long overdue return to the mainstream. And we have missed you. Oh, how we’ve missed you. Please don’t leave it so long next time around.

Michel Hazanavicius’ glorious hymn to the halcyon days of pre-sound era Hollywood has joy and invention written all over it. Furthermore, his empathy with the art of silent movie-making arrives as a total revelation. The photography, framing, choreography, lighting and editing are spookily on the button. Timing and rhythm are paramount in silent filmmaking (a high-wire balancing act that was a mightily difficult thing to pull off even in the genius-fuelled days of 1927/8) so his mastery and command of a resurrected and long ignored medium is frankly astonishing. He really does “get it”, positively encouraging imagination and creativity to fill each corner of every frame. Like the closing shot of a Chaplin movie, Hazanavicius takes us by the hand and leads us into a luminous realm of cinematic wonder and romance: painting with swathes of shimmering chiaroscuro, effortlessly spanning the ages, quickening our hearts, and stirring echoes of Clara Bow and Rene Clair along the way. No mean feat.

From the very start we are treated to some gloriously old-fashioned opening titles, and it’s all in the proper and much lamented Academy ratio too! In next to no time we’re introduced to silent screen matinee idol George Valentin (Jean Dujardin) who’s so successful that he’s taken to believing his own hype and has developed a decidedly high opinion of himself. All too eager to please, you get the impression that when not in front of the camera he spends his remaining waking hours standing in front of the mirror. He has the world at his feet. But then, with a sense of tragic inevitability, the dreaded microphone begins to make its presence felt. Times they are a-changin’.

Like all good directors, Hazanavicius hasn’t consciously set out to dazzle us with stylistic flourishes and technical bravado. The camera has always been in its element when capturing subtlety and nuance (all of those tear-stained glances and little bits of business) and even though it’s a cliché far older than cinema itself, pictures really do speak a thousand words. There’s something about a wordless image that, perhaps due to its purity and simplicity, seems altogether more profound; creating vivid and everlasting moments that have a unique way of searing themselves on to our mind’s eye as we commit them to memory. Indeed, when it comes to THE ARTIST, it’s debatable just who is intended to be “the hero”. Is it George? Or is it in fact Silent Cinema itself?

Dujardin’s charming performance is a pitch perfect object lesson in silent film acting, offering layer upon layer of true and honest emotion solely through his face and movements. So winning is he in the lead role that I’m willing to put a sizeable bet on the fact that he was plucked straight off the MGM back-lot circa 1926 and took a ride in the TARDIS to the present day. The ghosts of Ronald Colman, John Gilbert and William Powell loom large but Dujardin is utterly convincing and very much his own man, bringing his own inimitable style and sparkle to create a character of depth, humour and elegance. A man who beneath his showbiz veneer, turns out to be all too human.

A quick nod in the direction of Ludovic Bource’s toe-tappingly stupendous score. Sassy, sexy and sensitive in equal measure, it’s a shame we’re not able to hear it performed “live” in front of the screen (they sound like one helluva band!). But, taking into account the times we live in – when “A” stands for “Austerity” rather than for “Arts Funding” – perhaps this is one silent movie tradition which our perpetual economic Armageddon couldn’t quite realistically hope to replicate.

And then of course there’s George loyal friend and colleague: Uggy the Terrier. I refuse to sign off without granting this most gifted of thespians an honourable mention. Give that dog a bone… or an Oscar… or something that he can get his teeth into so that he can enjoy a good ol’ chew. Move aside WAR HORSE, this is a complete shoe-in for the finest 4-legged performance of the year: undoubtedly a “shimmering, glowing star in the cinema firmament”. Uggy, I will be watching your future career with great interest.

It would be all too easy to become precious and misty-eyed behind those rose-tinted spectacles when it comes to (re)viewing THE ARTIST. [As I myself have already been thoroughly guilty of!]. But it would be wrong to merely see this as something light, fluffy and inconsequential. Make no mistake: this is filmmaking of a very high order. When shooting a silent film there’s forever the danger of becoming far too literal. You really have to combat the urge to “spell it out”. It’s all too easy to slip up and fall foul of slapdash-slapstick and exaggerated and unnecessary gestures. So it’s to Hazanavicius’ immense credit that by putting his trust in both his camera and his actors, THE ARTIST at no stage falls into this trap. He has succeeded with infusing it with so much that feels fresh and original (and yes, even modern) that his film has well and truly earned its spurs, fully deserving to be mentioned in the same breath as so many of its illustrious predecessors.

It’s far from perfect (thank goodness, how boring would that be?). There are perhaps a few too many homages paid to past cinematic gems; the most jarring being the baffling and perplexing use of Bernard Herrmann’s “Scene d’Amour” love theme from Hitchcock’s VERTIGO – most odd. Plus, like an annoying itch you can’t quite reach to scratch, one nagging complaint is that you can’t help wishing that Hazanavicius had had more confidence of his convictions and played the whole film as a straight silent (melo)drama without veering off every so often into postmodern, self-knowing territory as the very film itself (imitating George’s mental state) struggles to come to terms with the unstoppable juggernaut that would soon sound the death knell of the silent screen.

However, it seems churlish to be overly critical of a film which has almost single-handedly brought back the silent movie to modern audiences. Many of whom may never have had the pleasure of viewing a silent film before. If the very essence of cinema – and particularly silent cinema – is speaking the language of desire then THE ARTIST deserves all of the plaudits that have been heading its way. And from a purely personal standpoint, when you hold something so dear it’s comforting to know that the baton has been taken up by such talented and respectful hands.

One thing we can say with certainty is that this is no retrograde step. Silent film is far tougher and more robust than many people give it credit for. The sophistication of the art was at its zenith in 1927/8 and it was well and truly cut down in its prime. In actual fact, from the point of view of suspension of disbelief it could well be argued that it’s modern CGI cinema which has taken a step back. There’s something about “knowing” that what is there before you is “real” that kinda gives the cynic which dwells inside all of us permission to lose ourselves completely in what’s up there on the screen.

Coming as it does hot on the heels of Martin Scorsese’s enchanting HUGO, THE ARTIST has brought about a most unexpected – and very welcome – resurgence in curiosity of early cinema. Both films achieve the delicate task of marrying the old with the new, the mechanical with the digital and somehow making it all become a seamless whole. Whether or not they reawaken a sustained interest in silent filmmaking remains to be seen but the odds of this ushering in the second-coming of silent cinema are, at best, unlikely. Perhaps the true test of whether this possible “renaissance” of silent filmmaking is here to stay will be if a director has the skill, the ambition, the grounding and most of all the balls to make a silent film set squarely in the present, thereby offering themselves not the slightest opportunity of being able to hide behind the safety net of 1920s decadence, classically soft-focused black ‘n’ white photography, or those expertly trimmed waxed moustaches; a world that we can all recognise and relate to without the distance of time or nostalgia to cloud our critical eye. Silent cinema is more than capable of being just as pertinent and relevant in today’s contemporary surroundings and I very much look forward to seeing a project of this kind come to fruition. One hopes that an immediate off-shoot of their success will be to fuel their audience’s desire to seek out the Real McCoy. In today’s era of preservation and restoration, there truly is an embarrassment of riches out there; a monumental oeuvre ready and waiting for both new fans and old to marvel at their brilliance and beauty.

Paul Marygold

Staff Q&A: Jake Harvey

Name:  Jake Harvey

Job title(s): Officially: Assistant Operations Manager. Also Film programme and Marketing support.

How did you get started working at Phoenix Square?
I came back from travelling and had always wanted to work at Phoenix but it was closed.  So I started working at a cafe, and when heard Phoenix was accepting applications I applied.  I started at Phoenix about 2 months before we opened in 2009 but worked both jobs until October 2010 when I switched to full-time at Phoenix.

Favourite thing about working at Phoenix Square?
The movies and the people. Being able to bring life-changing films to others. Being surrounded by like-minded people who care so much and are so passionate about the place.

Best memories at Phoenix Square?
Putting on the RetroActive Festival. Me, Graham Muir and Andy Jones all working an 18 hour shift to deliver the event on about 4 hours sleep. Knackering but worth it. Also watching Big Lebowski by candlelight at Social Cinema, will always remember that.

Favourite Phoenix Square event?
It might have been Frightarama, but RetroActive was incredible.

What do you get up to outside of Phoenix Square?
Watch movies. Any spare time is measured out in 90 minute gaps. So if it is 10pm at night, 2 films is approx 180 mins/ 3hrs so will go to bed at 1am.

Do you have any other hidden talents?
I can juggle, I have different coloured eyes, and I am word-perfect on the film “The Warriors.” That is literally it.

Your favourite place, outside of Phoenix Square?
Agua Verde Farm in Michoacán, Mexico.

If money was no object what would you buy?
I would buy the place across the road and create another Screen/ Cocktail bar for Phoenix, which I would run with an iron fist. Would not show anything new. Just retrospectives of great movies/ directors etc. I would also try to make it more obvious where Phoenix is so I would put about a billion lights on us (so we can literally be seen from space) with a hundred fluorescent signs and signposts marking the way here from every single place in Leicester.
I would also like a dog.

Who would you like to play you in a film of your life?
Philip Seymour Hoffman

What’s your favourite snack?
Popcorn.

Tell us a secret…
I have watched The Scorpion King at least 6 times. I don’t know why. I don’t think I actually like it, it’s almost like torturing myself. I mean it has Dwayne “The Rock” Johnson for god’s sake. But also Bernard “Yosser Hughes” Hill. It’s just very confusing.

Tell us a joke…
So one day a dyslexic walks into a bra.

Staff Reviews: Hugo by Andrew Leeke, Front of House Assistant

In another year saturated with average family oriented 3D releases, you’d be forgiven for assuming this is just yet another by the numbers kids movie. However, those who take a closer look at its advertising campaign may have noticed something rather special; a name far more interesting than that of the film itself. That name is Martin Scorsese. Family films aren’t his usual stomping ground (though this isn’t his first time) but after seeing Hugo, I hope he continues to move in new directions.

Set in Paris in the 1930′s, Hugo Cabret is a young boy who lives between the hussle and bussle of Montparnasse station. He watches the lives of others from hidden places, staying invisible, doing his work and avoiding the station inspector. Inevitably, he cannot stay hidden forever, and his life eventually becomes entwined with an old man who runs a toy stall in the station, with the help of his niece.

And that is where I am going to stop telling the story, because the magic of this tale is in the reveal of it. Hugo makes a discovery that leads him down a path that not only affects him, but will actually change the way many people view film itself. This isn’t actually a kid’s adventure film; this is a love letter to all of cinema. At times, it plays out like a silent era film (using distance as the device to mute its characters) next its beautifully coloured, exaggerated Paris is unfolding before you like a complex three dimensional decoupage. Every single second of this film is utterly gorgeous, and again, this is integral to the story. A central theme of the film is the notion that every part of a machine has its function, and every person has their function too. This is true of the film itself, even the choice to shoot in 3D is a conscious decision to add something to the story, not simply just a tacked on gimmick. After all, 3D films are almost as old as cinema itself.

The process of creating films and animation, and the history of the medium that would become a multi-billion dollar industry unveils itself before your eyes, like a friend telling you their most personal and private secrets. I was surprised just how faithful it is to real events, letting the magic continue beyond your trip to the cinema, knowing you can research and discover even more of this story once the credits roll.It’s so hard to describe how much I loved this film without spoiling it. So many perfect moments come together to make a TRUE family film. Often this term is a way of describing a children’s film that has a few jokes for the parents. Scorsese hasn’t created something that will enchant adults just as much as it will children, as this is as close to real magic as you are ever likely to see.

Andrew Leeke works Front of House at Phoenix Square, where he is also a Production Assistant and provides animation workshops for kids. He is also a freelance animator and visual effects artist. Despite being 27, he still spends all of his pocket money on toys.