TV: The British Academy Film Awards 2008

British film's big night has been and gone. I won't offer a comprehensive list of winners, or even many thoughts on them -- such things are easily found elsewhere -- but I will instead offer my thoughts on one of the few ceremonies this year to be presented in full (well, relatively speaking), and the only film awards ceremony that receives a terrestrial television airing in the UK.

The first thought that comes to mind is, "oh dear". Anyone would think the writer's strike was affecting the UK too, if this was the evidence they had to go on. Jonathan Ross's jokes were few and far between, and rarely gained much reaction from his audience. To be fair to Ross, Stephen Fry had a good deal of excellent material when he used to host the BAFTAs and he was often met with silence too... but not as often, and it tended to be the silence of "that went over the heads of the yanks in the audience" rather than of "it wasn't that funny..." I like Ross as a presenter, generally speaking -- I enjoy his Friday night show, and while I rarely catch his radio show (I'm rather lax about listening to anything on the radio) I enjoy that even more; and I liked Film 200-whatever, because I often find I agree with his views and have some broadly similar tastes. But he's no BAFTA host. He's just not funny enough... oddly, because his work at the Comedy Awards is usually hilariously good.

The opening, with a troop of 300-style Spartans, was by far the most interesting bit. It all seemed quite incongruous for an awards show, but through this it suggested a show with some flair and excitement. Sadly it just remained incongruous, with nothing else even vaguelly close amongst the endless troop of fairly famous people reading poorly from an autocue. Evening that Spartan-packed opening was flawed though, missing out on the apparently obvious joke of having someone enter and yell, "THIS. IS. BAFTA!", which would've been a far stronger opening than... whatever Jonathan Ross said... I can't remember now...

It's a shame we couldn't make a better fist of it for a year when more eyes than ever were on the BAFTAs, thanks to the faltering performance of US awards shows under the strike. A new host would help. Eddie Izzard, maybe -- he got laughs. So did Ricky Gervais, not that he'd do it. But when even Hugh Laurie can't bridge the cultural divide of British and American humour, you have to wonder if the host is doomed to failure from the start. At least the awards themselves threw up some surprises, with enough nods to the American films (and a consequent shunning of British talent) to keep them interested -- I do wonder if the BAFTAs pander to trying to gain an American audience too much, but one could probably debate that for hours.

There's one thing we do better thought: fewer awards, and we don't even screen them all. It makes for a much less tiring experience.

This review first appeared at 100 Films in a Year.

Film: January Round-up

Here's a little round-up of all the new films I saw this January, with links to the full review over at 100 Films.

The Simpsons Movie
"it made me laugh, and often; at least as much as any other recent comedy, if not more so. That makes it a success in my book."

Dark City
"probably the most underrated film I've ever seen. It is, to my mind, absolutely brilliant."

Easy Riders, Raging Bulls
"short on great insight, but does provide an overview of what went on in this period -- that is, the story of how Hollywood made the transition from the old studio system to the era of the blockbuster"

Churchill: The Hollywood Years
"most of the best bits are of sketch length, and so wind up spread out among the padding."

The Mirror Crack'd
"the direction is flat and lacks suspense, half the cast phone in their performances, and Angela Lansbury, lumbered with a sprained ankle and premature aging, seems to be in a dry run for Murder, She Wrote."

Keep an eye on the regular 100 Films in a Year blog for full length reviews of all the films that are new to me as I see them.

Film: Annie Hall (1977)

I only saw Annie Hall for the first time two months ago. Most times I wouldn't watch a film again so soon, preferring to watch new stuff when possible, but I really need to for an essay I'm currently writing. So, here it is (again): Woody Allen's breakthrough movie, and that incredibly rare thing, an Oscar-winning comedy.

I have a slightly different perspective on it this time round, for two reasons. Firstly, back when I first saw this the only other Allen film I'd seen was Match Point, a brilliant thriller but totally unlike most of his other work. Now I've seen a further four films, giving me a much broader view of his oeuvre. Secondly, I'm watching it very much with my essay in mind, which is all about the analysis of urban rhythms. I'll try not to let anything too pretentious seep into this review.

To be honest, I'm not sure how much difference the first perspective shift makes. First time round I was aware how much this exemplified the cliches of an Allen movie, and while he can clearly manage a lot more than those (and do so very well), I still wouldn't care to say for sure if this is the originator of the cliches or just a prime example. It doesn't really matter anyway: what's important is that Annie Hall is both very funny (always a noteworthy feat for a comedy on repeated viewing) and also very insightful -- not in a preachy-therefore-dull way, importantly, but it is (for want of a better way of expressing it) a comedy set in the real world.

Allen manages to balance the drama of the main storyline (the relationship between his character, Alvy Singer, and the titular Annie Hall) with the jokes, so that both feel natural together. The flashbacks, monologues to camera, animated interlude, and various other third-wall-breaking techniques are very self conscious, but then so is all of Allen's filmmaking -- he's essentially playing himself in something that is, to at least some degree, autobiographical. This may be what enables the film to feel so real and so impossibly funny at the same time ("impossible" because it's the sort of humour we all wish we were capable of on the spot, but know we'd only think of later, at best).

One thing disappointing me this time is the quality of the transfer. Allen isn't big on the additional benefits of DVD, in a way several other older filmmakers aren't -- he's of the school of "the film speaks for itself", so there are no extras on his films (beyond trailers) and certainly no commentary. (I rather suspect this will change at some point after his death, as it has with directors such as Kubrick, with inevitable re-issues on whatever format is around then providing some retrospective things. But that's another issue.) But, obviously, the transfer is part of the film, and here it seems bizarrely blurred at the top & bottom (not always noticeable, but I keep spotting it) and with a fair number of glaring faults here and there. Ultimately it doesn't ruin the film, as some truly dreadful transfers can, but it was distracting enough for me to mention it.

Welcome to Smaller Screens!

Welcome to Smaller Screens!

This is the sister blog to the rather wonderful 100 Films in a Year. While in 100 Films I review every new film that I see, in this blog I'll be adopting a similar style to review a variety of other things -- TV programmes, video games, and films that I've seen before. This blog is notably less rule-bound than the other, as I won't necessarily review everything I watch/play, nor do I have a specific aim to reach.

Smaller Screens will start up properly around January 1st 2008, tying in with the second year of 100 Films. Hope to see you then!