Racism in NofLD

"Beat 'em or burn 'em": Race and Power

To those unfamiliar the zombie movie genre, it might seem hard to see how a film like Night of the Living Dead could be regarded as a political film. However, the film is one of the most important cultural records of its era. Romero himself has explicitly commented that the film is a document of contemporary social changes. We don't have to take the director's word for this, since the film's political themes are hardly hidden from the audience.

But why should a film about zombies be considered as a film about race? One reason lies in Romero's selection of zombies as the film's monsters of choice. Why zombies, as opposed to vampires or dragons or giant beetles? It is important to remember the zombie's origin in the voodoo tradition in Haiti (indeed, the phenomenon is taken so seriously in Haiti that the country's Penal Code considers making someone into a zombie as a form of murder). According to the belief, Haitian zombies lack freewill and perhaps souls. They become zombified by a "bokor" (sorcerer) through spell or potion, and are afterwards used as slaves. It is this connection with slavery that allows us to equate zombies with people of colour. This is not an entirely new conception. Two years before Romero's film, for example, the link between zombies and slaves had been used in John Gilling's British zombie film for the Hammer Studios, The Plague of the Zombies (1966). Set in a Cornwall, an evil squire uses black magic to turn his villagers into zombies and exploit their labour in his dangerously unsafe tin mine. Thus the zombie is a metaphor for, in Gilling's film, the exploited working class, and in Romero's film for the oppressed racial minorities of America.

The film's immediate social context further suggests its racial significance. Night of the Living Dead is set at a time of racial upheaval and protest in America. Black people had been given faith in the possibility of the betterment of their conditions. With the death of Martin Luther King, however, many people lost this faith and abandoned the idea of peaceful resistance. White and black militant groups like the Black Panthers and the Nation of Islam, and the Ku Klux Klan and Aryan Nation sprang up (mentioning these groups together does not, incidentally, imply a moral equivalence between them). To many people, it seemed as though there might be a race war in America. Conservative, reactionary discussions of this possibility often focused — as they sometimes do today — on the possibility that "we" might soon be outnumbered by "them." The line in Night of the Living Dead "we don't know how many of them there are" highlights this racist concern with numbers and the fear of being outnumbered or "swamped." This fear was not restricted to America; 1968 was also the year of British Conservative MP Enoch Powell's notorious "Rivers of Blood" speech, which predicted bloody racial conflict in the United Kingdom Powell was duly sacked for his comments by the party leader Edward Heath.

Of course, Night of the Living Dead is not the only film of its time to deal with issues of race. In Guess Who's Coming To Dinner? (1967) Sidney Poitier played a black man engaged to a white woman; the film details the reactions of each partner's family to the interracial marriage. In that film, however, racial issues were dealt with in a quite explicit way — they were the focus of the film. In Night of the Living Dead, on the other hand, racial tensions are not explicitly mentioned, making them, paradoxically, all the more evident. By casting a black man as a hero, Romero, the independent filmmaker, implicitly rejected the values of Hollywood, which at that time typically eschewed black heroes. In recent years, we have become accustomed to visible minorities playing the "virtuous" characters in films (in fact, some critics now believe that this has in itself become another form of racist misrepresentation: after all, if visible minorities are always the "good guys," doesn't this imply a lack of confidence in portraying them as fully-rounded human beings?). In 1968, however, the novelty of a black hero was striking.

While racial issues are not explicitly foregrounded in the film, the dialogue makes continual reference to the ways in which racial minorities have been treated in the past in America:

Chief, if I were surrounded by say six or eight of these things, would I stand a chance?

Well, if you had a gun, shoot 'em in the head. If you didn't, get a torch and burn 'em, they go up pretty easy. Beat 'em or burn 'em.

The redneck hostility of this language here is reflected in later films about racial hatred in America, such as Alan Parker's 1988 film Mississippi Burning. Finally, the way in which the zombies are hung from trees in the final scenes of the film inevitably invokes the racist lynchings of America's past.

Roger Ebert likes Dawn of the Dead

"Dawn of the Dead" is one of the best horror films ever made -- and, as an inescapable result, one of the most horrifying. It is gruesome, sickening, disgusting, violent, brutal and appalling. It is also (excuse me for a second while I find my other list) brilliantly crafted, funny, droll, and savagely merciless in its satiric view of the American consumer society. Nobody ever said art had to be in good taste.

It's about a mysterious plague that sweeps the nation, causing the recently dead to rise from their graves and roam the land, driven by an insatiable hunger for living flesh. No explanation is offered for this behavior -- indeed, what explanation would suffice? -- but there is a moment at which a survivor solemnly intones: "When there is no more room in hell, the dead will walk the Earth."

Who's that a quotation from? From George A. Romero, who wrote and directed "Dawn of the Dead" as a sequel to his "Night of the Living Dead," which came out in 1968 and still plays the midnight circuit as a cult classic.

If you have seen "Night," you will recall it as a terrifying horror film punctuated by such shocking images as zombies tearing human flesh from limbs. "Dawn" includes many more scenes like that, more graphic, more shocking, and in color. I am being rather blunt about this because there are many people who will not want to see this film. You know who you are. Why are you still reading?

Well ... maybe because there's a little of the ghoulish voyeur in all of us. We like to be frightened. We like a good creepy thrill. It's just, we say, that we don't want a movie to go too far. What's too far? "The Exorcist"? "The Omen"? George Romero deliberately intends to go too far in "Dawn of the Dead." He's dealing very consciously with the ways in which images can affect us, and if we sit through the film (many people cannot) we make some curious discoveries.

One is that the fates of the zombies, who are destroyed wholesale in all sorts of terrible ways, don't affect us so much after awhile. They aren't being killed, after all: They're already dead. They're even a little comic, lurching about a shopping center and trying to plod up the down escalator. Romero teases us with these passages of humor. We relax, we laugh, we see the satire in it all, and then -- pow! Another disembowelment, just when we were off guard.

His story opens in a chaotic television studio, where idiotic broadcasters are desperately transmitting inaccurate information (one hopes the Emergency Broadcast System will do a whole lot better). National Guard troops storm public housing, where zombies have been reported. There are 10 minutes of unrelieved violence, and then the story settles down into the saga of four survivors who hijack a helicopter, land on the roof of a suburban shopping center, and barricade themselves inside against the zombies.

Their eventual fates are not as interesting as their behavior in the meantime; there is nothing quite like a plague of zombies to wonderfully focus your attention on what really matters to you. Romero has his own ideas, too, and the shopping center becomes a brilliant setting for a series of comic and satiric situations: Some low humor, some exquisitely sly.

But, even so, you may be asking, how can I defend this depraved trash? I do not defend it. I praise it. And it is not depraved, although some reviews have seen it that way. It is about depravity.

If you can see beyond the immediate impact of Romero's imagery, if you can experience the film as being more than just its violent extremes, a most unsettling thought may occur to you: The zombies in "Dawn of the Dead" are not the ones who are depraved. They are only acting according to their natures, and, gore dripping from their jaws, are blameless.

The depravity is in the healthy survivors, and the true immorality comes as two bands of human survivors fight each other for the shopping center: Now look who's fighting over the bones! But "Dawn" is even more complicated than that, because the survivors have courage, too, and a certain nobility at times, and a sense of humor, and loneliness and dread, and are not altogether unlike ourselves. A-ha.

To what extent are Hollywood films simply ‘products’ made to make a profit?

One of the key purposes of film entertainment has always been the making of money, though there is a myriad of ‘uses and gratifications’. Films can also be used for diversion, information and news-gathering, social interacting through personal relationships and personal identity. The Hollywood film industry, however, is notorious for its supposed main aim of simply making money. One could argue that George Lucas is a prime example of a film director who has created a franchise and rides upon its financial success. His last role as an active director was in 2005 during the last Star Wars film, since then he has remained in the background ‘producer’ position and has had a minor directing role in 2012’s ‘Red Tails’. Though Lucas is one of Hollywood’s most successful directors, his portfolio is not as extensive as other veteran directors, such as Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese – both infamous for their strong and constant work ethic. ‘Star Wars’ is also a good example of how Hollywood are fond of making sequels and also prequels – in order to extend the commercial success of a film. This is notable in Dreamwork’s productions such as Kung Fu Panda, which spawned a recent sequel and the Shrek series, which made a decline in critical appreciation as the series went on to its third and fourth films.

The digital age has shaken up the industry, with many film bosses realising the need for a more immersive experience, rather than an audience experience – viwers now want to feel involved in film’s action. Auteurs like Quentin Tarantino have rejected these new styles of editing and shooting, whereas others – even veteran Martin Scorsese has explored 3D filming in his winter release ‘Hugo’. James Cameron exploited the sudden craze in cinema-goers for 3D and Imax with his special effects extravaganza in 2009 ‘Avatar’. This went on to become the highest grossing film of all time, due to the viral and word-of-mouth hype which spread through its notoriety as a visually immersive experience.

Weinstein Company warned to back down in Bully classification row

Cinema owners warn that all future Weinstein films could get an NC-17 rating if company boycotts MPAA ratings in row over its anti-bullying documentary

Weinstein Company warned to back down in Bully classification row

This article was published on guardian.co.uk at 12.54 GMT on Wednesday 29 February 2012.

Ratings row ... Harvey Weinstein has been warned not to boycott MPAA's ratings following a row over documentary Bully. Photograph: Danny Martindale/WireImage

Oscar-winning film producer Harvey Weinstein has been warned not to pursue his current high-profile campaign against the Motion Picture Association of America (MPAA) over its prohibitive rating for the documentary Bully.


Weinstein and his brother Bob, who have been instrumental in bringing the anti-bullying film to the big screen through The Weinstein Company, are unhappy the documentary has been handed an R rating, which means many of its target audience will not be able to see it in cinemas, and have threatened to boycott the MPAA's rating process altogether over the decision.

However, the National Association of Theatre Owners (NATO), which represents cinemas, said earlier this week that any such move might result in all Weinstein Company films being handed an automatic NC-17 rating in future.

"If you decide to withdraw our support and participation in the rating system and begin to release movies without ratings, I will have no choice but to encourage my theatre-owner members to treat unrated movies from the Weinstein Co in the same manner as they treat unrated movies from anyone else," NATO president John Fithian wrote in a letter to the Weinsteins.

He added: "As a father of a nine-year-old child, I am personally grateful that TWC has addressed the important issue of bullying in such a powerful documentary. Yet were the MPAA and NATO to waive the ratings rules whenever we believed that a particular movie had merit, or was somehow more important than other movies, we would no longer be neutral parties applying consistent standards, but rather censors of content based on personal mores."

The Weinsteins hit back with a statement of their own which referenced a recent high-school shooting in suburban Cleveland in which a student who was allegedly the victim of bullying shot dead three other teenagers. "As a company we have the utmost respect for NATO, but to suggest that the film Bully could ever be treated like an NC-17 film is completely unconscionable, not to mention unreasonable," they wrote. "In light of the tragedy that occurred yesterday in Ohio, we feel now is the time for the bullying epidemic to take centre stage, we need to demand our community take action."

More than 75,000 people have signed an online petition urging the MPAA to overturn the R rating handed to Lee Hirsch's film, a decision which was made on the grounds of language. There are said to be six instances of the word "fuck" being used in the documentary, which is due to open on 23 March in the US.


While the MPAA ratings are in theory not legally binding, they are firmly established in the US and any breakdown of the current voluntary system would risk the appointment of a more prohibitive federal or state-appointed censor, something neither studios, film-makers or cinema owners would want.

Finnish sci-fi Nazi movie is hot ticket at Berlin film festival

Iron Sky, which imagines Nazi invasion from secret moon base, sells more tickets than Werner Herzog and Angelina Jolie films.

The queue for tickets at the Berlin film festival. Photograph: Fabrizio Bensch/Reuters

There are a lot of worthy films premiering at the Berlin film festival over the coming 10 days. A three-and-a-half-hour epic tracing China's history, three documentaries about the Fukushima disaster, Werner Herzog's look at Death Row and Angelina Jolie's take on the Bosnian war.

But which film proved more popular than almost anything else the day the tickets went on sale? A Finnish sci-fi comedy about Nazis living on the dark side of the moon.

Iron Sky tells the story of how Hitler's top scientists moved to a lunar military base known as the Black Sun shortly after the second world war ended in 1945. For more than 70 years boffins beavered away on a fleet of spaceships that would one day return to Earth and finish what the Nazis started. In 2018 the invasion begins.

The Finnish-German-Australian co-production proved the second most popular film the day the box office opened at the festival, also called the Berlinale, according to Berlin's Tagesspiegel newspaper. It was beaten to the top spot by Don – The King is Back, the latest film from Bollywood megastar Shah Rukh Khan. Fans of the Indian heartthrob camped out in a Berlin shopping centre for three days and nights in order to get tickets for the film, which sold out in minutes.

But elsewhere it was business as usual at the traditionally rather serious festival. This year's event, the 62nd, focuses on social upheaval and political awakening, screening documentaries and fictional works from Arab film-makers, which trace the turbulent progress of the 2011 mass uprisings across the region and explore political and philosophical questions left in the wake of the often bloody demonstrations.
The Egyptian film Reporting a Revolution, directed by Bassam Mortada, follows six journalists on the frontline during 18 days of anti-regime protests in 2011. In the Shadow of a Man, directed by Hanan Abdalla, has four women talking about how a new society should look.
The film festival is well known for engaging in political debate. Last year, it became a platform to protest against the arrest of the Iranian director Jafar Panahi. Accused of inciting opposition protests in 2009 and making a film without permission, Panahi was banned from travelling outside Iran and was consequently unable to take up the seat he had been offered on the Berlinale jury.
This year the festival will continue the debate about the position of the artist in society with the international premiere of a documentary about the dissident Chinese artist Ai Weiwei.
But it's not all doom and gloom. Berlinale organisers have coaxed some of Hollywood's biggest names to sprinkle a little stardust over the icy German capital. Jolie will be hawking The Land of Blood and Honey, her directorial debut about the Yugoslavian civil war, while Javier Bardem will screen the documentary he produced, Sons of the Clouds: the Last Colony, about a forgotten colonial war in the western Sahara and its abandoned victims. Meryl Streep will sweep into town to accept an honorary Golden Bear – Berlin's answer to the Palme d'or – as a recognition of her 30-plus-year reign at the top of Hollywood's tree.

The biggest screams on the red carpet are likely to be reserved for Robert Pattinson, the British dreamboat who stars in the wildly popular vampire movie series, Twilight. The teen idol is expected to show up to promote his new film, an adaptation of Guy de Maupassant's novel Bel Ami, in which he plays a scoundrel who rises through the ranks of 19th-century Parisian society by manipulating and seducing women.

This year, the organisers have gathered together a surprisingly starry jury to award the prizes. Jake Gyllenhaal and Charlotte Gainsbourg join the Dutch photographer and film-maker Anton Corbijn (who had a hit with the Joy Division film Control) on the international jury, which is chaired by the veteran British director Mike Leigh.
One film vying for the award, Les Adieux la Reine (Farewell My Queen), starring Diane Kruger as Marie Antoinette, will launch the festival on Thursday with its world premiere.

The Berlinale, which runs until 19 February, is ranked as one of the world's top film festivals alongside Cannes, Toronto, Sundance and Venice.

Harrison Ford not set for Blade Runner sequel, say producers

The producers of Ridley Scott's forthcoming follow-up deny reports actor is being considered to reprise role from 1982 sci-fi classic

Replicant revival ... Harrison Ford hangs on in the original Blade Runner. Photograph: Allstar/Cinetext/Warner Bros

The producers of Ridley Scott's forthcoming followup to his 1982 sci-fi cult classic Blade Runner have denied that Harrison Ford is returning to the role of Rick Deckard.

1. Blade Runner - The Director's Cut
2. Production year: 1982
3. Country: USA
4. Cert (UK): 15
5. Runtime: 117 mins
6. Directors: Ridley Scott
7. Cast: Darryl Hannah, Daryl Hannah, Harrison Ford, Rutger Hauer, Sean Young
8. More on this film

Twitchfilm reported yesterday that Ford was in early talks to reprise his role as the future cop, who is tasked with hunting down a gang of rogue bioengineered humanoids, called "replicants", in Scott's earlier film, itself based on the Philip K Dick novel Do Androids Dream of Electric Sheep? However, producer Andrew Kosove of Alcon Entertainment told Deadline: "It is absolutely patently false that there has been any discussion about Harrison Ford being in Blade Runner. To be clear, what we are trying to do with Ridley now is go through the painstaking process of trying to break the back of the story, figure out the direction we're going to take the movie and find a writer to work on it. The casting of the movie could not be further from our minds at this moment."

Kosove compared the Blade Runner followup to Scott's long-awaited forthcoming return to science fiction, Prometheus, which has been described as a film which is not a prequel or sequel, but exists within "the same universe" as its predecessor, 1979's Alien.

"What Ridley does in Prometheus is a good template for what we're trying to do," he said. "He created something that has some association to the original Alien, but lives on its own as a standalone movie." Kosove was asked if Scott's plans might allow Ford to return. "In advance of knowing what we're going to do, I supposed you could say yes, he could," he replied. "But I think it is quite unlikely."

Talk of Ford returning to the series sparked huge online debate yesterday, with many arguing that the actor's appearance in the movie would ruin Blade Runner's central enigma: whether Deckard is himself a replicant. The point has been argued back and forth by fans in the 30 years since the original film's release, resurfacing whenever a fresh cut of the film emerges. There have been several of these: Scott's 1992 director's cut, which excised the original version's studio-enforced expositional voiceover and pegged-on "happy ending", seen by many as the definitive version.

How far do the narratives of the films you have studied for this topic explore questions of belonging and exclusion?

 ‘My Beautiful Laundrette’ 1985, directed by Stephen Frears and written by Hanif Kureishi is a comedy drama, set in the suburban areas of London under Thatcher’s administration. The film’s narrative follows protagonist Omar (Gordon Warnecke), a second-generation Pakistani in Britain, who must bring his uncle Nasser’s failing laundrette to profit amid familial tensions and an unconventional relationship with Johnny (Daniel Day Lewis), a white national and punk. The film deals with social issues such as racism, homosexuality, identity and the economic climate’s effect on Britain. Alternatively, ‘East is East’  set in early 70s Salford, sees the Pakistani Khan family struggle under the patriarch chippy-owning George (Om Puri), his English wife Ella (Linda Bassett) and their family of six sons and daughter.

From the very start of ‘My Beautiful Laundrette’, it is made evident that the film will deal with exclusion or belonging within a community. We are introduced to Johnny and his fellow punk friend squatting in a house. Their costumes signifies the pair as outsiders – they are instantly identifiable as punks with their shaven ‘Mohican’ hairstyles and dark, leathery attire. Though the 80s were notorious for a rise in punk culture and gang communes, punks were still outcasts of society and not socially well-perceived – particularly under the conservative gaze of Thatcher’s government. And perhaps rightly so, due to these groups anti-social and often extremist right-wing political agenda. The nature of their eviction from their illegal residence is symbolic of this as they are driven out rather violently by antagonist Salim’s men. The fact Salim exerts more power in this particular scene – over that of Johnny is indicative of their changing times of Britain – the rising importance of capitalist ‘rat race’ and a decline in the importance of the race of the ‘rats’ involved. We are then introduced to Omar, who nurses over his drunkard father in a dingy, council estate apartment. The death of his mother still hangs in the air – the roaring train tracks serving as a constant reminder outside, becoming a symbol of the destructive power of a husband upon his wife. It is a train Omar’s mum is killed with – and it is implied Tania, Nasser’s daughter, meets the very same end and willingly too. The train could be considered to be a phallic image and therefore it’s killing of the two women could represent female’s subjugation under the patriarchal society. As well as this, the train suggests a sense of modernisation in the 80s, the rushing, hustle and bustle of London’s metropolis and the need to take off – and leave behind one’s roots in pursuit for fortune. Omar’s ‘papa’ warns him that ‘(they) are under siege by the white man’ and that ‘education is power’. Omar’s father recognises that racial tension exists between the Asian and black communities alongside the dominant white in Britain. He is represented as a hypocritical figure – eager to reap the rewards of a democratic society whilst simultaneously holding xenophobic views.  In contrast to this, Nasser, his brother seems to be embracing western culture and society. As a successful businessman, Nasser - when discussing Pakistan and Britain declares ‘that country's been sodomised by religion. It's beginning to interfere with the making of money. Compared with everywhere... it's a little heaven, here.’ -. It is with irony that Nasser appears to oppose the doctrines of religion, yet refers to Britain as a little ‘heaven’. Nasser shares similarities with ‘George’ from East is East’. Like Nasser, George appears to have one foot in his conservative Pakistani roots and the other firmly in Britain. He reminisces over the fact that when he first arrived in the country he came with ‘nothing’ and now he ‘has his own business’. Both Nasser and George recognise the commercial and retail freedom that can be gained from Britain – it is a place to make money. But, perhaps even more than this as George has chosen an English name to use – implying he is willing to fit in with British society and become part of it. He has also married an English wife, Ella. He even lives in the house that is under her name – thus it can be seen that George is not wholly conventional and may stray from traditional Muslim doctrines (such as marrying a fellow Muslim). The line ‘I’ll have a half cup’ is a recurring motif in the film and is the response George gives when Ella asks whether he wants a cup of tea. The reference of ‘half’ may be representative of the fact George is half Pakistani and half British. To conflict with this, he often displays old-fashioned ideas such as demanding the complete and unquestioning obedience of his wife and family and the idea of arranged marriage. Hypocritically, George has a traditional wife in Pakistan who he often uses as a tool to incite jealousy in his British wife Ella. Like ‘My Beautiful Laundrette’ the ill treatment of women is also evident in George’s family. He aggressively beats Ella when she attempts to defend her innocent son 9whom he also beats) and then attempts to strangle or maim her after he humiliates him in front of the Shah’s. He repeatedly tells her and his family that ‘he knows what is best for them’ and that they must listen to him.

There are clear tensions between the Pakistani characters within ‘My Beautiful Laundrette’ and the white punks who are friends with Johnny. In the end, the punks seek revenge on the family by beating up Salim and vandalising the laundrette. They feel threatened by Johnny’s switch in alliance and the fact he chooses to favour his relationship with Omar, rather than keep to them and their extremist ways. It is clear they feel a great amount of animosity toward the Asian community: ‘why are you working for them? Pakis.’ The Pakistani’s are referred to with this racist epithet for the duration of the movie. The subjugation of non-white races is presented by the fact Salim is smashed to the ground by vengeful punks and crawls shamefully away in fear. In ‘East is East’ the youngest Khan, Sajit befriends an English boy named Ernest. Ernest’s grandfather is a bigoted old racist, supporting the words of Enoch Powell and is a keen advocate for his repatriation programme – both are seen distributing leaflets at one point. Ernest is the opposite of his grandfather – he plays willingly with Sajit and appears intrigued and charmed by the Khan’s foreign ways. Ernest also indicates he fancies the Khan’s daughter Meena  who is considerably older than him, and who treats him dismissively – she’s too busy playing football with other boys on the block. This coincidentally alludes to ‘Bend it Like Beckham ‘ (2002), in which the main character – a second generation Pakistani girl; Jessminder and her culturally-rebellious ambitions of becoming a footballer.

During the conservative era of Thatcher’s Britian, the hegemonic and social norm was to lead a heterosexual lifestyle. Omar opposes this by maintaining a homosexual relationship with Johnny. It is implied Omar’s father is aware of his son’s homosexuality or at least jokes about it ‘fix him up with a nice girl…I’m not sure his penis is in full working order.’ Likewise in ‘East is East’, the oldest son Nazir is disowned from the family by George – after he disgraces the family by not committing to the full ceremony of his wedding – jilting his bride-to-be at the crucial moment. It is later revealed Nazir is gay and has run off to start a successful fashion-design company with his male partner. His siblings indicate clear disapproval in his new lifestyle and partner –acting awkwardly when he arrives and staring in an almost revolted way at their surroundings. It is clear, even within the family – that the heterosexual hegemonic ways are dominant

To conclude, both ‘East is East and ‘My Beautiful Laundrette’ deal with belonging and exclusion in society within the UK. ‘My Beautiful Laundrette’ seems to be havier on the homophobic aspect of 80s Britain, as well as the tensions between races. In ‘East is East’ the homosexual agenda is more downplayed and though there are racial tensions, there seems to be more focus on the strained bonds of immediate family members.  

Chinese government plans cut-price cinema tickets

Proposed laws to curb overpricing and boost cheap screenings in China contrast with rising ticket prices in the US

To the IMAX … China now boasts the third-largest box office returns in the world. Photograph: China Photos/Getty Images

It is a nation that strictly controls both the output of its own film-makers and the types of movies audiences are allowed to view at their local multiplex. Yet western filmgoers may be forgiven for casting an unusually jealous eye in the direction of their counterparts in China today, after it was revealed that authorities in the world's most populous nation are considering new laws to curb the price of cinema tickets.

The number of Chinese cinemas has skyrocketed over the past few years and the country now boasts the third-largest annual box office returns in the world. In 2011 alone, it rose by an annual rate of 18% to 12bn yuan (around £1.22bn). A ticket usually costs between £3.40 and £4.10 – already some way cheaper than the price of seeing a film in the UK or US, though such a figure represents a significantly larger chunk of the average person's income than in the west. Now authorities want to bring costs down further, the official Xinhua news agency said yesterday.

"The ticket price is still on the high side and cannot meet people's expectations and demand for movies," said Tong Gang, head of the movie bureau at the State Administration of Radio, Film and Television. Measures would include setting a maximum price for tickets and boosting the number of half-price screenings, he added.

China's spiralling demand for movies last year helped offset a drop in the US box office of 3.5% to $10.2bn, the lowest return in 16 years. Demand for Hollywood fare is particularly high, despite currently being held back by distribution rules which mean that only around 20 western films are allowed to screen at Chinese cinemas each year.

Rising ticket prices in the US have been blamed by some commentators for the current box-office malaise there. The film critic Roger Ebert said last month that the cost of a visit to the cinema had become prohibitive, and also blamed the lack of choice at mainstream multiplexes.

"Ticket prices are too high," he wrote on his blog. "People have always made that complaint, but historically the movies have been cheap compared to concerts, major league sports and restaurants. Not so much any longer. No matter what your opinion is about 3D, the charm of paying a hefty surcharge has worn off for the hypothetical family of four.

"[It's also] lack of choice. Box-office tracking shows that the bright spot in 2011 was the performance of indie, foreign or documentary films. On many weekends, one or more of those titles captures first-place in per-screen average receipts. Yet most moviegoers outside large urban centres can't find those titles in their local gigantiplex. Instead, all the shopping centre compounds seem to be showing the same few overhyped disappointments. Those films open with big ad campaigns, play a couple of weeks, and disappear."

DGA nominations 2012: old timers have their time again

Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese head up a Directors' Guild of America awards shortlist with average age of 58

Directors Guild of America award nominations … Woody Allen and Martin Scorsese are two DGA lifetime achievement award recipients this year vying again for the main title. Photograph: Joel Ryan/AP & David Gadd/Allstar

The Oscar engravers will be sharpening their chisels: the Directors' Guild of America has released its nominations. Since 1948 the winner of that award – this year to be held on January 28 in a ceremony hosted by Kelsey Grammer – has progressed to win the best director award at the Oscars 58 times out of 64.

This year's shortlist contained no surprises, just genuflection: Woody Allen, 76, who won for Annie Hall in 1977 and picked up a lifetime achievement award in 1996, is nominated for Midnight in Paris. He's up against fellow veteran Martin Scorsese, 69, for Hugo; Scorsese won for The Departed in 2006, three years after picking up a lifetime achievement award.

The young bucks hustling for the crown are Alexander Payne, 50, for The Descendants, David Fincher, 49, for The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo, and Michel Hazanavicius, 44, for The Artist.

The most notable omission looks to be Steven Spielberg, who did not get a nod for War Horse. Terrence Malick's The Tree of Life has been all but ignored in the awards race so far.

Institutional News

The British Film Institute has announced plans to appoint a single executive to run its production and distribution funds, with a combined annual budget of £21 million ($33 million).
This follows the resignation of Tanya Seghatchian as head of the BFI's film fund in September, and the departure of Peter Buckingham as head of distribution and exhibition in November.
These posts will be replaced by the newly-created role of film fund director, reporting to BFI chief executive Amanda Nevill.
This moves toward a more integrated policy of development, production and distribution investment, in line with the expected recommendations of the U.K. government's film policy review to be announced in January.
According to a BFI statement, the film fund director will be responsible for leading the existing production and distribution teams, nurturing filmmaking talent across the U.K., championing creative excellence and encouraging a bold approach.
The BFI took over from the U.K. Film Council in April as the public body responsible for investing lottery coin into British film production and distribution. Both Seghatchian and Buckingham moved from the UKFC to the BFI, but decided to leave once the transition was complete.

Borders and Belonging 'My Beautiful Laundrette'

Borders and Belonging ‘My Beautiful Laundrette’

‘My Beautiful Laundrette’ 1985, directed by Stephen Frears and written by Hanif Kureishi is a comedy drama, set in the suburban areas of London under Thatcher’s administration. The film’s narrative follows protagonist Omar (Gordon Warnecke), a second-generation Pakistani in Britain, who must bring his uncle Nasser’s failing laundrette to profit amid familial tensions and an unconventional relationship with Johnny (Daniel Day Lewis), a white national and punk. The film deals with social issues such as racism, homosexuality, identity and the economic climate’s effect on Britain.

From the very start of the film, it is explicitly implied it will centre on the idea of being one – or belonging within a community. We are introduced to Johnny and his fellow punk friend squatting in a house. The mise en scene of their costumes signifies the pair as outsiders – they are instantly identifiable as punks with their shaven ‘Mohican’ hairstyles and dark, leathery attire. Though the 80s were notorious for a rise in punk culture and gang communes, punks were still outcasts of society and not socially well-perceived – particularly under the conservative gaze of Thatcher’s government. And perhaps rightly so, due to these groups anti-social and often extremist right-wing political agenda. The nature of their eviction from their illegal residence is symbolic of this as they are driven out rather violently by antagonist Salim’s men. The fact Salim exerts more power in this particular scene – over that of Johnny is indicative of their changing times of Britain – the rising importance of capitalist ‘rat race’ and a decline in the importance of the race of the ‘rats’ involved. We are then introduced to Omar, who nurses over his drunkard father in a dingy, council estate apartment. The death of his mother still hangs in the air – the roaring train tracks serving as a constant reminder outside, becoming a symbol of the destructive power of a husband upon his wife. It is a train Omar’s mum is killed with – and it is implied Tania, Nasser’s daughter, meets the very same end and willingly too. The train could be considered to be a phallic image and therefore it’s killing of the two women could represent female’s subjugation under the patriarchal society. As well as this, the train suggests a sense of modernisation in the 80s, the rushing, hustle and bustle of London’s metropolis and the need to take off – and leave behind one’s roots in pursuit for fortune.

Omar’s ‘papa’ warns him against spending too long working with his brother Nasser, whom he calls a ‘crook’. He mentions that ‘(they) are under siege by the white man’ and that ‘education is power’. Here, Omar’s father recognises that racial tension exists between the Asian and black communities alongside the dominant white in Britain. He is represented as a hypocritical figure – eager to reap the rewards of a democratic society whilst simultaneously holding xenophobic views.  In contrast to this, Nasser, his brother seems to be embracing western culture and society. As a successful businessman, Nasser declares ‘But that country's been sodomised by religion. It's beginning to interfere with the making of money. Compared with everywhere... it's a little heaven, here.’ (When discussing Pakistani and Britain). It is with irony that Nasser appears to oppose the doctrines of religion, yet refers to Britain as a little ‘heaven’. It enforces the fact Nasser exists with firm Capitalist beliefs. He refers to the making of money and seems to hold it in the highest regard – it is the most important aspect of life – rather than morality of which religion promotes.  Nasser is the epitome of a capitalist. He lords over his relatives with a patriarchal iron fist and takes a mistress in the form of Rachel. Rachel is a classic example of a middle class aspirer – common in the time of Thatcher where the middle classes were provided with greater opportunities to accumulate wealth as the divide with the poor grew. Rachel is dressed in white furs – both a symbol of wealth and a statement of white superiority. Nasser seeks the need to take a mistress to empower his king-like ego as well as to legitimise himself as a decent English ‘businessman’, with an English girlfriend. Like the rest of the females in ‘My Beautiful Laundrette’, Nasser’s wife is portrayed as longs-suffering. She represents the families old life in Pakistan – still accustomed to Pakistani traditions and Asian morals and is neglected by her husband – representing his abandoning of the old and embracing of the West. Nasser has abandoned the Islamic ways of his culture – he drinks and attends bars and is unfaithful to his family and wife.

There are clear tensions between the Pakistani characters within ‘My Beautiful Laundrette’ and the white punks who are friends with Johnny. In the end, the punks seek revenge on the family by beating up Salim and vandalising the laundrette. They feel threatened by Johnny’s switch in alliance and the fact he chooses to favour his relationship with Omar, rather than keep to them and their extremist ways. It is clear they feel a great amount of animosity toward the Asian community: ‘why are you working for them? Pakis.’ The Pakistani’s are referred to with this racist epithet for the duration of the movie. The subjugation of non-white races is presented by the fact Salim is smashed to the ground by vengeful punks and crawls shamefully away in fear.

During the conservative era of Thatcher’s Britian, the hegemonic and social norm was to lead a heterosexual lifestyle. Omar opposes this by maintaining  a homosexual relationship with Johnny. It is implied Omar’s father is aware of his son’s homosexuality or at least jokes about it ‘fix him up with a nice girl…I’m not sure his penis is in full working order.’

Golden Age of Cinema

British cinema's golden age is now

Few in the UK film industry want to shout about it but the evidence is clear. We are enjoying a renaissance in domestic cinema. Andrew Pulver reports on how audiences developed a taste for homegrown movies

• 

No more second-guessing Hollywood? ... Carey Mulligan in Shame.

Compared to theatre, cinema is an entirely portable medium – think what our view of film would be like if all we saw were British movies, with occasional touring productions of foreign work. No Hollywood blockbusters, no Korean ultra-violence, no Iranian minimalism. Nothing old, either – no Italian neorealism, or Czech new wave, or French poetic realism. Imagine what life for the British filmgoer would have been like, say, in 1978 – the highlight of your year would probably have been Death on the Nile, or Watership Down. And let's not forget the dark days of 1999 and 2000, when this paper felt compelled to trash the jaw-dropping wave of terrible British films in the wake of the lottery-fund bonanza.

1. We Need To Talk About Kevin
2. Production year: 2011
3. Country: Rest of the world
4. Cert (UK): 2011
5. Runtime: 112 mins
6. Directors: Lynne Ramsay, Lynne Ramsey
7. Cast: Ezra Miller, John C Reilly, Tilda Swinton
8. More on this film

Fortunately, such a scenario will never come to pass, unless an insanely protectionist government installs a prohibitive quota regime. But imagine if we were, right now, being governed by a cinematic ultra-nationalist, it's safe to say that it would be less of a hardship than it would have been for years. For – whisper it – British cinema is going through a golden age, a renaissance we have hardly noticed we are living through.

For those who read the runes, the signs are clear. Four British films electrified the Venice film festival – Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, A Dangerous Method, Wuthering Heights and Shame – while another, Two Years at Sea, won a prize in the experimental Orizzonti section. The three top-grossing films at the UK box office this year are, so far, British (Harry Potter and the Deathly Hallows Part Two, The King's Speech and The Inbetweeners Movie). The next few months will see the release of a string of substantial British films, including two – We Need to Talk About Kevin and The Deep Blue Sea – that represent the return to serious film-making by two of the nation's finest auteurs, Lynne Ramsay and Terence Davies, who have both been stymied for years. We're also seeing major international directors – Fernando Meirelles, Tomas Alfredson and David Cronenberg to name but three – happily pitching up to the UK to take charge of very British films.

Watch the trailer for sex addiction drama Shame - Steve McQueen's second collaboration with Michael Fassbender Link to this video

But most heartening of all is the wealth of activity and depth in all areas of the cinematic spectrum. For years, high-achieving British film-makers were isolated figures: Ken Loach and Mike Leigh plodding away at home; Ridley Scott and Paul Greengrass nipping over to Hollywood; Michael Winterbottom dancing from project to project. But it's hard to ignore the current profusion of film-makers who are maintaining successful careers, releasing exciting and interesting British product. Last week saw Paddy Considine's debut, Tyrannosaur; a couple of weeks earlier, the Gary Oldman-powered Tinker. Next week, Ramsay's Kevin takes its bow; Winterbottom's Trishna, Ralph Fiennes's Coriolanus, and Nick Broomfield's Sarah Palin: You Betcha! are among the attractions at the London film festival.

The last two years have been a vintage period for British film-makers: in fact, there are so many around that some actual categorisation is required. Imagine, if you will, an elegant soiree at the British film HQ, Bafta. In one corner, are the cult-movie nerds: Matthew Vaughn and Jane Goldman are trading comic-book references and sci-fi lines with Edgar Wright, Duncan Jones, Ben Wheatley and Joe Cornish. In another, furrowed brows and intense discussions betray the art-movie mavens: Ramsay and Davies, late to the party, join Andrea Arnold, Steve McQueen, Joanna Hogg and Pawel Pawlikowski. Loafing nearby are the proper avant garde types: Andrew Kotting, Patrick Keiller, Clio Barnard and Ben Rivers. Sneering at the bourgeois luxury of it all are the socially concerned contingent: Considine, Loach, Leigh, along with Broomfield and Countdown to Zero director Lucy Walker. Tom Hooper, director of The King's Speech, stands in a circle of film-makers waving their wallets – Scott, Stephen Frears, Harry Potter director David Yates. Not attached to any group, but working the room, are people such as Winterbottom, James Marsh (Project Nim), Asif Kapadia (Senna), Kevin Macdonald and Bernard Rose (Mr Nice). The list, frankly, goes on and on.

Watch a trailer for Tilda Swinton's new film - an adaptation of the bestselling novel We Need to Talk About Kevin by Lionel Shriver Link to this video Understandably, the industry is reluctant to talk up suggestions that British cinema is in the throes of a serious renaissance – everyone is terrified of replicating Colin Welland's triumphalist shout of "The British are coming" after Chariots of Fire's triumph at the 1982 Oscars. Andrew Eaton, longtime producer of Winterbottom's films, strikes a world-weary note. "These things are cyclical, there's no getting away from it. But there are lots of good directors around now and confidence has built to a  more evolutionary level. People's ability to identify good projects has definitely improved."

Eaton suggests that the now-disbanded UK Film Council – of which he was deputy chair between 2004 and 2008 – played a key role in this recent upsurge. "The method Tanya [Seghatchian] came up with, identifying talent and bringing people in, rather than the scattergun approach of trying to second guess Hollywood, actually seems to be working." Seghatchian, who joined the UKFC as head of development in 2007, left the organisation last month after its transfer to the BFI; Eaton is confident her approach will continue to yield results "as long as the funding for it stays". He also points to the tax relief system as a distinct help. "That's certainly given us more leeway in developing scripts."

Just as importantly, the people at the sharp end, those who operate and programme cinemas, seem to have caught the mood of optimism. Clare Binns is the director of programming for the Picturehouse chain, and a famously pragmatic figure for someone with so much influence. But Binns is practically oozing positivity. "In the old days, British films were harder to sell. We have all been a bit sniffy in the past, but that's not the case any more. We have a lot of talented people beavering away – we only had one or two a few years ago – so it's all good."

But Binns also sounds a note of caution. Last weekend, she says, faced with the choice of Woody Allen's frothy comedy Midnight in Paris, and the "tough" drama that is Tyrannosaur, British audiences definitively chose the former. The latest box office stats show that Allen's film achieved a much higher screen average than Considine's, as well as being on at many more venues. "We think it's important to support difficult films, especially if they are as brilliant as Tyrannosaur – but the hard reality comes on Monday morning. You just can't afford to give a film a second chance. In the end, it's up to the public to be more risk-taking. I'm not blaming them, but if they want more diverse films, they've got to put their money where their mouth is."

Be that as it may, it's clear that British audiences are getting more interested in British themes, across the board. The King's Speech is part of a long-standing tradition of patriotic epics, but other types of film are now filling the gaps. Probably the most notable example is what you might call the British answer to the American teen movie, the urban youth film: the dramatic impact of the 2005 film Kidulthood virtually called the genre into being. One distributor, Revolver Entertainment, has been closely identified with making a success of Kidulthood and its followers – Shank, Anuvahood, the upcoming Sket – and its CEO, Justin Marciano, is clear why. "When I was younger, all the teen movies we wanted to watch were American, they were seen as cooler. But one of the big things that's changed over the last few years is a huge sense of pride here for what is called 'homegrown'. There's a sense of ownership over these films by the people who they're about. Make no mistake: music leads this sort of thing, and the films mix youth culture and music together. Once it was underground and now it is  mainstream."

Marciano runs a defiantly commercial operation, and quickly set up his own production company when he realised the potential of the films he was already distributing. "We had a great campaign for Kidulthood, and we were able to connect with younger audiences in a big way. There's a big audience there, and it's just not catered for by the institutional investing that goes on." The films Marciano has made aren't funded by government subsidy, though he was grateful for a £100,000 UKFC grant to help Shank into more cinemas. "We're really excited about trying to make it work," he says. "If you make a profit for your investors, then you've got people prepared to come back the next time."

The youth movie boomlet has carved out a niche, but with its self-contained, music-oriented audience, it's arguable what impact it has had on the wider cinema culture. There are no such doubts over another area of British cinema that, in a similar vein, barely existed five years ago. What you might call the comic-con tendency – the smart-arse, movie literate, nerd-attracting element – used to equate, in British terms, to the movies of Wright: Shaun of the Dead, Hot Fuzz, Scott Pilgrim Vs the World. But a stream of like-minded film-makers have emerged in his wake: largely male, comic book-loving, and fond of a knowing movie reference or two. Jones with Moon and Source Code, Gareth Edwards with Monsters, Wheatley with Down Terrace and Kill List, Cornish with Attack the Block; they all represent a type of film-maker that never flourished in Britain before. Vaughn is arguably the most successful of this group, boasting collaborations with comic-book heavyweights Neil Gaiman (Stardust) and Mark Millar (Kick-Ass), as well as directing the most recent X-Men movie.

Arguably the most influential disseminator of this kind of film is not technically British: the mini-studio Optimum, which recently changed its name to StudioCanal UK to reflect its ownership by the French cable giant Canal+. Nevertheless it remains the specialist in bleeding-edge British cinema: in the last 18 months it has put out Tyrannosaur, Kill List, Source Code, Submarine, Attack the Block and Four Lions. Danny Perkins, CEO of Studiocanal UK, is as positive as everyone else. "The film industry here is having a good run, definitely. The challenge is to how to make the most of it, even if there's weird timing with the demise of the Film Council." Perkins cites Shane Meadows's This Is England as doing more than any other to change British audiences' attitudes but also has high praise for the Harry Potter effect. "Not only did it deliver billions for the industry, but it's been great for audiences, seeing British talent in British movies rather than on TV."

Like Marciano, Perkins has taken the opportunity to move into production – "it was a strategic decision, it made more sense to have more control over the process, and it's paid dividends" – a decision that would seem vindicated by the success of its most recent film, the $30m-budget (£19m) Tinker Tailor Soldier Spy, which has taken just over £11m at the UK box office alone. These figures, though, are dwarfed by the numbers fellow distributor Momentum managed when it put £7m into The King's Speech; so far the film has made $414.2m (£262m) worldwide.
Of course, not every film can be a King's Speech, or even a Tinker, but everywhere you look something interesting is happening in British cinema. History will decide whether we really are living through a golden age, but in terms of ferment, excitement and dazzling variety, there has been nothing like it in Britain for decades. We certainly are living in interesting times.

The London film festival runs until 27 October. We Need to Talk About Kevin is released on 21 October, Sket on 28 October and Wuthering Heights on 11 November.

IMDB TO BE SUED

Actor sues IMDb website for publishing her age

Unnamed Texan who claims to look significantly younger than her age seeks $1m damages from Internet Movie Database

• 

An anonymous actor claims IMDb used personal information gleaned from her subscription application to discover her date of birth

Stars such as Melanie Griffith, Daryl Hannah and Sharon Stone have all bemoaned the lack of roles for women over 40 in Hollywood in recent years. Now, an anonymous Texas actor has taken the debate one step further: she is suing movie website imdb.com for publishing her real age without her consent.

The actor claims to look much younger than her real age. She says she deliberately failed to disclose her date of birth when she signed up to the Internet Movie Database's "pro" subscription service in 2008, and was therefore surprised to see that someone had added it to her profile. All attempts to have the reference removed from the site were refused by IMDb, she says in her suit, and she subsequently lost out on a number of roles.

"If one is perceived to be 'over the hill,' ie approaching 40, it is nearly impossible for an up-and-coming actress, such as the plaintiff, to get work as she is thought to have less of an 'upside'," the actor's complaint reads. She is seeking $1m or more in punitive damages and $75,000 or more in compensatory damages. She accuses IMDb and its parent company Amazon of breach of contract, fraud, and violation of privacy and consumer protection laws.

The plaintiff, an actor of Asian descent who first began working in Hollywood in 2003, claims she looks too young to be taken seriously by producers looking to cast older parts. "[The] plaintiff has experienced rejection in the industry for each '40-year-old' role for which she has interviewed because she does not and cannot physically portray the role of a 40-year-old woman," the lawsuit says.

The actor's lawyer, John W Dozier Jr, said the suit might put the very existence of the database at risk if it can prove IMDb was in the habit of publishing its own research into actors' circumstances rather than gleaning the information from already existing sources. "The number of claims that could be asserted against them would overwhelm them," he said.

Both IMDb and Amazon have declined to comment on the suit, which was filed at the US district court.

Inspiration

Cat On a Hot Tin Roof
The unseen character of Brick's lover is a prominent theme in the film. This links in with the idea of the '7th guest' character in my idea - who remains unseen throughout. The idea of a gathering in a large country estate provides an ideal situation for a series of tense asides, suspicious glances and sneaking hysteria - themes I wish to use in my film.

Melancholia Trailer
Lars Von Trier's 'Melancholia' trailer has inspired me through its cold, intense cinematogrpahy. Though I have not seen the film, the trialer depicts a gathering at a country estate and an ensemble cast of characters who have individual troubles and suspicions. The film has been described as an allergory for Kirsten Dunst's character's 'melancholia' - her depression. The idea that a film is based around a single emotional disorder - like the play 'The Wonderful World of Disocia' is intriguing to me.

Film news - Satire too risky in current day and age

Life of Brian would be risky now, says Terry Jones

Monty Python star claims making satire now would be too risky following resurgence in religious belief

Terry Jones, who directed and starred in the Monty Python film Life of Brian, says the feature would be unlikely today due to a resurgence of religious beliefs. Photograph: Evening Standard/Getty Images

Monty Python's Terry Jones has revealed that he would shy away from making the comedy Life Of Brian today, because of a resurgence in religious belief.

1. Life Of Brian
2. Production year: 1979
3. Country: UK
4. Cert (UK): 15
5. Runtime: 93 mins
6. Directors: Terry Jones
7. Cast: Eric Idle, Graham Chapman, John Cleese, Michael Palin, Terry Gilliam, Terry Jones
8. More on this film

Jones directed and acted in the 1979 film, starring John Cleese, Michael Palin, Graham Chapman, Terry Gilliam and Eric Idle, which sparked a religious storm and accusations of blasphemy.

Opponents of the comedy, which was a worldwide box-office success, claimed it made fun of Jesus.
But Jones told the Radio Times: "I never thought it would be as controversial as it turned out, although I remember saying when we were writing it that some religious nut case may take pot shots at us, and everyone replied: 'No'."

The 69-year-old said: "I took the view it wasn't blasphemous. It was heretical because it criticised the structure of the church and the way it interpreted the Gospels. At the time religion seemed to be on the back burner and it felt like kicking a dead donkey. It has come back with a vengeance and we'd think twice about making it now."

Asked whether he would make a similarly satirical film about Muslims, he said: "Probably not – looking at Salman Rushdie [whose controversial book The Satanic Verses forced him into hiding for 10 years].
"I suppose people would be frightened. I think it's whipped up by the arms industry."
Jones was interviewed by the magazine to mark a BBC4 comedy drama, Holy Flying Circus, about the opposition to the film.
The BBC is also reconstructing the TV debate Friday Night … Saturday Morning, which took place between Cleese and Palin and the Bishop of Southwark, Mervyn Stockwood, and Malcolm Muggeridge, who thought the film was blasphemous.
Jones said of Monty Python's Life Of Brian: "I'm amazed we're still discussing it, and I don't know why. There's lots of other good stuff around. I suspect it's overrated although it's pretty good. Our aim was to make a funny film, but there's nothing wrong with giving a bit of offence as well.
"I've seen it a couple of times and probably enjoy it more now because of its celebrity. Personally, though, I prefer Buster Keaton."
Speaking of Monty Python's Flying Circus, he added: "It was one of the first comedy shows made in colour. If it had been scheduled a month or two earlier it would have been in black and white."
He said of the BBC's new drama: "The programme is very funny, but it's a mix of fantasy and reality. The portrayal of BBC executives (as over-the-top and dim-witted) is probably the only realistic part."