Three years after its original production and Luv’in the Black Country seems to be getting more attention now than ever.

Earlier in the month the guys at Mystreet Films made it “Featured Film Of The Week”

Here is what they had to say about it

“This week, we’ve chosen the beautiful Luv’in in the Black Country as our featured film, thanks to its synthesis of old and new. This lovingly crafted documentary is shot completely in black and white, exploring the waterways of the West Midlands. Alongside the quiet canals and outside disused factories, three Black Country residents share stories of their first loves and heartbreak at “the industry being ripped out of the Midlands”. Luv’in in the Black Country seamlessly blends archival footage with new and combines people’s personal stories with local history.”

 

Watch Luv’in the Black Country here

Film-maker Kyoko Miyake discusses her philosophies on the documentary medium

Kyoko Miyake began like most great film-makers, pursuing something that is very little to do with film.

Robert Bresson was a painter, Ozu Yasujiro was a teacher, Edward Yang was a computer engineer and Kyoko Miyake was a history major at Oxford (The history of English witchcraft to be more specific).

The Japanese born, British based film-maker has made a huge impact in the international documentary scene over the past five years, with her quietly observed films that deal with themes such as memory, nostalgia and culture.

Q – A theme in a lot of your work revolves around personal nostalgia and the merging of the past and present. In “hackney lullaby’s” it was the mothers cultural ancestry and in “For Your Tomorrow” it was meeting British and Japanese soldiers from WW2. Is there a reason behind this interest?

KM – It is interesting that you point that out. I wasn’t consciously choosing those topics but I guess you are right, they all revolve around the theme of nostalgia and the margin of the past and present. It also applies to my recent Fukushima film called “My Atomic Aunt”. It might have something to do with my background as a historian. I am always fascinated by how people or communities have become the way they are.

Q – Most contemporary documentary film makers tend to fall into two categories; film-makers that focus on the hard hitting subjects and film-makers that prefer the poetic value of documentary.

You seem to have found a place in the middle, do you believe a good documentary must have a hard hitting subject?

My Atomic Aunt, 2013

Manjeet S Gill’s short documentary about the overlooked allotment culture in the Black Country will be screened on Friday 29 March at 11:30am at The Flatpack Palais (the festival hub).

The entrance is free and details can be found at www.flatpackfestival.org.uk

Is relocating to London essential if you want to become a successful film-maker?

There seems to be a consensus that if a British film-maker wishes to succeed in the industry, they must at some point migrate to the Capital. Almost painting London as a utopia for creative people in the UK and surely this makes sense?

The Creative Hub Of The UK

When you initially think of what London has to offer, it is very easy to arrive at this type of conclusion. Culturally alone London offers so much, even if you are a more artistically minded film-maker, you are most likely going to find a more vibrant audience there.

I sometimes find myself travelling to London solely to see films that were not screened at my local cinemas. In 2010 I sat on several two hour train journeys just to attend the BFI’s Yasujiro Ozu season and in 2011 for the Hong Sang Soo retrospective. However, all of the films I saw at those screenings were ones I had seen before (most often from my own DVD collection), so why spend so much time and money seeing them in London?

Well obviously the main reason is to see them in an auditorium, where I feel the cinematic experience is heightened, but another reason is the community. There is nothing quite as gratifying as talking to other film enthusiasts about the film you have just seen. This can only really be accomplished in an environment that has a passionate community.

Mike Leigh once said that he never saw a Japanese film until he went to London, of course when Leigh was young accessibility to the many variations of cinema was difficult, but this is not the case any-more  The internet and DVD/Blu-Ray distribution has made a cinephile’s life much easier, you no longer have to attend an international film festival to see a film that will not be screened at your local cinema.  Nevertheless, London has held on to this image as Britain’s “Creative utopia”.

Are Successful British Film-Makers Actually Based in London?

Okay, even if we can conclude that London almost innately supports cultural concerns more effectively than anywhere else in the UK, does this mean film-makers should move there?

The best way to answer this is to ask “Are successful British film-makers actually based in London?” and the answer is, not necessarily.  The Likes of Shane Meadows alone is an example of a film-maker based outside of London, reaching substantial levels of success.

Shane Meadows

But does this only apply to film-makers that are already successful? An up and coming film-maker may not have the reputation or contacts to work outside of London. Surely the main reason aspiring film-makers move to London is for the opportunities?

But are there really film-making opportunities in the capital?  Of course it is a great place to network, but do you really have to move to London to exploit the occasional contact opportunity?

The Fine Line Between a “Technician” and a “Film-Maker”

I believe we sometimes blur the line between a “Film-maker” and a film “technician”. Of course where there is more industry there is more opportunities for technical hands, but this does not necessarily mean film-makers.

The greatest movements within cinema were made outside of industries; from the French New wave, Italian Neo-Realism, Taiwanese new wave etc. were all independent of the main industries of the time. Apart from the Japanese new wave of the 1960s (which was ironically almost manufactured by the major studios) the key movements tend to be a product of independent fervour.

Is It Possible To Make A Steady Living As A Film-Maker?

Admittedly referring to influential film movements may seem a little over ambitious for the average film-maker, but the point is clear. Only technicians really need to move to London to make a living, not film-makers.

This is because a film-maker’s craft cannot be streamlined into a conventional 9 to 5 job, a technician’s however can be and this is what needs to be taken into account before making any hasty location changes.

It is rare that you would find a company that would offer you a steady job as a film-maker, at least not in the way they would if you were something like a camera operator. A film-maker relies primarily on funding and this is something that cannot be guaranteed simply by living in London, even if that is where the industry is most vibrant.

If you want a steady living in film, then move to London and become a camera operator, editor, A.D or lighting tech. A film-maker is a much more complicated and incoherent job, which is accompanied with great uncertainty.

It may involve networking in the capital or attending certain events there, but to suggest actually moving to London will help solidify your success, is for me complete fallacy.

Matthew E Carter

“Real filmmaking, beautifully shot and cut” – Mark Cousins (The Story of Film: An Odyssey)

West Midlands set documentary will have its first Television screening in March 2013.

The film will be aired on the Community Channel in the UK on Sunday 10 March at 20:00 (Sky 539 – Virgin Media 233 – Freeview 87 – BT Vision)

It will be screened under the channel’s March “Postcard” theme, which consists of films that represent the lives and passions of individuals living across the UK.

As pointless of a question it may seem, it is one that has been roaming around several cinephile circuits for a while now and one I have been contemplating myself.

I think the more practical question would be “what advantages would a film buff have that a casual enthusiast wouldn’t?”

Obviously an awareness of a mediums history would be beneficial in all crafts, even if the reimbursements are hedonistic. However you could assume one of the most effective conducts that help comprehend the functionality of cinematic technique, is to understand why the techniques were used in the first place.

It could be compared to how contemporary biologists, geneticists and palaeontologists research into the evolutionary history of the natural world. They attempt to understand an organism or a specific biological function by outlining how it reached its status in the first place. Natural selection and cinema are very similar in regards to their gradual trial and error practises (techniques that worked, continued and the ones that did not fell into extinction). Of course this is an over simplification of both natural selection and cinema, but what should be taken from this is the notion that to gain a better understanding you must be aware of the experiments of the past.

I believe the reason most dialogue sequences shares resemblances (the over the shoulder sequences is a prime example) is a result of film-makers adhering to a contemporary convention. It is not about the effect over the shoulder sequences create, but an act of conforming to a film making consensus. How can cinema be fully utilised and evolve if film-makers are not conscious of their own techniques effects?

The Graduate (Nichols, 1967)

From Ozu, Mizoguchi, Bresson, Akerman, Ford, Godard, Antonioni, Wilder, Lubitch, Parajanov, Tarkovsky, Bergman, Tarr and Jancsó, they all used a diverse array of dialogue techniques that had numerous cinematic effects. With all this variation and possibility, it seems impractical and artistically impotent to understand why a consensus of film-makers abide solely to the over shoulder dialogue sequence.

Late Spring (Ozu, 1949)

Be that as it may, an empirical problem arises, there are evidently more knowledgeable cinephiles than there are good film-makers,  so surely being a film buff does not offer an advantage if the ratio is so low?

It would be naive to deny natural talent and a creative flair has little to do with becoming a great film-maker  but it seems a hefty majority of auteurs are incredibly knowledgeable film enthusiasts.

I have long accepted the fact I am not a naturally talented film-maker  I am driven by raw enthusiasm for the cinema and oh so often use it to compensate my lacking natural ability. As my friend Blue Un Sok Kim once said “It is so frustrating being able to recognise good art, but not able to produce it”.

The only logical conclusion I could come to is the possibly that it is a mix of both, a natural gift and a radical knowledge of the cinema. Yet this is challenged by the existence of great auteurs that do not have film buff knowledge, like the modern master Terence Malick. It is a somewhat a notorious trivial fact that one of Malick’s all-time favourite films is “Zoolander”, not one you would expect from a film-maker that has made a career out of delving into the philosophical core of his characters and their predicaments.

However, when you look at Malick’s work in retrospect it actually makes sense. His lifelong interests in nature, German/French philosophy, classical music, astronomy and ornithology, indicate that his passions have a greater influence on his film making than cinema itself.

Terrence Malick

The simple fact a life passion can be just as effective as an advanced cinematic awareness, really makes the original question void.

I feel we have to look outside of the cinema to gain a better perspective of this argument and look at art as a whole. Of course good knowledge will always provide a stable foundation to an artist’s work, but without an artistic or creative sensibility the art will always be impotent of visionary value.

- Matthew E Carter

Over the last five years I’ve noticed whenever aspiring documentary filmmakers are asked about contemporary filmmakers that influence them, more often than not Marc Isaacs name is mentioned. Isaacs made his name in 2001 with the short documentary “The Lift”, to which he installed himself in the lift of a typical English tower block and conversed with the people passing by. The film exuded poetic value and painted a simple yet profound portrait of the human condition. Since then Marc has produced numerous lyrical documentaries for both the BBC and Channel 4. His work has won Grierson, RTS, and BAFTA awards, as well as an abundance of international film festival prizes. As a result of his aesthetically rich approach to observing the everyday lives of people, Isaacs’s films  stand out considerably when screened at British documentary festivals.

Marc was kind enough to answer a few of our questions (even the painfully convoluted ones).

Q – Most of your films tend to have particular aesthetic qualities to them; “Outside The Court” for instance used a seasonal format, where each period of the year had a different look to it. Are characteristics like these predetermined?

MI – They are predetermined to a large extent because they are conceived along with the idea and integrated during the shooting, but aesthetic decisions are also fully realised during the editing. Every film needs to have a strong aesthetic element. It is the film’s visual world which carries just as much meaning as the stories told verbally.

Q - Do you think aesthetics in documentary are important (or less important than in fictional films)?

MI: There is no difference for me between the two in relation to aesthetics. Documentaries have to be aesthetic too – I am only interested in documentaries if they can be poetic in some way. We have to stop seeing documentaries as a form of journalism or reportage. This is one genre if you like but the form has so much more potential than that, yet few people see it that way.

Q - Music is an incredibly influential tool in cinema, especially in documentary where real people and situations are epitomised.  Music is used frequently in your work, what are your main reasons for using it?

MI: Music is another tool I have at my disposal to help create the feelings and emotions I want to express. Of course it can be over used and overly sentimental – you have to learn to be careful with music but I am always thinking of music when making my films. You need to earn the right in a film to evoke emotional responses and then the audience goes along with it. You cannot force that on the viewer.

Q - When conversing with your subjects you are never shy in allowing the audience to hear your voice (sometimes even see you). Documentary filmmakers are usually quite absolute when it comes to revealing or not revealing themselves in their work, is there a reason why you make your presence known?

MI: My questions reveal my interests and make transparent the relationship. I don’t want to pretend I am not there. My films are subjective as all good films should be and I need the audience to trust in me. To show myself in some way is crucial but it is not a preconceived plan it happens naturally. In Lift, I needed to establish my presence in the lift and the mirrors were perfect for this. In “Outside The Court” I wanted to reveal the premise from the start and even had someone filming me. I am not vain about this – the films are always concerned with the people I meet but they are subjective of course.

Outside The Court, Isaacs, 2011

Q - With the risk of overgeneralising, it appears the majority of documentaries that are emerging from the UK tend to focus on the journalistic side of the medium, rather than its cinematic value.  Why do you think this is and is it a good thing?

MI: It is a terrible thing and most of those films are not cinematic in any way and they exist just to communicate a message. They are made usually by people who have the foolish belief that films can change the world and the money comes from wealthy guilty people who are probably destroying the world with their business practices and then they want to “give back”. I am generalising a little, but most are like this and I am against these films because they are colonising the genre and squeezing out alternatives. Why people think cinema is a good medium for these films is beyond me – they never allow you to think for yourself or explore the mystery of life. They just want to play god and tell you something - they should be articles not films.

Q - What do you personally feel the difference is between a journalist film and a documentary (or is there even a difference)?

MI: A documentary is a film, a piece of cinema. It should be about the human condition not fishing quotas – about people not ideas. Films contain mystery and poetry – journalism is concerned with facts, opinions and information. Journalism claims objectivity- films should be subjective.

Q - What film of your own do you think worked best within your own standards and philosophies?

MI: They are all different yet ultimately the same. Lift is pure and simple – the others are more complicated in the form and structure – less simple, less pure.

Q - Are there any other documentaries (or possibly films in general) that have influenced your work?

MI: Many Many films of course, but I have to find my own way. Of course I borrow from others like we all do but I can only do what I can do. I love David Perlov, Johan Van De Keuken, Marcel Lozinski, Agnes Varda, Satyajit Ray- the list goes on…

Someday My Prince Will Come, Isaacs, 2005

Marc Isaacs new film “The Road: A Story Of Life and Death” will be screened (along with a Q&A) at Open City Doc Fest on Wed 6 Feb 2013, 19:00.

Marc Isaacs Personal Site

By Matthew E Carter

The first week of shooting is now finished and with it has come a clearer direction to our new feature film. A lot of things that originally go unconsidered as well as aspects of the screenplay that just didn’t work out on set start to shape the film in a way that couldn’t have been foreseen. Now with half of the shoot left to go in the new year, and possibly a further 3 months of post production, it will be a while before the true form of the film takes shape but for now here is a link to the Facebook page with info, stills and production shots…

http://www.facebook.com/CoffeeInWinter

28th October 2012 – 1st January 2013

As silly as it all sounds, watching films has always been therapeutic for me and my knowledge of Chinese cinema (including Taiwan and Hong Kong) is not as competent as it is with other world cinemas. Especially that of pre 1970s Chinese cinema.

I am already 9 days into it and it has for the first time in months got me watching films on a more consistent basis.

I will post short thoughts on each film I watch on my new Blog here

http://manjeetgill.tumblr.com/

Here’s a sample article about generating idea’s:

“Original ideas and unique pieces of work should never be the aim of any piece of work, nor should the duplication of another piece of work. I strongly believe that an individual’s personal experiences, loves, hates and issues are manifested in the work if the approach has been honest to one’s self.

Sitting down to brainstorm an original idea has proved fruitless to me on countless occasions, however on a random wondering an idea can appear out of apparently nowhere. More than likely at is a culmination of thoughts that occur throughout a day, month, year etc and the important thing for me is to write it down. These continuing thoughts begin to build over time and create a collage on a page and seem to form a narrative after some reorganising. Making films, watching films, talking to people, observing things, looking at paintings, listening to music, playing games, and probably many more, all mesh together in the mind, colliding with each other and repelling one another.

Where am I going with this? Well the point is that these ideas will come through different means and over time I’ve learned to just flow with it, without questioning if it is original or not. I have every confidence it will be because the ideas developed over time without force and have been shaped by me, regardless of where they have come from. Shaped by me because as an individual I am unique, and while I may have shared certain experiences with others, the combination of all of those experiences is specific to me, so any piece of work I produce, as long it is truthful to my existence, will be unique.”