#xan brooks

[britishfilminstitute]

🎧 Listen: Powell and Pressburger’s war-time fantasy is being brought back to UK cinemas in December. To celebrate Henry Barnes talks to author Xan Brooks and historian Hollie Price about the genesis of their magic propaganda.

[bookwormlily]

By his mid-30s the actor was living the dream, on top of the world. He snorts. 'And I was miserable pretty much all of the time.'

Alan Arkin on Hollywood success

[malibu-linda]

In case anyone is curious, here's what Christoph's lunch, during the Xan Brooks Guardian interview, looked similar to.

[bookowlnews]

the only emotion which doesn’t deceive is anxiety. All other emotions are fake. ... are we able to encounter in cinema the emotion of anxiety, or is cinema as such a fake? -- Cinema, as the art of appearances, tells us something about reality itself. It tells us something about how reality constitutes itself.

s. zizek

[existimatum]

Xan Brooks “The Wolf of Wall Street” Bespeaks Sophistication

★★★★¼

4.25 stars for Xan Brooks’s 652‑word review of “The Wolf of Wall Street” on Guardian [UK]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/dec/17/the-wolf-of-wall-street-first-look-review

Xan Brooks The Wolf of Wall Street frankly had me and all lovers of language as its own art form at ‘bespoke’----he can be my, our wing man anytime, especially when it comes to filmdom versus film, dumb.

Scrupulously objective in implying that this work’s helmer may have been a tad self-referential to a fault, Brooks Wolf is, then, to Scorcese what Lord Levin’s crown inquiry into the British tabloid press’s unlawful arrogance was to Rupert Murdoch.  

And, as such, Brooks judiciously---even judgmentally---consigns this film’s ‘just reporting the news of a true happening with human interest’ surface to the realm of anthem to one’s own artfulness.  

Quoting from a marital squabble betwixt the central crook in this portrayal of ‘truth’, Brooks leisurely, indeed, laser-like, points up the over-the-top-ness of it both the truth and its portrayal: “It’s a Greek tragedy!”

Summoning a memorable true moment from American politics---truthfully described by Hollywood types as a realm of ugly actors---the temptation proves too great to resist recalling the late Senator Lloyd Bentsen of Texas drolly informing one Dan Quayle (Bentsen likely saw it as Quail—and the latter wouldn’t have objected) that Bentsen had known Jack Kennedy, a friend of his, and, well, that Quail was just quail.

Think of Brooks, then, as Bentsen, advising Scorcese that his Wolf is no Taxi Driver, Goodfellas or Raging Bull.  It might simply be added that, insofar as its protagonist and possibly its content goes, it might just be…. raging bull.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/2MX9

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771305721

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771305721

IMDB: imdb.com/title/0993846

[existimatum]

Xan Brooks’ Stellar “Gravity” Review Shows How It’s Done

★★★★⅓

4.38 stars for Xan Brooks’s 461‑word review of “Gravity” on Guardian [UK]

http://www.theguardian.com/film/2013/aug/28/gravity-review-venice-film-festival

Xan Brooks’ “Gravity—first look review” courts the interstellar, and the result is stellar: a beguiling work that touches earth, takes for the stars, and hovers a while before guiding readers back home.

“Spare a thought,“ First Look Review encourages its readers, for some of the unlucky characters they’re introduced to in the first few moments. These people are earthbound, even vexingly so, and Brooks makes them a case-in-point. In First Look Review, space travel has been thoroughly democratized so even the least likely astronaut has access to the stars.

The meta fades into the immediate as Brooks delivers a thoroughly engaging critique that concerns itself most, it seems, with respect and generosity to the audience. It’s a syntactically perfect offering—words, brilliant ones, fall into place rather than implying the phenomenal mental effort that must certainly have gone into their choice.

Too soon, audiences are transported from their jaunt to the (figurative and literal) stars to a screening room, where they’re left to find their land legs in a final burst of imaginative wordplay and a coda that feels a little sad. It’s meant to.  First Look Review is, after all, entirely in control of its audience. The effect is resplendent.

A spoiler in the middle, and one that feels fairly dramatic, cuts like a knife. It’s the Achilles heel of what might have been this season’s perfect offering.

In spite of the misstep, audiences should waste no time whatever clamoring to read Brooks’ superior First Look Review.

Buy Tickets: fandango.com/gravity_151451

Original Post: e.xst.ma/tm/57F4

More Reviews: e.xst.ma/t/m/771205997

Rotten Tomatoes: rottentomatoes.com/m/771205997

IMDB: imdb.com/title/1454468

[27timescinema]

INTERVIEW: XAN BROOKS (FILM CRITIC)

by Erik Pettersson.

  1. What made you want to become a film critic?

I've always loved films and I've always loved writing, though I suppose it took me a while to marry the two. The key, I think, was a year I spent as a student on an exchange programme to Massachusetts. I took some film courses there with a terrific professor named Barry O'Connell, who screened these astonishing movies I'd never seen before (Fanny & Alexander, Nashville and The Thin Blue Line are three that stick in the mind) and then encouraged us to write about them. And then, after college, I was fortunate enough to find work (unpaid at first) reviewing films.

  2. Is it important to use a lot of different platforms, like Twitter, if you're a critic today?

We live in the age of multi-platform journalism, so I think it probably is. The danger, of course, is in spreading yourself too thin. If, in the space of a few hours, you feel impelled to tweet, shoot a video and write a review about the film you've just seen, there is an inevitable danger of repeating yourself.

  3. Are European movies different from other kinds of films? If so, for better or worse?

I'm wary of setting too much store by cultural or regional stereotypes. What we think of as the Hollywood movie was largely a result of European immigration, just as what we now think of as European cinema is often defined by the Hollywood movies that the European directors were raised on. So there is traffic in both directions and this is, by and large, a good thing. Maybe European films run to a slightly different, more deliberate rhythm; maybe there stories and characters are a little more nuanced and textured? Again, though, this doesn't always hold true. There are big, broad, dumb European movies and there are small, intricate, cerebral US pictures.

  4. How important do you think that independent cinema is?

It's crucial. You could argue that that is where all the really good ideas are born. Independent cinema is the drawing board, the workshop, the laboratory and the best stuff that comes out of the independent sector then percolates through to the rest of the industry.

  5. Is it necessary to know about society and history when reviewing films?

Again, it's crucial. Everything is political and even the most crass and cheesy movie says something about the world we are living in. Maybe that's why I've never got bored of the job. Film journalism doesn't feel like escapism to me; it's just another window on modern society and, as such, is endlessly interesting.

  6. Do you think that films broadens your world view or at least has the potential to do it?

Yes! Of course it's subjective and of course you're view of other cultures/other lives is being defined and conditioned by the movie itself. But if nothing else it's a great jumping-off point, an invitation to ask questions and do your own research.

  7. How do you think digital filmmaking has changed the film industry? Is it a good thing?

Digital film-making lowers the cost and so has enormous potential to democratise the medium and allow people from all walks of life to make a good-looking, professional motion picture. And this can only be a good thing. And yet, for some reason, it doesn't seem to be happening at the rate I would have liked. Or maybe it is and the problem is simply one of exhibition; of getting those pictures into cinemas. Personally I'd always rather watch a film in a cinema than on Vimeo or YouTube.

  8. What do you think about genre movies?

If you agree with the Joseph Campbell line that there are only seven stories in the world, then it follows that pretty much every movie is a genre movie and are therefore either good or bad, whatever the genre. Even something like Au Hasard Balthasar is a Soulful Animal Meets World genre movie. It's like Free Willy with religious symbolism.

  9. Having watched so many films, do you appreciate your favorite ones more or less?

Your relationship with them changes down the years. I suppose I have about 20 films that I consider my all-time favourites and will revisit each one about every five years or so. Most of the time they stand up. Sometimes they're not quite as great as I remember and therefore slip down (or sometimes off) the chart. There should always be a little movement and the chance for the occasional fresh movie to find its way into the premiere league.

  10. Is creativity and originality essential when writing a review?

You bet. Or what's the point of doing it?

  11. What do you think the importance of film criticism is?

Ostensibly it's about trying to discuss or make sense of the film in question - and by implication the world that the film inhabits. Ideally, though, it can also be a creative act in its own right. I've read pieces of film criticism that are way richer, more exciting and entertaining than the films they are criticising.

  12. What did you think about the movies that came out of the Venice Film Festival this year and what do you think about the festival in general?

I thought it was a little bit of a mixed bag. Infuriatingly, however, there was a lot of stuff I missed and I have heard great things about many of those films. But the Venice film festival is still wonderful. It's generally well programmed, well run and a constant pleasure to attend. Generally, I think, you go to Cannes for the excitement and Venice for the niceness.

  13. Is there any country or director that especially interesting to you right now?

Argh, God, so many that I can't think. My brain has log-jammed. I'm looking forward to seeing Nymphomaniac, the new Lars von Trier. He's reliably interesting, sometimes to a fault.

  14. What, in your opinion, makes a movie great?

A pure, strong frame for some chaos and doubt. That sounds glib and facetious, but I think it pretty much holds true.

  15. Since you've done a lot of interviews in your career, how do you go about making the people you talk to open up in a way that's constructive and unique?

Good question, I wish I knew. Maybe just try not to fake it. Don't treat them like idiots and don't treat them like gods. I don't necessarily agree that the celebrity junket interview is stage-managed and phoney. If nothing else, it's half-hour or an hour when you can pretty much ask someone whatever you want. I'm not sure I get to do that with some of my closest friends. Plus, and most importantly, people are fascinating. Ask your questions and - whether they like you or hate you, whether they're open or guarded - it's still going to be fascinating.

  16. What would be your advice to burgeoning film critics?

Always say what you think, not what you think other people will want you to think. Try to avoid non-specific adjectives ("excellent", "superb" etc). And never use the word "interestingly" (it should all be interesting, otherwise it wouldn't be in the piece).

[cuorerivelatore]

Over the past 10 days we've witnessed great art and potent social commentary; the birth of the cosmos and the end of the world. Turns out what we really wanted all along was a scene in which a man gets his head stomped in a lift. They welcome it in like a long-lost relation.