A good weekend contains a run, these days along the coastal path, and some social interaction. This weekend did! The social interaction planned was a second film night. The first one ended up undocumented on the blog; I admit the blog is biased towards events I have pictures of. And one does not normally take pictures of people watching a movie, and images from movies one can find online tend to be copyrighted. But there was a film night! Some of the inspiration for this event stemmed from good experiences in York, and the paucity of public screenings in Bangor and surroundings, and the realisation my taste in films overlaps strongly with that of David.
The first screening, which was attended by David, Guy, Kate and me, contained the film "Everybody's Famous", which I had seen in the cinema in Amsterdam with my sister when it came out in 2000. I had bought it because I had a pretty awful reputation with regard to films; I do have a taste for very bleak movies, and this is a feel-good specimen. The second screening had been "Tuvalu", which David had brought. It was a very weird film! And a great one at that.
This time we weren't decided in advance. We would just all bring what we had lying around. But about half an hour before it would all kick off, Guy pulled out, and Kate with him. Oh dear! A bit of failing communication ensued. In the end it was a two-person-only film night. Oh well. My TV is rather small, so it's hard to fit four people within easy watching distance of it! And it was good. I provided "The Diving bell and the Butterfly" and David came up with "le Havre"; a Kaurismäki film. I love those!
As with the coastal path runs, I enjoy this hesitant start of a new tradition. I might have to go and order some films!
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
Showing posts with label film. Show all posts
31 May 2015
21 April 2015
Fog of Sex
What on Earth is fog of sex? I must admit, I'm still not quite sure. One thing I do know: it's a project by the University of South Wales that involves both scientific research, and a movie inspired by its results (look here, here and here for more info, and watch the trailer here). And what is it about? Students who work in the sex industry. I could imagine they use the phrase "fog" as it seems that the students in question, the people who purchase their services, and the universities these students attend all tend to prefer to shroud themselves in tactical silence about the topic. Nobody seemed to have ever studied the topic before, but it became clear the phenomenon was huge. And if nobody talks about it, nobody thinks about how to deal with it. Sex work is something society probably never will get rid of, and then one has best deal with it the best possible way. Make sure anyone considering taking this step gets (or at least can get) all the information they need. And among that information belongs a good evaluation of the risks. And one should make sure universities have someone students can turn to when they have issues.
There was an email about the screening of the film, with a Q&A afterwards with the filmmaker. I decided to go! And didn't regret it.
The film was made as follows: for the scientific project students had been asked to fill out questionnaires, and there was some place students were encouraged to go to for a chat if they were involved in sex work. Some of these students were interviewed about their experiences. And some of these interviews were transcribed, and then re-enacted with actors. And these staged interviews were then edited into a movie. Simple! If you wish to (and have an opportunity to) see this movie yourself, stop here; spoiler alert! Continue at the three hashes.
They started with a girl who posed in several stages of undressedness for various magazines. She was entirely open about it, seemed to be quite fine with it, and had even brought her grandma to her first photoshoot.
There was a girl who had a website on which she sold knickers she had worn. A woman who worked as a very short-skirted cleaner. Then it got a bit more grim. There was the phone sex worker, who noticed it tends to be the people who want strange things who phone such lines. Her first call involved a bloke who got off on her retching for prolonged amounts of time. It seemed to get weirder than that.
There was a porn actress who had been set up by her "boyfriend". And in the end there were the ladies who had actual sex for money. There were two of these; one who wanted more money, and figured she could earn that in this way. She just blew it on the usual stuff. And she had experiences of men who wanted things that had not been agreed on, and who hadn't taken "no" for an answer. It sounded awful awful awful. She had stopped.
And then there was a girl of whom government figured she should be financially supported by her parents, but her parents refused, and she struggled to make ends meet. She got behind with the rent, and would be evicted if she hadn't thought of something quickly. But she did. She hated it, but she didn't become homeless, and did manage to pay tuition fees. She spoke of the awful considerations you have to make. Have a man pay beforehand, and they get an inflated sense of entitlement which can be very dangerous. Ask them to pay afterwards, and they may refuse. What could she do to make them, after all? She realised she risked her life every day. But she wanted to graduate.
###
So all student sex workers are female? No, the study revealed that more than half are men. But are the men willing to show up for a chat, and even be interviewed? Heck no.
The filmmaker also revealed that two of these ladies had got into trouble with their universities. The scantily clad model had had to fight for her place in uni, and the last-mentioned lady had been found out by her university, and had been forced to move. The universities claimed they brought them into disrepute. And the filmmaker did admit it wasn't likely universities would show off their amazing sex workers' policies on open days, but this seems decidedly unjust. It's not as if they have in their regulations that you can't earn money on the side like that. And maybe some of it may be against the law, but surely half-naked posing isn't.
He also mentioned all main TV stations had refused to air the film. Silly; the issue doesn't go away when you ignore it! But maybe the word will spread through the universities where it is screened, and social media. And blogs...
There was an email about the screening of the film, with a Q&A afterwards with the filmmaker. I decided to go! And didn't regret it.
The film was made as follows: for the scientific project students had been asked to fill out questionnaires, and there was some place students were encouraged to go to for a chat if they were involved in sex work. Some of these students were interviewed about their experiences. And some of these interviews were transcribed, and then re-enacted with actors. And these staged interviews were then edited into a movie. Simple! If you wish to (and have an opportunity to) see this movie yourself, stop here; spoiler alert! Continue at the three hashes.
They started with a girl who posed in several stages of undressedness for various magazines. She was entirely open about it, seemed to be quite fine with it, and had even brought her grandma to her first photoshoot.
There was a girl who had a website on which she sold knickers she had worn. A woman who worked as a very short-skirted cleaner. Then it got a bit more grim. There was the phone sex worker, who noticed it tends to be the people who want strange things who phone such lines. Her first call involved a bloke who got off on her retching for prolonged amounts of time. It seemed to get weirder than that.
There was a porn actress who had been set up by her "boyfriend". And in the end there were the ladies who had actual sex for money. There were two of these; one who wanted more money, and figured she could earn that in this way. She just blew it on the usual stuff. And she had experiences of men who wanted things that had not been agreed on, and who hadn't taken "no" for an answer. It sounded awful awful awful. She had stopped.
And then there was a girl of whom government figured she should be financially supported by her parents, but her parents refused, and she struggled to make ends meet. She got behind with the rent, and would be evicted if she hadn't thought of something quickly. But she did. She hated it, but she didn't become homeless, and did manage to pay tuition fees. She spoke of the awful considerations you have to make. Have a man pay beforehand, and they get an inflated sense of entitlement which can be very dangerous. Ask them to pay afterwards, and they may refuse. What could she do to make them, after all? She realised she risked her life every day. But she wanted to graduate.
###
So all student sex workers are female? No, the study revealed that more than half are men. But are the men willing to show up for a chat, and even be interviewed? Heck no.
The filmmaker also revealed that two of these ladies had got into trouble with their universities. The scantily clad model had had to fight for her place in uni, and the last-mentioned lady had been found out by her university, and had been forced to move. The universities claimed they brought them into disrepute. And the filmmaker did admit it wasn't likely universities would show off their amazing sex workers' policies on open days, but this seems decidedly unjust. It's not as if they have in their regulations that you can't earn money on the side like that. And maybe some of it may be against the law, but surely half-naked posing isn't.
He also mentioned all main TV stations had refused to air the film. Silly; the issue doesn't go away when you ignore it! But maybe the word will spread through the universities where it is screened, and social media. And blogs...
02 October 2013
Sanctum
"I saw that movie, and it put me off caving forever!" That was the review of the film "Sanctum" by one of my friends. I had borrowed it from another friend. And I can see why it doesn't do much for the popularity of caving and cave diving! And at the beginning it even says "based on a true story".
So what was my verdict? Well let's start with a small synopsis for those who haven't seen it, and don't intend to. Take that as a spoiler alert!
The movie is about a bunch of cave divers who are exploring a big cave in Papua New Guinea. At some point they start bringing newbie sons and girlfriends in. They explain in the beginning the cave is 2km deep, and they haven't yet found where it drains into the ocean, which it undoubtedly does. And on the day the film starts, the newcomers go down, while a storm is forecast. While the newbies are received at the forward camp, two of the divers find a new passage, which looks promising, but something goes wrong and one of them dies.
Then the storm hits, and the cave starts flooding. They try to go out the way they had come in, but there's too much water coming down, and a few already die trying. They then decide to try to cave-dive their way out, and go through the passage found earlier. And along the way one dies after the other. The three last survivors are the veteran cave explorer, his 17-year old son, and some chap. Of course the boy and his dad get a lot closer before the third guy wants all the food, light and diving equipment and kills the dad. He then feels remorse, leaves without diving kit, and drowns too. The boy finds the exit and survives.
So what did I think of it? I found the whole father-and-son bollocks a bit boring. I was in it for the caving! And it's fun to watch just for that reason. And the best fun is picking on stuff you think you know better. To list a few:
*They bring newbies into a 2km deep cave. Yeah right!
*The entrance pitch is several hundred metres deep, and they have rigged it just with ropes hanging over the rocky edge. If you do that, your rope has worn through before you are halfway down. And if someone or something dislodges a rock you are right in its path; a helmet will not protect you from a rock that has been gaining speed for five seconds.
*When they abseil down, they just jump, hands in the air. I can't imagine anybody doing that. They descend on racks; they have no stopping mechanism, so if you jump and descend rather rapidly you probably gain too much speed and crash. When they come down they are completely stable; mind you, they came down a very long rope, and even if they're static (they would be) you expect them to bounce like nothing on earth when you change speed.
*All cavers wear a Petzl Duo as a headlight, attached to their helmet by straps. It's the most basic and unassuming caving light there is. If you're doing a serious expedition in a cave with large spaces, you make sure you have a stronger light. And you screw it to your helmet! Firstly: straps snag, and secondly; they come off. You don't want your lamp to fall off mid-pitch.
*A girl video-tapes an interview with the boy, while he has his headlight on. You wouldn't see a thing.
*A girl tries to prussick out of a pitch, which doesn't work because of a) a waterfall coming down on her b) the rock the rope is attached to coming down. But when she's struggling in the waterfall you see she is tied into the rope, rather than prussicking along it.
*A guy falls, and is seriously hurt. A guy attend to him, and shouts at the others he is just going to kill him, because he is beyond hope anyway. Maybe someone would do that, but it's against all casualty care rules, and also plain unfriendly. The shouting about it, I mean; the improvised euthanasia is probably defendable, although not to a judge. But the executer doesn't survive the movie anyway, so he wouldn't care.
*A girl descends a rope, and gets her hair caught in her descender. This is very realistic; everybody with long hair who regularly abseils has been there. (Even funnier are the stories of men getting their beard stuck in their ascenders.) But they turn it into a drama; she screams her lungs out, takes her helmet off, rips half her scalp off, and then she decides to cut herself loose. And she doesn't use any force, but accidentally cuts through the rope she's hanging from. Yeah right!
*The team runs out of light. Not strange, seeing that they are regularly filmed with both their normal and their spare light on. If you are trying to get out and don't know how long it will take, you are a bit more conservative with your light. And you would NOT go underground in a place like that with enough battery power to last you for, say, 100 hours.
*At some point, the boy and his dad see daylight, but don't realise it for minutes. Then the boy has a brainwave; "dad, I can see you!" Believe me; after only hours underground you notice when you see daylight.
And after all that I was curious what the original story had been, so I googled a bit. It is very, VERY loosely based on a story! The inspiration came from an expedition in Australia, which went pear-shaped when a storm broke loose and triggered landslides that blocked the entrance. Two cavers got out in time, and the rest had to stay put for a while as a surface team dug them out. All survived. A much better story, really!
So what was my verdict? Well let's start with a small synopsis for those who haven't seen it, and don't intend to. Take that as a spoiler alert!
The movie is about a bunch of cave divers who are exploring a big cave in Papua New Guinea. At some point they start bringing newbie sons and girlfriends in. They explain in the beginning the cave is 2km deep, and they haven't yet found where it drains into the ocean, which it undoubtedly does. And on the day the film starts, the newcomers go down, while a storm is forecast. While the newbies are received at the forward camp, two of the divers find a new passage, which looks promising, but something goes wrong and one of them dies.
A real cave diver. Pic by Pete Nawrocky.
Then the storm hits, and the cave starts flooding. They try to go out the way they had come in, but there's too much water coming down, and a few already die trying. They then decide to try to cave-dive their way out, and go through the passage found earlier. And along the way one dies after the other. The three last survivors are the veteran cave explorer, his 17-year old son, and some chap. Of course the boy and his dad get a lot closer before the third guy wants all the food, light and diving equipment and kills the dad. He then feels remorse, leaves without diving kit, and drowns too. The boy finds the exit and survives.
So what did I think of it? I found the whole father-and-son bollocks a bit boring. I was in it for the caving! And it's fun to watch just for that reason. And the best fun is picking on stuff you think you know better. To list a few:
*They bring newbies into a 2km deep cave. Yeah right!
*The entrance pitch is several hundred metres deep, and they have rigged it just with ropes hanging over the rocky edge. If you do that, your rope has worn through before you are halfway down. And if someone or something dislodges a rock you are right in its path; a helmet will not protect you from a rock that has been gaining speed for five seconds.
A caver abseiling down the pitch that they use as the entrance pit in the film, although this one is in Mexico. You can see the caver (black speck) hangs away from the edge, to avoid rope rub.
*When they abseil down, they just jump, hands in the air. I can't imagine anybody doing that. They descend on racks; they have no stopping mechanism, so if you jump and descend rather rapidly you probably gain too much speed and crash. When they come down they are completely stable; mind you, they came down a very long rope, and even if they're static (they would be) you expect them to bounce like nothing on earth when you change speed.
*All cavers wear a Petzl Duo as a headlight, attached to their helmet by straps. It's the most basic and unassuming caving light there is. If you're doing a serious expedition in a cave with large spaces, you make sure you have a stronger light. And you screw it to your helmet! Firstly: straps snag, and secondly; they come off. You don't want your lamp to fall off mid-pitch.
*A girl video-tapes an interview with the boy, while he has his headlight on. You wouldn't see a thing.
*A girl tries to prussick out of a pitch, which doesn't work because of a) a waterfall coming down on her b) the rock the rope is attached to coming down. But when she's struggling in the waterfall you see she is tied into the rope, rather than prussicking along it.
*A guy falls, and is seriously hurt. A guy attend to him, and shouts at the others he is just going to kill him, because he is beyond hope anyway. Maybe someone would do that, but it's against all casualty care rules, and also plain unfriendly. The shouting about it, I mean; the improvised euthanasia is probably defendable, although not to a judge. But the executer doesn't survive the movie anyway, so he wouldn't care.
*A girl descends a rope, and gets her hair caught in her descender. This is very realistic; everybody with long hair who regularly abseils has been there. (Even funnier are the stories of men getting their beard stuck in their ascenders.) But they turn it into a drama; she screams her lungs out, takes her helmet off, rips half her scalp off, and then she decides to cut herself loose. And she doesn't use any force, but accidentally cuts through the rope she's hanging from. Yeah right!
*The team runs out of light. Not strange, seeing that they are regularly filmed with both their normal and their spare light on. If you are trying to get out and don't know how long it will take, you are a bit more conservative with your light. And you would NOT go underground in a place like that with enough battery power to last you for, say, 100 hours.
*At some point, the boy and his dad see daylight, but don't realise it for minutes. Then the boy has a brainwave; "dad, I can see you!" Believe me; after only hours underground you notice when you see daylight.
And after all that I was curious what the original story had been, so I googled a bit. It is very, VERY loosely based on a story! The inspiration came from an expedition in Australia, which went pear-shaped when a storm broke loose and triggered landslides that blocked the entrance. Two cavers got out in time, and the rest had to stay put for a while as a surface team dug them out. All survived. A much better story, really!
26 November 2010
Taxi Driver
Can one live to be 34 without ever seeing Taxi Driver? Apparently! It's such an iconic film, but I had never come around to watch it. And then there was a lecture about it. If there's anything that will inspire you to see a film then that would be it. So I borrowed the DVD from the lecturer in question, got Till involved, and Federico, who also lectures about it but had never seen it either, failed to convince some other interested people, cooked some food, and then: off to the filthy streets of New York!
The movie is about the same age as me, but it still is as topical as ever, I'd say. Maybe even more than when it was made. Someone failing to see a purpose in life, and then resorting to some random act of importance, trying to become a martyr for a non-existent cause, and probably making things only worse for the rest of the world. That's quite modern, isn't it? I'm glad I finally saw it.
The movie is about the same age as me, but it still is as topical as ever, I'd say. Maybe even more than when it was made. Someone failing to see a purpose in life, and then resorting to some random act of importance, trying to become a martyr for a non-existent cause, and probably making things only worse for the rest of the world. That's quite modern, isn't it? I'm glad I finally saw it.
Subscribe to:
Comments (Atom)
