Malcolm Turnbull and the wrath of the film industry

There may never have been a Prime Minister before who blithely allowed his Treasurer to cut into money flowing into the PM’s own, very specific, constituency in the way that Malcolm Turnbull has done in recent days. Treasurer Scott (‘work, save,invest’) Morrison announced the latest cuts in the Federal Government’s Mid-Year Economic Forecasts. The PM was nowhere to be seen and in fact took off for a one dayer with Prime Minister Shinzo Abe, one of the current crop of far right Japanese politicians busily attempting to rewrite history and thus a man not to be trusted on anything from building submarines to resuming the slaughter of whales in the Southern Ocean.

Which left the film industry to howl at the moon as ever more money was siphoned out of its government provided reserves. This is the third such extraction since Abbott and now Turnbull took up Canberra residence in somewhere else other than The Lodge. What the film industry has done to the Liberal Party, apart from presenting itself as a soft target, is hard to guess. Whatever, Prime Minister Turnbull, in whose electorate of Wentworth lies much of the industry's network of studios, production houses, supporting businesses and key personnel, has been conspicuously silent on this, as on many of the other matters for which there was hope that he might draw some decisive ends to the abominations of the Abbott Credlin era.

Not to be apparently. Needless to say the affected institution, Screen Australia, far from exercising its statutory independence in the manner of Gillian Triggs, has meekly accepted its fate. Inside Film reported that  ‘a spokeswoman for Screen Australia said while any cut was difficult, Screen Australia understood the fiscal position of the government.’ By which we take it to mean that Screen Australia, like the rest of the apparatus of the Federal Government probably also accepts that its fate is what it is in some very large part because News Corp, Google, Amazon and more than five hundred others of the biggest listed companies in Australia pay no tax and thus Federal Government spending has to be squeezed to accommodate the situation wherein the iron ore, oil and gas companies have stopped being tax milch cows and the Commonwealth budget has opened up some possibly catastrophic black holes.  Pity the film industry, always seen as a vanity come cottage affair needing perpetual subsidy to survive.

The only peeps I’ve been able to discern came from the SMH which published an editorial about the film industry and how Malcolm and his mostly boys were getting it wrong.  This was followed by a stern letter to the editor from industry veteran Anthony Buckley but nothing else. 

Then there was a press statement from the Screen Producers Association which said “the fresh funding cuts to Screen Australia would affect innovation and the global competitiveness of the Australian screen production industry. For the third time in 18 months there has been a funding cut to Screen Australia. This efficiency dividend comes after almost $4 million was cut over the forward estimates earlier this year, on top of $38 million the year before. In the five years to 2018-19 this will total more than $50 million in combined cuts across budgets.

Far from recognising the personal hurt inflicted on his very own constituents, the PM, in a manner to which we are becoming increasingly accustomed when he has to deal with bad news, has said nothing indeed disappeared from the front and centre position leaving it to the already increasingly hapless Sco Mo to bluster about it all. That’s interesting and it’s not a tactic normally followed by any politician who smells that those closest to him, who might indeed affect his future quite materially, are not happy.  I know of at least one major industry figure, one of the PM’s constituents, who has written to him in outraged terms. I’m waiting to hear whether a reply will be forthcoming especially in these times when the art of letter writing to one's constituents has just about disappeared.

The Current Cinema - Dilwale - Adrienne McKibbins reports on another blockbuster that opened world wide this week

Dilwale. Directed by Rohit Shetty, Produced by Gauri Khan & Rohit Shetty, Script by Yunus Sajawal, Dialogue by Sajid Farhad. Cast: Kajol, Kriti Sanon, Shah Rukh Khan, Varun Dhawan. India, 2015, 154 minutes. 

I have not done a review of this film yet, and I am almost reluctant to ...It has been slammed by the majority of Indian critics (which is not surprising for reasons I will explain when I write something about the director.) 

However, Dilwale prevented Star Wars being released in India on the same day as everywhere else, and was put back a week, so it did not have to compete with a Shah Rukh Khan (SRK)- Kajol starrer.

While the critics are mostly less than impressed, the masses seem to have loved the film, SRK gets multiple tweets a day from industry and fans, saying how much they love the film.. etc.. etc.. And of course the masses are what counts.  This is the first time that Red Chillies (SRK's company which co produced the film) is also the distributor.. so he will be laughing all the way to the bank as they say...

A few facts of interest

#Dilwale has had the biggest opening in the Gulf region and outrun a huge franchise film  Star Wars. It is the number 1 film in the Gulf currently.

#In UK, the film has had the highest opening of 2015 of all Bollywood movies released this year. It is at number 2 on the top 10 charts of ALL films released in the UK this week.

#The Australian audience has declared another success story for the film. It is the biggest opening Bollywood film in Australia of 2015 and the biggest ever for SRK.

# It stands strong at the number 4 position of the Box Office charts in USA and number two position in Malaysia and New Zealand.

#Overseas Dilwale has grossed a phenomenal Rs. 56 crores (approx. $8 million) over the first weekend. With the holiday period setting in, it seems set for a good second and third week after the first week is complete,.

 #Dilwale has taken the biggest opening in Gulf region and outrun a huge franchise film like Star Wars. It is the number 1 film in Gulf currently.

# It stands strong at the number 4 position of the Box Office charts in USA and number second position in Malaysia and New Zealand.

#In India the ticket prices dropped from today, for week day screenings. If the film makes a certain amount of money and is considered a family entertainment it becomes tax free..

Defending Cinephilia (9) - Scholar and lifelong cinephile David Hare reports from his vantage point in Wellington, NZ

Thanks to a second year running for the New Zealand International Film Festival (NZIFF) since moving here to Wellington. Under the inspired grace of director Bill Gosden, the NZIFF suppplied my best pics of the year, with only one exception outside in commercial release.

The exception was Polanski’s dazzling two hander, Venus Au Fourrure (France/Poland) from 2014 with his muse and wife Emmanuelle Seigner giving a multi faceted performance of outstanding wit and skill and Mathieu Amalric seemingly “doubling” for Polanksi as the impish and ultimately submissive director of the nominative play. This and  The Ghost Writer (UK/France/Germany, 2010) are simply Polanski at peak form and I feel as though he is literally the last living director of the grand classical narrative tradition and seamless invisible mise en scene.

Now, from the NZIFF, 

1. Hou Hsiao-hsien’s exercise in pure form, The Assassin (Taiwan, 2015),  is from a wuxia narrative which, it would appear, is one of several template tales of clan and territory war which are culturally familiar to Chinese audiences of a certain age. What is clear for me (after three viewings now and even the reading of a Dostoyevskian family character chart) the personalities are all doubles, sister for sister, Sage for Sage, Governor for Governor, older woman for older woman. Hou appears to despatch the narrative details with either highly abbreviated and expertly edited action scenes lasting no more than a minute, or  much longer dialogue sequences outlining yet more narrative, which are shot for minutes at a time with a seemingly still but actually constantly shifting camera through endless layers of Sternbergian decoration. This includes multiple planes of candle lit silk curtains, while the camera seems to eventually lose interest in the “story” for the sake of attending to the minute but electrifying plays of the candle light and wild color patterns on now visible now invisible figures hidden in the prosceniumed Academy ratio frame.

The end of the picture is completed with the last of Hou’s majestic wide and incredible deep focus shots with lenses that appear to capture literally infinite depth with razor sharp clarity. And we’re finally given a cinema which seems to be locating itself, like a couple of Hou’s later films, further and further away from character and narrative and into a Matisse like realm of pure color and form. Best of the year. 

Ethan Hawke’s Seymour: An Introduction (USA, 2015). One of quite a few very fine documentaries from the year which were totally immersed in their subjects, not vehicles for their makers’ egos. This is an homage of very, very deep affection for this fine pianist who dipped out of a professional career while young and escaped the limelight of fame while gradually making a life of quiet but profound artistry mentoring gifted students.  Not a perfect film, which to me made it even more urgently important and necessary to be seen in an age where instantaneity and fame are paramount while quality and real genius are often quietly ignored.  

Inherent Vice (Paul Thomas Anderson, USA, 2014) had me in its clutches by the time we arrived at the Wet Pussy Camper Van. Maybe you need to be totally disreputable with a stoner past like mine to get it but he’s the great chronicler of Los Angles and by extension the USA in the 20^th century.

Kiss Me Kate (George Sidney,USA, 1953) is neither the best Sidney musical nor the best 3D movie from the 50s era but it has Ann Miller, Bob Fosse, Bobby Van, Tommy Royle and Carol Haney dancing, itself a miracle.  And Sidney’s direction and Fosse’s choreography for 'From this Moment On' is one of the most privileged five minutes in American cinema. And in amazing 3D which the irrepressible Sidney seizes like a duck on speed with planar tracks cranes, twists and spins in three long takes. Hair raising.

Myrisalav Slaboshpytskiy’s astonishing first feature The Tribe (Ukraine, 2014) is made in something like eleven long single takes of from four to ten minutes each with an entirely mute cast who perform their dialogue with signing. There is just not space here to do justice but Slaboshpytskiy is a major new talent and this is a work of unique formal breakthrough. Woefully underseen. Mordant, bleak, funny, black caustic work.

A LETDOWN from the same festival program:

45 Years (Andrew Haigh, UK, 2015)– this was going to be wonderful and it could have been if only Andrew Haigh had cast almost anyone else in the female lead but Charlotte Rampling.  Never a favored actor by me, her performance here is now dominated by glacially dead eyes and a range from A to A+. Haigh showed in Weekend (UK, 2011) and his two shorts a skill with writing and directing actors which is only matched currently by Ceylan, and the nuances that might have come from the wife in this beautifully crafted chamber piece are underlined at every turn in a frankly destructive performance. I don’t write off Haigh though.

Blu Rays and some DVDs:

From Koch Media Germany Canyon Passage (Jacques Tourneur, USA, 1946) in a lovely refined Technicolor transfer. I now think this might be Tourneur’s masterpiece for dynamism, elusive purpose, the sheer rush of life and characters discovered between the two mysteries of arriving and then departing after the climactic meeting with the Demon.  

A Universal DVD on demand of Sternberg’s An American Tragedy (USA, 1931) from a very good UCLA 35mm interpos. Now for some Jo on Blu Ray please...

MK2 France’s Blu Ray of my favourite Carne of all, Hotel du Nord (France, 1938) not English friendly but one is hopeful for a UK subbed release next year.

Two top grade Farrow movies on DVD, Alias Nick Beal (La Sconfitta di Satana) (USA, 1949), pretty clearly a bootleg, on an Italian DVD but more than watchable.  And from Koch Media again the wonderful Night has a Thousand Eyes (USA, 1948).

Twilight Time’s gorgeous transfer from a Schawn Belston/Fox remaster of Fullers’ great House of Bamboo.(USA, 1955)  A must have. 

Belston and Fox again for providing superb new 2k scans for the BFI three 40s Preminger set including Fallen Angel (USA, 1945), Whirlpool (USA, 1953) and Where the Sidewalk Ends (USA, 1953) .

And Belston/Fox once more for a spanking new 4k for Masters of Cinema's (MoC) drop dead gorgeous Pickup on South Street (USA, 1953).

Kino Lorber’s Blu Ray of Pitfall(USA, 1948) finally from an excellent 35mm source through UCLA and the ever dapper and handsome Eddie Muller.

And a big tick to senior technician David Mackenzie at MoC for remastering a gorgeous new encode of the recent 4K of The Quiet Man (USA, 1952) which US label Olive released in a somewhat compromised transfer less than two years ago. The picture on the MoC disc now shines and glows with sweet color and grain and Irish mist and firelight.   As it must.

The Current Cinema - Ben Gibson examines Spielberg's technique in BRIDGE OF SPIES

Adam asked me about BRIDGE OF SPIES, which we saw on DVD a few weeks ago. In the Spielberg canon it's up there in the top five easily; strikingly and economically well-written, full of rich detail and then bolstered by a few good and eccentric character ideas perhaps from around Coen-ville. But it lets itself down in quite formal, filmic, ways at its end. 

The key foreshadowings here are YOUNG MR LINCOLN, MR SMITH GOES TO WASHINGTON and of course THE SPY WHO CAME IN FROM THE COLD. Fascinating how American liberal fiction can remain so patriotic and respectful while completely sacrificing any claims for integrity enjoyed by either the legislature or the key agencies of the state -- just as long as the legal branch draws in a few of those naive but earthy and determined unwilling heroes who've-actually-read-the-constitution-and-think-they-genuinely-know-what-its-all-about. So much of Capra, Ford and Lumet is about this hero, and their impossible charisma, with Tom Hanks just getting better and better with age anyway, but also getting bigger and bigger by channeling our much-needed Jimmy Stewart saviour (yes and Henry Fonda, Spencer Tracy and Paul Newman, but essentially it's street-smart Jimmy), film by film. 

In a year with the Trump primary campaign this old-Republican stalwart -- beloved of Aaron Sorkin, recently in Jeff Daniels dry NEWSROOM monologues and Wozniak's humanist interjections -- actually feels potentially radical rather than dusted-off, and that carries the whole experience forwards gracefully. As important, the film makes to celebrate the Americanism of diversity of creed pretty deeply, by allowing the space for, and reveling in, the slowed-up world of Mark Rylance's laconic Glasgow stand-up of a painter-spy, a man who needs defending because he-doesn't-know-what-you're-talking-about-and-it-just-doesn't-bother-him-because-he's-not-from-here. It's a wonderful and actually a very modern turn, which also attracts most of the film's best dialogue. Of course it's worth pointing out the real dramatic point of such a 'standing man' would be that things still go very badly around him but he himself holds together, the actual inhumanity of history, while sadly for this big idea Hanks actually holds our world together as well in his spare time, making things pretty trite at times. 

Perhaps the best scene to consider in some detail is Hanks' evening home visit to Dakin Matthews' cuddly and well-meaning asshole of a judge. The main business involves his Honour putting on a bow tie, seeking out best light in two wall mirrors, with his back always to the supplicant, while the wife hovers around with a whisky glass until our hero is abruptly back on the street with the verdict "Quite a clever speech" . The blocking is doing more than half the character work here, taking us into the protagonist's effort-in-frustration with graphic directness. And yes I feel it's an achievement in interior blocking reminiscent of Ray or Hitchcock on good days, and something beautiful which happens quite routinely in formally ambitious Spielberg. Ditto the use of museum-like open spaces and bureaucratic distances around the wonderfully creepy Alan Alda's big office table at work. The great Janusz Kaminski -- almost in self-parody mode with a truly laughable number of dramatic spaces adjoining somewhere else unseen through an opaque interior window which just happens to be powerfully floodlit today -- in the end works very imposingly, maybe because Cold War chiaroscuro lies at the base of his dramatic world. 

What are the biggest problems then? As usual in American studio cinema (not wishing to let everyone else off too much, though), over-emphasis, confusion and tinkering somehow destroy the force and meaning of the last 15 minutes, again,

     1. There are too many endings to allow for any narrative discipline: is this work about the Donovan-Abel relationship and their future shared understanding, or about the wily American public misunderstanding history, or about Donovan's reputation-through-risk with his very own folks? Of course all can be allowed in to some degree, but we need a stronger p-o-v here to make it in any way forceful. 
     2. Scoring errors -- Compare the scene where Donovan and others witness the sniper shootings at the Berlin Wall from the train back to Zoo station -- which is somehow cliched but strong --- although the idea is a reminder of some dumb Disneyfied poor-old-Europeans-being-nasty-to-each-other lament, Spielberg's dramatisation is about the shared witnessing of the deaths IN THE CARRIAGE -- compare that scene with the cleverly-written echo where some Manhattan kids are seen from an NY train window jumping a yard fence. Why is this echo so underpowered? Because the 'live' sound of the train on its tracks there, which I would expect might help make us lump-throated about our freedoms -- is completely replaced by a thundering didn't-we-do-well-but-maybe-the-audience-is-dumb-so-let's-just-go-for-it round of scoring. There's hardly a moment of direct sound without underscore in the last act, and the scoring over him lying diagonally on his own bed as his wife looks on is if anything an even worse over-emphasis mistake. 
     3. This is a sharply-made film of angles and coverage about physical bids for power, but with all the money thrown at empty technical ambitions come, as so often, those shots where the camera rises gently on a crane and pulls out and away on the last few lines, with that condescending you-know-something-pretty-significant-might-have-just-happened appliqued flourish, often with a long cross-dissolve thrown it, along the way squashing any hard sound cuts. When Spielberg sticks to a strong formal idea in cinema -- e.g. the seeing of all adults without their heads, from the 5-year-old height, in ET: the Extra-Terrestrial (USA, 1982), everything tends to build resonance. When someone adds in some of this dumb 'epic' stuff for him, and then hopelessly all-of-it-at-once for the finale, yes it all tends to dissolve into so much mush. More than enough said.

Defending Cinephilia (8) - Max Berghouse offers some kind thoughts

Julien Duvivier

1. For most of my life I have been subject to greater or lesser obloquy from fellow film enthusiasts, most of whom I consider to be at the very least as intelligent, sensitive and committed to cinema as am I, for my respect for the oeuvre of Julien Duvivier. To put him on the same pedestal as say Renoir or Carne was a sign at the very least of my contrariness (and I must concede there is something of that in my personality) and a consistent strain in my personality to regard extremely highly the "diligent professional" – which M. Duvivier certainly was, over the "artist". So it was with unbounded enthusiasm that I embarked upon a critical review of all of this Master' s work under both the generous encouragement and astute editing of Geoffrey Gardner. I have had the opportunity of reviewing many films I've seen before, even though years in the past and bringing to them hopefully a more mature and critical understanding as well as viewing films I had not seen before and all with the tolerable certainty that Geoffrey would publish what I wanted to write.

I feel enormously satisfied that a wider audience might come to, even if not a great affection for this Master, a greater respect and understanding of his work, and indeed his life as it unfolds through his work.

William Randolph Hearst

2. As to the power of cinema itself, there is simply no better example of the way in which cinema can give us "truth", even when this is objectively unverifiable, was one Citizen Kane (Orson Welles, USA, 1941). Nearly everyone takes the view that his progenitor in real life, William Randolph Hearst was, like Kane, a deeply and fundamentally unhappy man. That's not so: despite the normal human vicissitudes of life, Hearst was very happy. Pretty obviously, if you have loads of money, you have every reason to be happy! Yet even historians writing about Hearst, have to make very clear that the cinema image is incorrect. If cinema did not possess this power to create images in our minds, which are very difficult to shake, this would not be necessary.

In my own viewing life, I recently saw Springfield Rifle (André de Toth, USA, 1952), starring Gary Cooper, a film which was released before my time but which I must have originally seen in the early 1960s as part of my exploration of the director who had at last been getting some consistent work. The director fascinated me because between films – and that was often a long period of time, he made his living from an orange orchard. The Springfield rifle of the title is substantially irrelevant to the plot, and indeed is not a "rifle" at all. It is a "carbine" or a rifle with a short barrel, customarily used by cavalryman. In fact this "rifle" was not invented nor used until after the Civil War itself (and this is the setting of the film). As relevant, the rifle is the Springfield rifle, "trapdoor model", probably Allin (after the designer), Mark One although as the rifle was produced over 30 years, it could be a later model.

The rifle is a breech loading single shot weapon and is now produced in replica for those Americans who love Civil War re-creations. The almost universally use rifle of the Civil War, on both sides, was one of several variants of a muzzle loader. Yet for years after watching the film I was convinced that all subsequent films about the Civil War which featured such muzzle loaders, were inaccurate, because they did not feature the Springfield rifle which had so powerfully embedded itself in my consciousness.

Such is the power of cinema.

Star Wars - serious aficionado Shaun Heenan opens Number 7 up for close inspection

Editor's Note. I asked serious young cinephile Shaun Heenan to send in a review of JJ Abrams new Star Wars movie. In his covering note Shaun mentioned "Some of it may read like gibberish to those unfamiliar with those films, but I think anyone with any interest at all will know what I'm talking about. The film surprised me by sneaking into my top 5 for the year. I'll see it again as soon as I get the chance."

Star Wars: Episode VII - The Force Awakens has broken just about every box office record it could have, so odds are if you care about it at all, you have already seen it. That said, I’ve noticed people are being particularly touchy about ‘spoilers’ in reviews of this film. These seem to include any sentence describing the characters, premise or themes of the movie. I’m not going to go out of my way to ruin it for people, but I am going to talk about the film I’m reviewing, so if you’re at all concerned about learning too much, know that I recommend it very highly, and stop reading. If you have ever cared about Star Wars, you need to see this film.

The first thing that hits you is the aesthetic. Episode VII looks exactly like the original three Star Wars movies. There’s a tactility to the special effects which makes this feel like exactly what it is: a direct sequel to Return of the Jedi. In the years since that trilogy ended, Luke Skywalker has gone into exile. Familiar faces return, with Han Solo and Leia Organa played by the actors from the original films, but the focus is on a new generation of characters who will join in the search for Skywalker, as a group called the First Order threatens to follow in the footsteps of the defeated Empire.

The film’s lead is Rey, played by relative unknown Daisy Ridley. She’s joined by Finn, a defected Stormtrooper played by John Boyega, and hotshot Rebel pilot Poe Dameron, played by the ever-reliable Oscar Isaac. These three characters are played with a level of joy and enthusiasm which makes us fall for them immediately. Gone is the stilted acting and wooden dialogue of the prequel trilogy. These characters feel right at home in the universe we remember. They act like Star Wars characters, and it’s great to see them fitting in so well with the original cast.

The other major new entrant is Kylo Ren (Adam Driver), a First Order officer with Force powers and a familiar sense of style. With his voice-changing mask and black cape, he has deliberately modeled himself on Darth Vader, and his struggle to live up to the Sith Lord’s great legacy offers some of the best moments in the film. I thought at first that he seemed to be a poor substitute for Vader. Then I realised that’s exactly the point. The film knows it, and the character knows it, and it’s tearing him apart. Ren’s fight with a character I won’t name is perhaps the best lightsaber battle in the entire franchise.

Now that the series has moved on from the control of original director George Lucas, it has been passed along to people who grew up loving the original movies, and who know how to replicate those films. It could be argued that director J.J. Abrams has been too referential to other movies in the series, but he’s done great things here, taking control of the lore and adding to it in exciting ways. I can’t wait to see where the rest of the series is going.

After the missteps of the prequel trilogy, it’s an incredible relief to see Star Wars feeling like itself again. This is the movie that Star Wars fans have been hoping for since 1983. With its witty writing, fantastic action and successful additions to the canon, this isn’t just a great Star Wars movie; it’s one of the best films I’ve seen all year.

Films of 2015 - Supercinephile Barrie Pattison provides his list

 Below are the films which I saw for the first time in 2015 which most impressed me. Each year I think that the crop is getting thinner and each year I end up chopping off a dozen titles that I feel really should get in, on the don't be greedy principle. Don't ask me what need it all serves.

BOYHOOD (Richard Linklater, USA, 2014) - now there's determination,

INSIDE OUT (Pete Docter, USA, 2015) which was playing on every second
seat back when I looked round the plane.

TO THE LAST MAN (Victor Fleming, USA, 1923) amazing that something so accomplished could vanish for the best part of a century.

LOIN DES HOMMES/ Far from Men (David Oelhoffen, France, 2014),

RELATOS SALVAJES /Wild Tales (Damián Szifrón, Argentina,2014)

RICKI & THE FLASH ( Jonathan Demme, USA, 2015),

KOI NO HANA SAKU: IZU NO ODORIKO/ The Dancing Girl of Izu (Heinosuke Gosho, Japan 1933) which can be seen here on You Tube with English subtitles

THE DELUGE/Potop (Jerzy Hoffman,Poland 1965) Extended but still incomplete,

FOXCATCHER  (Bennett Miller,USA, 2014)

THE DESCENDANTS (Alexander Payne, USA, 2011)

LES MISERABLES (Henri Fescourt, France, 1925),

BRIDGE OF SPIES (Steven Spielberg, US, 2015)

DIPLOMATIE/Diplomacy (Volker Schlöndorff, France, 2014),

PHOENIX (Christian Petzold, Germany, 2015)

RESURRECTIO ( Alessandro Blasetti, Italy,1930) first Italian talkie  

HEART OF THE SEA (Ron Howard, USA, 2015) great in 3D 

WOMEN HE’S UNDRESSED (Gillian Armstrong's Orry Kelly doc, Australia, 2015.) 

KISHIBI NO TABI/Journey to the Shore (Kiyoshi Kurosawa, Japan, 2015)

LISTEN TO ME MARLON (Stevan Riley, USA, 2015)

LE TOUT NOUVEAU TESTAMENT/The Brand New Testament  (Jaco
Van Dormael, France, 2015), where Benoît Poelvoorde strikes again,

MR HOLMES (Bill Condon, UK, 2015)

SHREW’S NEST/Musarañas
(Juan Fernando Andrés & Esteban Roel, Spain, 2014)

AMERICAN SNIPER (Clint Eastwood, USA, 2014), 

PROLOGUE (Richard Williams, UK, 2015, short),

THE FIFTY YEAR ARGUMENT (Martin Scorsese & David Tedeschi, USA, 2014) Documentary on the NY Review of Books

TERMINATOR GENISYS (Alan Taylor, USA, 2015)

TIGERS (Danis Tanovic, India, 2014)

THE WHOLE SHEBANG/Alles inklusive (Doris Dörrie, Germany, 2014) 

STRAITS OF HUNGER/Kiga kaikyô (Tomu Uchida, Japan, 1965).

That's 21 in theatres, including one off events, four on broadcast TV, one on You Tube and two on DVD.

I compared this with the Sight and Sound poll which netted 288 titles. Even given that they have better access than someone in Australia, there is remarkably little relation. Their people of course see different films and like different films and some of the difference will be ironed out as the material finally gets to me. A few of mine were on their last year's list and a few of theirs, surprisingly, on mine. Both lists include re-issues.

Still I find it curious that twenty of the films I've singled out don't figure in their three hundred