roy-54
A rejoint le nov. 1999
Bienvenue sur nouveau profil
Nos mises à jour sont toujours en cours de développement. Bien que la version précédente de le profil ne soit plus accessible, nous travaillons activement à des améliorations, et certaines fonctionnalités manquantes seront bientôt de retour ! Restez à l'écoute de leur retour. En attendant, l’analyse des évaluations est toujours disponible sur nos applications iOS et Android, qui se trouvent sur la page de profil. Pour consulter la répartition de vos évaluations par année et par genre, veuillez consulter notre nouveau Guide d'aide.
Badges2
Pour savoir comment gagner des badges, rendez-vous sur page d'aide sur les badges.
Avis2
Note de roy-54
If you've seen Alan Clarke's wonderful 'Rita, Sue and Bob Too!' (UK 1986), you'll have some idea of what to expect from 'The Arbor'. "The Arbor" is a small part of the Buttershaw Estate in South Bradford where Clarke's film was set. Clarke's film was adapted from her own play by Andrea Dunbar, a 20 year-old single mother in 1982 when the play first appeared. She had written her first play also called 'The Arbour' when she was still at school and a third, 'Shirley', in 1986 before she died suddenly from a brain haemorrhage aged just 29.
Knowledge of 'Rita, Sue and Bob Too!' will only help a little, however. This film, 'The Arbour', is part inspired by but is not an adaptation of Dunbar's play. Instead it is a form of documentary about Dunbar and her personal legacy that turns out to be mainly about the equally difficult life of her first child, Lorraine.
The film is written and directed by Clio Barnard who has Bradford connections. She visited the Buttershaw estate in 2009 and interviewed members of the extended Dunbar family and some other residents. She then borrowed the idea of hiring actors to lip-synch the recorded interviews (in A State Affair, a play by Robin Soans about the Buttershaw estate, actors spoke the words of the people Dunbar knew). Scenes with the actors were shot on the estate and in a London studio. They were edited together with two other kinds of material – scenes from 'Rita, Sue . . .' and from arts and news programmes about Andrea Dunbar plus scenes from 'The Arbor' play, acted out on the 'green' on the estate.
So, what does it all mean? I'm honestly not sure. Technically it is very well put together. I found myself moved by several scenes. At other times I felt like I didn't want to watch. I think that my personal preference is for a social-realist drama, but I recognise that the approach here is very powerful. My only real problem was in the casting of George Costigan as one of the actors reading the words of one of the fathers of Andrea Dunbar's children. Costigan was 'Bob' in Rita, Sue . . . and I found this an intertextual step too far.
Clio Barnard has, I think, previously produced video installations and sometimes I felt that I was viewing an installation. I found the initial stages confusing as they moved backwards and forwards in time, but eventually the film developed a distinctive narrative line focusing on Lorraine and this made it more like a traditional documentary film.
The Arbor appears to be attracting audiences to the National Media Museum's cinemas. Bradford audiences will probably have a rather different take on the film than the London critics who celebrated its success in winning two prizes at the London Film Festival this week.
Knowledge of 'Rita, Sue and Bob Too!' will only help a little, however. This film, 'The Arbour', is part inspired by but is not an adaptation of Dunbar's play. Instead it is a form of documentary about Dunbar and her personal legacy that turns out to be mainly about the equally difficult life of her first child, Lorraine.
The film is written and directed by Clio Barnard who has Bradford connections. She visited the Buttershaw estate in 2009 and interviewed members of the extended Dunbar family and some other residents. She then borrowed the idea of hiring actors to lip-synch the recorded interviews (in A State Affair, a play by Robin Soans about the Buttershaw estate, actors spoke the words of the people Dunbar knew). Scenes with the actors were shot on the estate and in a London studio. They were edited together with two other kinds of material – scenes from 'Rita, Sue . . .' and from arts and news programmes about Andrea Dunbar plus scenes from 'The Arbor' play, acted out on the 'green' on the estate.
So, what does it all mean? I'm honestly not sure. Technically it is very well put together. I found myself moved by several scenes. At other times I felt like I didn't want to watch. I think that my personal preference is for a social-realist drama, but I recognise that the approach here is very powerful. My only real problem was in the casting of George Costigan as one of the actors reading the words of one of the fathers of Andrea Dunbar's children. Costigan was 'Bob' in Rita, Sue . . . and I found this an intertextual step too far.
Clio Barnard has, I think, previously produced video installations and sometimes I felt that I was viewing an installation. I found the initial stages confusing as they moved backwards and forwards in time, but eventually the film developed a distinctive narrative line focusing on Lorraine and this made it more like a traditional documentary film.
The Arbor appears to be attracting audiences to the National Media Museum's cinemas. Bradford audiences will probably have a rather different take on the film than the London critics who celebrated its success in winning two prizes at the London Film Festival this week.
I'm disappointed that only one comment on Ghosts has been posted since the film's release. It is, I think, an important film that deserves commentary.
On the whole, I'm not a fan of Nick Broomfield and his usual technique of 'authored' or 'performed' documentaries, in which he often plays a starring role. As a consequence, I've never before been to a theatrical screening of one of his films. In the early sequences of Ghosts, the approach is very much like a television documentary or a reality TV show. As I don't like reality TV, my interest was held less by style and more by the details of the narrative and by the chance to compare the notion of a long journey of illegal immigration with that shown in Michael Winterbottom's In This World. Broomfield doesn't display Winterbottom's creativity in conveying the horrors of the journey and I began to worry that the film wouldn't take off. However, it does, largely because the central characters become more 'narrativised' -- by which I mean that they become more like characters in a fictional narrative and I began to feel for them and their terrible predicament.
The film is based on real events, so in a sense the audience knows what is going to happen, if not precisely what will happen to individual characters. Nevertheless, I found the last 20 minutes both riveting and terribly distressing. I've walked in Morecambe Bay, but not out into the estuary where I would never go without an official guide. Knowing how dangerous something is makes the suspense even worse for me.
Overall Broomfield and Jez Lewis are remarkably restrained in not trying to present a black and white world of wrong and right in the film. The story is told from the perspective of the Chinese workers. I haven't read all the details of the trials of the Chinese gangmaster and his accomplices which took place in 2006, but at first glance, the film offers something that is not a conventional crime/exploitation story and more an affecting personal drama. There is relatively little 'plot' and much more about developing understanding for the characters. Unfortunately I suspect that not many audiences will see the film in cinemas and when it appears on TV, it will be lost amidst Channel 4's reality TV wallpaper. I hope not, because it deserves to be seen and discussed.
On the whole, I'm not a fan of Nick Broomfield and his usual technique of 'authored' or 'performed' documentaries, in which he often plays a starring role. As a consequence, I've never before been to a theatrical screening of one of his films. In the early sequences of Ghosts, the approach is very much like a television documentary or a reality TV show. As I don't like reality TV, my interest was held less by style and more by the details of the narrative and by the chance to compare the notion of a long journey of illegal immigration with that shown in Michael Winterbottom's In This World. Broomfield doesn't display Winterbottom's creativity in conveying the horrors of the journey and I began to worry that the film wouldn't take off. However, it does, largely because the central characters become more 'narrativised' -- by which I mean that they become more like characters in a fictional narrative and I began to feel for them and their terrible predicament.
The film is based on real events, so in a sense the audience knows what is going to happen, if not precisely what will happen to individual characters. Nevertheless, I found the last 20 minutes both riveting and terribly distressing. I've walked in Morecambe Bay, but not out into the estuary where I would never go without an official guide. Knowing how dangerous something is makes the suspense even worse for me.
Overall Broomfield and Jez Lewis are remarkably restrained in not trying to present a black and white world of wrong and right in the film. The story is told from the perspective of the Chinese workers. I haven't read all the details of the trials of the Chinese gangmaster and his accomplices which took place in 2006, but at first glance, the film offers something that is not a conventional crime/exploitation story and more an affecting personal drama. There is relatively little 'plot' and much more about developing understanding for the characters. Unfortunately I suspect that not many audiences will see the film in cinemas and when it appears on TV, it will be lost amidst Channel 4's reality TV wallpaper. I hope not, because it deserves to be seen and discussed.