|
|
Post by jill on Aug 26, 2008 15:32:49 GMT
I heard about the Guardian discussion after going to see the film-had deliberately avoided reading stuff, so as not to go with preconceptions or prejudgements. I wonder if you had read that stuff already Dankeane, had a principled objection ahead of seeing it and that coloured your view? I still say the film succeeded on it's merits, regardless of the funding controversy. It was a warm-hearted tale about an unlikely frienship, with some great humour. So there.
PS. It cost £14 for the two of us at Corner House in Nott'm-so you got a bargain Davros!
|
|
|
|
Post by Companero on Aug 26, 2008 15:36:12 GMT
As I mentioned in my first post in this thread; there's been a SOMERS TOWN discussion on these boards for over a year now and it's never been a secret that the film was funded in part (shock horror) by Eurostar. No one else on here has taken exception to it; its references are not blatant... unlike the BMW films that DanKeane alluded to earlier, which I have seen and will say completely glorify their subject. I suggest that maybe he pays a visit to the message boards of the likes of Tony Scott, Guy Ritchie, Wong Karr Wai and the late John Frankenheimer to shout "sell out" over there too. Haha.
|
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 26, 2008 15:39:58 GMT
Without prior knowledge of the Eurostar funding, I would be very surprised if anyone would come out of the film thinking it was an advert for them. It wouldn't happen.
I mentioned it in another thread, but nobody seems to kick up any fuss about the fact that most British films are partially funded by the nations biggest gambling initiative, The National Lottery. Directors are more than happy to take the proceeds of gambling, from The National Lottery who then demand their logo on the front of the films too. Oh, yes, they all promote gambling to get hold of cash for their films.
.... that Somers Town includes that aswell.... well forget I mentioned it. ;D
Although actually, that's an interesting point... if Eurostar funded the film, are the UK Film Council lying about funding it with Lottery funds too?
By the way stat geeks.... just checked out the duration of Somers Town here at work on our digital server, and it clocks in at a whopping 71 minutes, 25 seconds... and that includes the BBFC certification.
|
|
|
|
Post by dankeane on Aug 26, 2008 15:40:07 GMT
Both me and my girlfriend noticed during the film that it was a bit weird how much "isnt the train great" talk, and how the film wasn't very good at all, then i saw on the end credits that the original idea was by Mother Vision, then i remembered reading about the Eurostar connection. I absolutely did not go into the film expecting not to like it, I've loved every film by Shane Meadows so far (well, i wasn't mad on once upon a time in the midlands), i've been a fan since i saw romeo brass. and it was only after i was pissed off about the lacklustre feel of the film that i began to get pissed off about having to pay to see an ad that's barely feature length.
|
|
|
|
Post by dankeane on Aug 26, 2008 15:44:47 GMT
and just because you didn't come out of the film going "god i must jump on the Eurostar" doesn't make it any less of an ad. when have you ever in your entire life seen an ad on television and consciously gone "ooh i must get that product!" that's how advertising works. it works by making you think it hasn't.
|
|
|
|
Post by dankeane on Aug 26, 2008 15:47:49 GMT
what the fuck is going on with these stupid fucking arguments? the national lottery? what the fuck? the national lottery funds FILMS, not ads for the National Lottery, and of course the BMW ads glorify the product, they're ads for the product, they don't masquerade as films and you don't have to pay to watch them!
|
|
|
|
Post by Companero on Aug 26, 2008 15:49:49 GMT
Both me and my girlfriend noticed during the film that it was a bit weird how much "isnt the train great" talk, I saw the film at a press screening with a colleague from work back at the beginning of July and enjoyed it so much that I took my wife to see it yesterday. At no time during either screening did my colleague or my wife or myself feel we were being given the hard sell during the film. To be honest, going in and knowing that the film had started life as a promotional short for Eurostar, I felt that the references were really subtle. I certainly didn't tap into the same "aren't trains great" vibe that you talk of, DanKeane. Like Dave said, if there hadn't been any publicity surrounding the film's financing, we'd never have picked up on it at all. Fair enough that you didn't like it, but you're issue is with the film as entertainment, rather than the product placement. |
|
|
|
Post by dankeane on Aug 26, 2008 15:50:25 GMT
and no i hadn't read the guardian article before i started the thread, i saw it when i was checking out the above post. |
|
|
|
Post by Companero on Aug 26, 2008 15:51:41 GMT
what the fuck is going on with these stupid fucking arguments? the national lottery? what the fuck? the national lottery funds FILMS, not ads for the National Lottery, and of course the BMW ads glorify the product, they're ads for the product, they don't masquerade as films and you don't have to pay to watch them! It may fund films, but all recent films funded in part by Film Coucil do have the National Lottery logo at the beginning, altering the viewer to the fact. That's a pretty iconic logo and most definitely advertising in my book. |
|
|
|
Post by Companero on Aug 26, 2008 15:53:14 GMT
what the fuck is going on with these stupid fucking arguments? the national lottery? what the fuck? the national lottery funds FILMS, not ads for the National Lottery, and of course the BMW ads glorify the product, they're ads for the product, they don't masquerade as films and you don't have to pay to watch them! I paid to watch them! I bought the DVD. Twice. No kidding. Bought the first one and then the second, after the follow up selection were made. I think they're great to be honest, but yeah, they glorify BMWs, eh? ;D |
|
|
|
Post by Dave on Aug 26, 2008 15:55:35 GMT
what the fuck is going on with these stupid fucking arguments? the national lottery? what the fuck? the national lottery funds FILMS, not ads for the National Lottery, and of course the BMW ads glorify the product, they're ads for the product, they don't masquerade as films and you don't have to pay to watch them! No it doesn't, The UK Film Council funds films using the filthy lucre from the lottery. Yet you still have to advertise the crossed-fingers of the lottery on your film if you want the cash. But yes, it's your opinion that you have been duped by Shane and his Eurostar corporate video, and that I cannot help you with. For everyone else here (I think), it is a Paul Fraser story directed by Shane Meadows, and that's exactly what it feels like. The funding came from Eurostar, and they stipulated that they wanted a film shot in the area of redevelopment in Somers Town. Shane has mentioned many times, that he originally turned the whole offer down until he realised he and Paul had total control over it (well, I think they also had to avoid gratuitous sex and vioence too). I like it and that's all that matters. I just wish Pot Noodle would stump up some cash for a full on Meadows extravaganza! |
|
|
|
Post by dankeane on Aug 26, 2008 15:57:15 GMT
its not about product placement, its about shane meadows prostituting his ability to make honest and socially resonant films, in the most cheap and dishonest way. and people can say "oh Eurostar say its a Legacy project, not just an ad" that's bullshit, they are the words of Mother, one of the biggest advertising and PR companies in the world, what they do day in day out is put a positive spin on things; "we can call it a legacy project that'll make us sound like we're giving something back to the community!"
|
|
|
|
Post by Companero on Aug 26, 2008 16:02:02 GMT
its not about product placement, its about shane meadows prostituting his ability to make honest and socially resonant films, Trouble is, none of us think shane has prostituted himself and that SOMERS TOWN is an honest and socially resonant film. I really fail to see how the film's funding and very subtle references to St Pancras and trains spoil what is an excellent film, and one that bears all the hallmarks of Meadows' work. If this goes deeper on a personal level, please tell us. Were you once beaten shitless by trainspotters or something? |
|
|
|
Post by dankeane on Aug 26, 2008 16:02:06 GMT
and Eurostar didn't "fund" the film. it wasn't some philanthropic or charitable gesture. they went to mother and said "we need an ad, something different, our budget's 3/4 of a million".
|
|
|
|
Post by dankeane on Aug 26, 2008 16:12:45 GMT
i'll make this my last post because i don't think we're getting anywhere. up to now all of shane meadow's films have seemed to me like heartfelt films, that he struggled with, something that he really put alot of himself into and that said alot about where he came from, and who he is. ideas and feelings that he had inside him, that he just had to see materialised so he could share them with people. Somers Town struck me as a film that was written to a brief, using his trademark style (and yes i know he didn't write it but of course he had input), where he had to create a scenario built around a product, and instill in it his trusted and genuine sensibilities about place, youth and society. i thought the film seemed like it was rushed, the performances, granted, were very good, but the overall tone of the film seemed manipulative and strove to inject drama wherever it could rather than where it felt real. i think an ad disguised as a film is a very dangerous precedent to set and i think if any other director had done this they would be treated very roughly indeed, but Shane meadows is so skilled he hid the contrivance behind a layer of tacked on sentimentalism. Still, Room for Romeo Brass, Dead Man's Shoes, This is England and 24/7, are all so fantastic so he's probably still in my good books.
|
|
