Reviews

5 Reviews
Sort by:
Filter by Rating:
7/10
A fascinating relic of the later work of a British pioneer of cinema. Hepworth's film is a melodrama in the classic 19th century literary mould,
11 June 2010
When comparing some of the early work of British film pioneer Cecil Hepworth with that of some of his European and American peers, it is easy to dismiss them as inferior. Georges Melies' 'La Voyage De la Lune' was an extraordinary piece of work. Edison and Porter's 'The Great Train Robbery' practically invented a genre that would go on to rule Hollywood for many decades.

The truth of the matter, however, is that each of these great creators was different. Each experimented with what they knew and developed their techniques in a different way. Hepworth created some fascinating effects using filming and editing techniques to trick the amazed early cinema viewer in films like his 'How it Feels to be Run Over' and 'Explosion of a Motor Car' and the very first adaptation of 'Alice In Wonderland'. Hepworth, of course, practically invented a genre himself with the Lassie-style creation of 'Rescued By Rover'.

Naturally, his ambitions grew over time as he moved on to creating longer narrative films, often based on literary classics by the likes of William Shakespeare and Charles Dickens. It is in this bracket that 'Helen of Four Gates' fits.

An original 35mm copy of the film was discovered to have survived in Montreal, Canada, and was brought back to Britain and publicly screened for the first time in around 90 years to a sold out 500 person audience at one of the oldest surviving Picture Houses in the UK in Hebden Bridge, the town above which 'Helen of Four Gates' was filmed. This was a truly special event, especially when considering that Hepworth Manufacturing Company went bust in 1924 and his films were melted down for the silver nitrate content. The vast majority of these early cinematic treasures are tragically lost forever.

Based on a novel that launched with immense success at the end of WW1 by an ex-mill girl named Ethel Carnie Holdsworth, Hepworth's adaptation opens with a prologue that doesn't exist in the book, laying down the motivation behind the despicable actions of Abel Mason. Hepworth clearly felt that the hatred and violence inflicted upon the titular Helen by he who is supposed to be her father required explaining.

We are launched, then, into the life of the grown-up Helen, named after her mother whose rejection caused so much grief and anger to swell in Abel Mason's heart. I will reveal no more than this. What follows is a Bronte-esquire story of vengeance, jealousy and love set against the bleak yet beautiful backdrop of the Pennine moors.

The contrasting nature of the pennine moors is important. The harsh, bleakness of it perfectly represents the harshness with which Helen is treated. By contrast, the wild, elemental beauty of it is represented perfectly by the beauty of Helen, who shines amidst the tortures bestowed upon her. This may be stretching it, but the vividness of the image that Hepworth has created may represent this very contrast in the story. Light and dark are beautifully rendered in the shots.

When viewing silent films of the time, it is always important to expect lots of animated gesturing in the acting. In 'Helen of Four Gates', this is particularly evident during the prologue sequence. Afterwards, the acting in 'Helen of Four Gates' is often surprisingly subtle in comparison to other films of the time. I may, however, just be getting more used to it.

It is interesting to see such an old film depicting violence towards women, in light of some recent articles examining the fascination cinema seems to have with such depictions. It would be very interesting to learn what feelings and reactions were drawn from audiences both men and women when viewing the film's more violent moments 90 years ago.

It is important to mention that all the caption text is written in old Yorkshire dialect, taken directly from the novel, and is slightly difficult for Yorkshire folk even now to follow. There is often enough time to read through it twice, and that is mostly enough to get the general idea.

In criticism, I would say there are a number of scenes that could have been shorter. A number of shots linger too long and test the viewer's patience but this is not a major problem and much of the film is quite well paced for a melodrama. The story is perfectly adequate and plotted well, but it pales in comparison with some of the European classics of the time. The underlying alleged family madness that causes the sequence of events that leads to all the hard feelings doesn't stand up particularly well, but is reasonably believable for the time. The depressing nature of much of the story is quite jarring, but this is not a major criticism, more a warning that there's very little light along the way. The main characters, even the lovers, have dubious elements that do not endear them wholly to the audience.

Overall, it was a wonderful experience to see this film in the packed old Picture House with live accompaniment by a brilliant pianist in Hebden Bridge, above which it was shot. I, in fact, grew up just along the road from the farms and valleys in and around which the film was mostly shot and to see these locations 90 years ago was a joy. I may have a certain biased outlook towards the film but it is well worth checking out if possible.

It may not be on the same level as the German 'expressionist' silent classics of Weimar Germany, or the innovative silent classics emanating from the USSR, but as a relic of our own British cinema history, of which there is precious little at the time of it's creation, this film is worth cherishing.
7 out of 10 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Mystery Men (1999)
7/10
A very amusing superhero spoof
30 October 2006
With a different director, this coulda been a contender. It is a flawed masterpiece (that's right, I said the word 'masterpiece' in conjunction with this film). Despite some dodgy editing alongside a director known for making commercials (and it shows!), it actually has many ingenious concepts. The idea that Champion City's most successful superhero is obsessed with his own celebrity and is therefore portrayed as a bad guy ties in perfectly with the anti-capitalist themes in the film. The problems arise when the style of comedy reaches juvenile level, and though at times that brand of humour is funny there is perhaps a little too much of it. There are, however, many hilarious moments, some of which are incredibly subtle for such an 'in your face' production. For example, when Captain Amazing is complaining to his agent about losing his pepsi endorsement he talks about what it means to him, in his heart, and he promptly hits his chest where his heart would be only to hear the hollow sound of his suit's exterior. Pure anti-capitalism! Finally, a mention of the cast. The film has a wonderful cast: Ben Stiller, Bill Macy, Hank Azaria, Greg Kinnear, Geoffrey Rush, Jeanne Garofalo, Eddie Izzard, Paul (Pee-wee Herman) Reubens and, best of all, the deep-voiced singing legend that is Tom Waits. So, a masterpiece? a silly but funny superhero spoof? or a superhero spoof that is unsure what it really wants to be? It is rather open to interpretation but one thing is for sure, it's funny!
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Magnolia (1999)
10/10
The harrowing lives of a collection of characters in the San Fernando Valley are shown to be inter-connected through the course of one singular day
30 October 2006
Gut-wrenching scene after gut-wrenching scene litter this film thanks to a large collection of well-rounded characters who are either seeking redemption or searching for past or future glories. Paul Thomas Anderson has created something truly special here, not least because he chose to use brilliant songs by Aimee Mann and an excellent score by her collaborator Jon Brion, but mainly thanks to his extra-ordinary eye for the visual in a dramatic scene and a perfect script beautifully performed by a stellar cast. The running time for this film is generous given its genre, but in this particular case it only serves to heighten the power of its conclusion and the pace never really lets up, which makes viewing it very emotionally draining. The camera is almost always moving too which makes many of the scenes seem like a montage and this is how the film ingeniously reveals the links between the characters. This is sublime film-making and demands multiple viewings despite its length. So much more than meets the eye.
2 out of 4 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
10/10
A mad general sets in motion a plan to incite nuclear war due to the monstrously conceived Communist plot known only to himself as 'fluoridation'
30 October 2006
It is a mark of quality that this film is perhaps as relevant today as it was when it was made. Even more remarkable that it has such power at all considering how silly it comes across, yet there is surely no other film that gets its message to the viewer in quite such a brilliant way. It is the fact that the characters are portrayed as so stupid that makes the message so powerful, alongside the pessimistic ending of the film. Peter Sellars proves what an exceptional actor he was by playing his various roles with aplomb. George C. Scott and Sterling Hayden back Sellars up with similarly impressive creations who last long in the memory. As for the late legend Stanley Kubrick, this - closely followed by Full Metal Jacket - is his true masterpiece. There is most certainly no other film like it and to attempt to make a film with such serious issues and film it as a farce is obviously a difficult thing to do successfully. Finally, every person in the world should see this film because it has the simple but effective message that politics of fear is a bad thing for the world, a message that still needs to made today, perhaps more than ever.
2 out of 2 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink
Saw III (2006)
1/10
Complete rubbish
30 October 2006
Okay, the first was reasonable and looked impressive but was not exactly worth a sequel never mind a second sequel. Saw 3 is quite simply awful. A poor script badly performed is hidden by flashy CSI style editing and horror-style aesthetics in a lacklustre story about inhuman characters whom no-one in their right mind should care for. Parts of this film aspire to become almost as notorious in extreme cinema as the fire extinguisher scene early on in 'Irreversible'. It is horrifically gratuitous and misguided and the alleged plot twist is so obvious from an early stage that I felt later on like I should have walked out from the auditorium in disgust. It will merely appeal to the Friday night gore-hounds, whereas the first at least tried to be intelligent, despite ultimately being crass and morally dubious. So go and see this film if you want to feel violated by the end credits and for the rest of the evening
5 out of 12 found this helpful. Was this review helpful? Sign in to vote.
Permalink

Recently Viewed