New Empress had the pleasure of being invited to the opening press conference for Sundance London yesterday, in which the president and founder of Sundance, Robert Redford, programme director John Cooper and Alex Hill (AEG – owner of the O2) told us their thoughts, hopes and dreams for the fledgling international festival.

According to Robert Redford, the reasons for Sundance travelling to London from the mountains of Utah were two-fold: firstly, they were invited by AEG and secondly, they wanted to take Sundance to an international audience. Redford said “The festival had grown to such a degree that we wanted to move internationally. I was reluctant to do that for a while because I didn’t want growth to be just about growth, it had to have some meaning to it…if we could take a scaled down version to another country, upon invitation, that would be a good thing, we would take the alchemy of what we do at Sundance and bring it here and see how it was received.”

John Cooper said: “we’re really watching these next 4 days. We’re gonna see how the whole thing plays out, it’s very different too, going from a pure destination festival where everybody goes there and you know you have them, to a city festival where you’re in with people’s lives and they have to pick and choose what they’re gonna come to…it’s kind of a challenge but it’s exciting at the same time.”

Speaking on the increased role of music in the London festival, compared with its peripheral role in Utah, Redford said,”You see certain things coalescing that were separate before so we try to show that at our festival. Music and film looked like that might be the new hybrid; the importance of music to film, film to music…since that hybrid seemed like it was on the horizon we wanted to show that we were with it…and bring music here with film, to illustrate a connection that’s growing stronger and stronger.”

On the topic of choosing which films to show, Cooper said they wanted to bring a selection of the January Sundance programme with them, including their short film programme, but with a twist: “going out of our borders with American films seemed the right thing to do…”

Redford then spoke briefly about Hollywood and why he started the film festival in 1980: “Diversity was not so available in the mainstream film industry; it is scaled down…following the youth market, therefore it got narrower and narrower and more prone to blockbusters which is fine, that’s entertainment, but not at the expense, I felt, of the more humanistic side of cinema…it’s not to deny or eliminate those films because they are obviously satisfying on a worldwide basis, I just feel that there’s a hunger for other kinds of films as well and that’s what we represent.” Redford also admitted that he is not a fan of 3D; ‘The audiences will decide…time will tell whether it really works or not but I’m not sure it will.”

It is ironic then, that the Sundance festival films should be shown within a Cineworld cinema; that cinema chain being a high profile cheerleader of new technology and Hollywood blockbusters, above all else. We have to wonder: does this represent a step by Cineworld to embrace more independent cinema or is it a one off gesture?

Speaking on Prime Minister David Cameron’s recent comment that the British film industry should focus on producing commercial successful films, Redford had this to say: “Well that may be why he’s in trouble, one reason anyway… I think that’s a narrow view, it doesn’t speak to the broad category of filmmakers and artists. Cooper added “it doesn’t speak to audiences either”.

Redford said; “The question of losing our soul is always on my mind…especially when success comes…the idea of our growing and becoming more successful: I always pay attention to not losing who we and the way we do things. We started with no support, one theatre..over time I realised that coincided nicely with the artists who came, who were also starting from scratch. Welcome success but use it wisely…”

The first-ever Sundance London film and music festival, featuring film screenings, live music performances, discussions, panels and other public cultural programming, will be held 26 – 29 April at The O2, London.

Sundance London will host the UK premieres of 14 feature-length and eight short films shown at the 2012 Sundance Film Festival in Park City, Utah, U.S.A., as well as additional special screenings.

Image courtesy of Richard Hardcastle & National Theatre Wales

Last night film buffs and critics alike hustled their way to Russell Square for a special Q and A event. The Curzon Renoir screening of The Gospel of Us was introduced by Michael Sheen and Dave McKean. Both men were both clearly very proud of what they had achieved in bringing the three day theatrical event to the big screen. Sheen spoke of how excited he was about bringing McKean’s unique vision to the experience, while McKean spoke of how pleased he was to be able to present a finished version and no longer having to worry about how to nail Sheen to a cross.

After the film, Sheen and McKean returned with writer Owen Sheers to talk about their respective experiences of making it. Sheers talked about the project as being inherently visual, with the entire town working as the stage and the idea of “The different perspectives of witness.” Sheen spoke about the long term graft of the project, explaining to the audience that he had begun preparations two and a half years before they put on the play. He spent a great deal of time trying to meet as many people in Port Talbot as possible, talking to local groups, charity organisations, and retirement communities, because he wanted them to inform him what the piece would be about. “The town has to tell us the story it wants to tell.” Sheen grew up in Port Talbot and the film clearly means a great deal to him personally, he even mentioned that there are some autobiographical moments within the piece. He spoke about how the town is often the brunt of jokes in the area, which has led simultaneously to both a self-deprecating attitude and a fierce local pride.

Sheen, Sheers, and McKean further spoke about the fears they had as they were about to start. They only had one shot at everything, what if it rained, what if nobody showed up? Then thousands of people descended and McKean had to scrap his plans and instruct his cameramen to shoot what they could. Paparazzi were a problem on the first day of filming, although McKean told how his wife had dealt with a photographer who was in the way by tugging on his trouser leg and shouting at him. He also talked about how the nature of the crowd meant that it was impossible to get a shot for more than three seconds without an iPad getting in the way. Sheen revealed that local theatre performers had been mixed in with the crowd but after the first day they were indistinguishable from everyone else.

What really came through during this Q&A session is how impressed and pleased the three were with how much the project meant to the town. At the local premiere a few days ago there was an exhibition with photographs and written memories, while locals showed Sheers their tattoos of lines from the script. Sheen hopes that, in the future, people will point out locations from the film, “That’s where they crucified Michael Sheen, that’s where they beat him up, that’s where he needed a break and had a bit of chocolate”. On the other side of the coin, he mentioned that a teacher had asked a classroom in Port Talbot who the son of God was, and a child piped up, “Michael Sheen, Miss.”

Cover Art by Dan Havardi

Readers can now view a free two page sample from our latest issue simply by clicking here. The sample includes an article about silent film star Rudolph Valentino and gives a clear idea of the kind of content we run in our print edition.

To subscribe to New Empress Magazine click here.

To buy our latest issue click here.

Last Friday evening an assortment of like-minded film folk gathered at the Bafta building on Picadilly, London for an exclusive talk on Making Better Movies: Crafting Other Worlds with Makeup, Design and Physical Effects.

The panel of speakers consisted of Makeup Designer Christine Blundell (Casino Royale, Topsy-Turvey, Another Year), Costume Designer Lindy Hemming (The Dark Knight, Clash of the Titans, Die Another Day) Makeup and Effects Designer Neil Gorton (Saving Private Ryan, Atonement, Lesbian Vampire Killers) and Sound Recordist Simon Clark (Shooting Fish, Waking the Dead, The Promise).

Between them this intimidatingly experienced ensemble discussed firstly the importance of working with a director who appreciates character development and story. Mike Leigh and Christopher Nolan were cited as two such directors. Blundell spoke at length about the  meticulous and unique rehearsal process Leigh goes through with his cast and crew during pre-production. She further commented on his need to develop a well-rounded back story for each character on screen; when she created a scar on an actor’s face Leigh insisted on establishing a back story on how this scar came about. Not only is it refreshing to hear that there are directors working in the mainstream who are dedicated to such detail, but what’s even more encouraging is that this level of devotion is not restricted to the likes of Mike Leigh. The man behind what is perhaps the most anticipated film of the year, Chris Nolan, is equally as committed to his craft.

Lindy Hemming, the woman behind Heath Ledger’s iconic Joker look, talked at great length about her role on The Dark Knight and how she has collaborated with Nolan to fashion the new Bat-suit. Something both Nolan and Hemming agreed on was that the functionality of the Bat-suit had to ring true. Bruce Wayne is a millionaire but is still limited by the available technologies of the time. Hemming designed a Bat-suit that she believed Bruce Wayne could have designed himself, adding features such as a separate neck piece that allowed Batman to move his head without moving his whole body, a gun that clips together from two separate sections on his utility belt and ninja darts that fire from the arms. The idea behind all these touches is to perpetuate a sense of realism within the film…the fact that they look really cool is just an added bonus.

A further interesting point that all of the speakers agreed on was that the production gap between TV and films has all but closed. This is a trend that many will already have noted, especially with acting talent such as Kate Winslet and Steve Buscemi stepping forward to take part in weekly programming, but to hear four TV and film professionals confirm that there literally is no difference between a TV and film set in terms of production values is quite an astonishing shift from ten years ago. Neil Gorton in particular talked about the cinematic experience that has permeated the home. People are able to buy home cinemas, bigger televisions and sound  systems and TV producers have begun to think about this when commissioning and creating shows. Simon Clark cited The Promise as an example of how TV, just like film, can be shot in exotic locations if the project calls for it.

Overall this event offered a very positive picture of the state of mainstream film and TV. With people so focused on creativity and narrative working behind the scenes in the industry it is easy to see why the quality of television has improved and why some of the big budget blockbusters remain engaging to the brain as well as to the eye. There is, after all, a big difference between a film such as The Green Lantern and Nolan’s Batman trilogy. And although this conference was initially about the power of effects, it quickly became apparent that it is still story that drives the aesthetic values of the best productions. Heartening news.

Cover Art by Dan Havardi

Issue 5 has now been dispatched to our subscribers and buyers.

This issue is our Silent Film Special and within its pages you will find articles on: Who Invented Cinema, The Bluffer’s Guide to Silent Film, Silent Hitchcock: The Voiceless Origins of a Visual Master, The Silent Stories of a host of early film icons, an exclusive interview with Neil Brand and a special column from silent film expert Matthew Sweet.

Just like the early world of cinema, however, we’re all about variety and thus on our “Talkie Takeover” pages you’ll find a smattering of articles on talking pictures. Check out our piece on Hollywood Versus Videogames, educate yourself with our unique history of film studio logos and rediscover the B-Movie master with horror specialist Nigel Floyd’s review of Corman’s World: Exploits of a Hollywood Rebel.

Click here to buy issue 5 or to subscribe.

Image from a collection at the National Archives in Kew

As previously mentioned in our recent article on 4D, we have been in touch with the Cinemas Exhibitors’ Association (CEA) about the extra costs applied to 3D tickets. Many readers have questioned why they pay more for 3D, even when they bring their own 3D glasses to a showing and we have thus sought out an answer.

Initially, picturegoers were told that the extra cost on a 3D ticket were imposed to pay for the instalment of equipment. It’s been three years since widespread installation of digital projection and 3D began, surely cinemas have now covered costs? And yet consumers are still paying a premium. Early this morning we received the following justification from the CEA:

If you look at the stats on our website  you will see that significant installation of digital projection and 3D only really took off in 2009 (there are around 3,770 screens in total), so for many sites this is a comparatively new development.

However, even with that qualification, it is true that all other things being equal, were the premium charged on 3D cinema tickets merely there to cover that costs of that initial investment (typically around maybe £60,000 per screen)  then there would come a point where these would notionally have been covered off. That would vary significantly from site to site dependent on the number of screens, the date(s) of digital installation and the number of admissions etc.

But the position is more complex than that. Running a digital 3D projector introduces additional costs over and above a standard screening – it works the light sources much harder for example, leading to their regular replacement, and (while the Association is not party to the detail) a number of 3D systems attract a royalty to the manufacturer.

Even if that were not the case, the argument that once the initial cost of installation were covered then ticket prices should revert to the level of a standard screening does not bear much scrutiny. That line of argument would also mean that  – for example – once the cost of installing premium seating in a theatre were recouped, then those seats should cost no more than standard seats.

The 3D uplift on tickets reflects the premium experience offered to customers and will as a result be retained past any notional ‘pay-off point’.

The CEA compare 3D to premium seating, on the surface this is a fair analogy but under closer scrutiny it is a parallel that doesn’t hold up. People can, more often than not, choose whether they want to pay for a more comfortable seat in any given cinema. Cinemagoers are not afforded quite the same power when it comes to 3D. Some films are only offered in 3D or only shown in 2D in very limited places and for limited periods of time. Consequently if you want to see a particular film on the big screen that is only available in 3D then you’re forced to pay a price for that, whether you wanted the 3D element or not.

Secondly, if additional 3D costs were simply about the offering of a better / different experience then why even mention equipment installation in the first place? It’s understood that cinemas are businesses and thus need to turn a profit, nobody begrudges that, but the industry needs to be more transparent about why extra costs apply - if they were regular cinemagoers may not resent paying them quite so much. At the very least punters would understand the position of exhibitors better. Is it that unreasonable, particularly when you’re paying out for 3D tickets for a whole family, for consumers to expect some degree of honesty over where their money goes?

Cineworld has recently invested in a line of D-Box seats that vibrate at pivotal points of effects-driven films. According to a Guardian report last Friday the seats were piloted in Glasgow, the UK’s most-patronised Cineworld, where 35 seats have been fitted. Inevitably, the juddering seats have been dubbed “4D” and if that sounds familiar it’s because that’s exactly what they called Aromascope on the release of Spy Kids 4(D) last summer. Apparently there’s a little bit of confusion as to what the fourth dimension actually is or should be.

One might be forgiven for suspecting that the fourth dimension will be whatever gimmick happens to bring in the most money; the D-Box seats are going to add an additional £5.50 to  ticket prices. Given that punters are already paying out an extra pound to view films in 3D, per ticket this is all totting up to quite a princely sum. If you forget to bring your 3D glasses with you you’re looking at another 70 pence into the bargain. William Castle would have been laughing all the way to the bank.

There are various issues with this new scheme that add to the ongoing issues with 3D. Firstly, before introducing a new dimension should Cineworld, and other such chains, not explain why consumers are still paying for the last dimension they sold us?  Initially picturegoers were told that the extra cost on 3D tickets was to pay for the instalment of new equipment. Given that 3D began to reemerge in 2005 and has been a prominent part of the cinema landscape for the last 3 years (1 in 4 cinema tickets sold in 2010 was for a 3D film) is it not reasonable to assume that these costs have now been covered? This is a question I’ve asked industry bods numerous times and I’ve yet to receive a straight answer. If there are readers who manage a cinema and are able to explain this extra cost, please do leave a comment below. We want to hear an explanation. In the meantime we have contacted the Cinema Exhibitors’ Association and are awaiting their response.

Secondly, is this really where Cineworld believe their money is best invested? Hopefully, as these seats are primarily for use in loud, effects-driven movies the sound of 30 or so vibrating seats will be drowned out by explosions and space fights. If you are sitting anywhere near these seats, however, it is sure to be visually distracting to see dozens of people being thrown about on your left hand side. Surely mobile phones are scourge enough and besides this have Cineworld seen, for instance, the state of their Hammersmith site? New carpets, speakers and a few more ushers before seats that tilt. Please.

In the end, this technology risks ending up on the same scrapheap as its hardly-lamented forebears. In issue 3 of our print magazine we looked at the, now seemingly quaint, 1970s gimmick Sensurround. It used extended-bass sounds in order to create, wait for it, vibrations in the auditorium. Probably the most notable use of this gimmick was in Earthquake (1974) and Rollercoaster (1977) but unsurprisingly, just like 3D the first and second time round, it didn’t stick.

In the aforementioned Guardian article John Carter ticket-holder Beth Woods was quoted as saying “I don’t think I would have seen this film without it [4D]. It does add something.” Perhaps I am being pedantic; old-fashioned; priggish, but if the only incentive to go and see a film is the incentive of being thrown about in my seat maybe I should give that film a miss? Or at least stay home with my ipad and a spin dryer. I can’t blame the lady for feeling John Carter was missing a certain je ne sais quoi, but I have a suspicion that believability and a name that any of the actors could pronounce properly would have made more of a difference than pulsating seats. The bottom line is: we as audiences should be more concerned about winding up watching a load of arse on screen rather than what’s happening beneath our own.

Today sees the launch of the 2012 Pan-Asia Film Festival which, now in its fourth year, returns to London’s Asia House, Ciné Lumière and Prince Charles Cinema. Between the 9th and 18th of March the festival will be showcasing Asia’s most promising fresh film talent alongside established filmmakers.

As Hollywood staples often dominate the billboards in central London this festival provides film fans with an opportunity to sample films they wouldn’t ordinarily be exposed to. The programme for the festival has two particular strengths: breadth of cultures and breadth of genres. Work from India, Kazakhstan, Japan, China, Tibet, Iran, Taiwan and South Korea will be showcased and the pictures on offer will include romance, dramas, comedies and coming-of-age films.

This is a rare example of a truly diverse festival programme combined with the lure of supporting independent cinema. More information about the festival can be found here. Or at The Prince Charles Cinema and Ciné Lumière where tickets are also available for purchase. The festival kicks off this evening with a World Premiere Gala Opening Screening of One More. Director Shivajee Chandrabhushan will be in attendance.

Cover Art by Dan Havardi

Inside this issue you will find articles on Who Invented Cinema, Reservoir Dogs in Phenakistoscope, The Bluffer’s Guide to Silent Film, Silent Hitchcock: The Voiceless Origins of a Visual Master, The Silent Stories of a host of early film icons and a special column from silent film expert Matthew Sweet.

Just like the early world of cinema, however, we’re all about variety and thus on our “Talkie Takeover” pages you’ll find a smattering of articles on talking pictures. Check out our piece on Hollywood Versus Videogames, educate yourself with our unique history of film studio logos and rediscover the B-Movie master with horror specialist Nigel Floyd’s review of Corman’s World: Exploits of a Hollywood Rebel.

Magazines will be shipped on Friday 23rd March. If you’d like to be the first to receive our Silent Film Special simply pre-order or subscribe below.

Click here to subscribe

Click here to pre-order

New Empress Magazine’s Minema titles are a mini-digi-dose of film commentary, flashbacks and review. In this first issue, 4.1, New Empress writers celebrate 100 years of film criticism, look at when cartoons went to war and offer up an alternative reading of the Disney classic Mary Poppins. All that and a smattering of topical reviews. Those who get very excited over the design of our magazine might also like to know that the cover art for our next print issue is also unveiled within.

Click here to buy issue 4.1 our first ever digi-edition!

Subscribers receive this title for free alongside their print subscription.
Click here to subscribe.