excuse me, I fell asleep on the platform.

My third year film dissertation topic: Britain photographed and representing itself and its fears (subconscious claustrophobia and paranoia) in contemporary horror.

This is a topic I've had in my head for about two years. I remember the first time I watched 28 Weeks Later. It wasn't the images of apocalyptic Britain that I found to be terrifying, the loss of an entire group of human beings that I relate with, and their unique culture. It was the aftermath that 28 Weeks Later covered, and in particular the presence of America; the way in which they "heroically" descend upon the lost city and their vision of themselves being the total antithesis to the London setting and English people.
Thinking about this further, I came to the conclusion that post-apocalyptic films like 28 Days Later and 28 Weeks are distinctly different offerings to what you'd expect from an American film with the same kind of screenplay. The British idiosyncrasies are so clear not only in the direction of the plot (the cynical keep calm and carry on attitudes and endings where most of the characters die) but are interwoven into the location choices, mise-en-scéne, and even just the photographic framing.

So, I'm taking this idea further and investigating the claims I've just made, in a series of three contemporary British horrors (not just post-apocalyptic), analysing their photography, characters and stories for evidence, and also there standing in a historical context. Is this subconscious fear, claustrophobic paranoia, something that's been inherent in British people since we first became isolated habitants of a tiny, self-contained island? Or is it something newer? Does the constant reminder of the modern global village and the saturation of corporative American media do nothing but remind us of how we will always be physically seperated from it?


Core film texts (as of Oct 2011)

The Descent (dir. Neil Marshall, 2005)

This isn't a popular film among my peers it seems. But I think it's an effective horror film, with the ideal equilibrium found between aural fear and visual fear. I don't need to explain much in terms of why I've chosen this, surely? Most of it is set inside a cave, filmed in small crevices and tunnels, in nothing but torchlight. But not only this - even the exterior scenes are filmed in a distinctly small scale, claustrophobic way. American horror films usually exaggerate the landscape, make it rolling and endless. In this, even the great outdoors is confined, the frame full, the mountains and trees are intimidating rather than a symbol of freedom and fresh air. I can also talk about the kind of "monsters" here. British horrors usually have a very clear type of monster and reasons for said monster existing, and I've chosen my other core films for their similar monster types.

Creep (dir. Christopher Smith, 2004)

The London Underground. A ripe setting for a confined, tight and dark horror film. We have the same kind of aural scares in Creep as you find in The Descent - the screeching, incoherence of the "monster". Like I explained before, Creep maintains the 'minimal survivors' rule, and at no point does any character really try to act the hero. Actually, the self-contained, independent and slightly self-obsessed characters represent quite well Britain as a whole, and how it sees itself.

28 Weeks Later (dir. Juan Carlos Fresnadillo, 2007)

I chose 28 Weeks Later especially for the American presence in the film, and how we can compare that to the British side. America likes to present itself as grandiose and as brave as possible. Britain is effectively the opposite, and I love how these subtlely play against each other in the being of 28 Weeks Later. In the end, we can argue Britain wins out...

Maybe I'll prove my own theory wrong.
Ask me in May 2012.

my favourite mycroft.

unbelievably the god that is mark gatiss came to the mill arts centre in banbury last night for an interview session in aid of the samaritans (charity is the only thing that can get people of interest to come anywhere near this town it seems). dragged my sister along as no-one else i know seems to appreciate this man... and i came away feeling inspired again. there isn't much more i can ask for than that.

short summary of mark gatiss, not that i should need to give it - co-creator of the league of gentlemen, co-writer in several episodes of dr who, last year gave us my new favourite thing, the new sherlock, as well as having acted in and written numerous other productions (starter for 10, the first men on the moon, the worst journey in the world, a history of horror...).

i suppose what impresses me most about mark gatiss is the fact he's become extremely successful, not just because he knows the right people, but because he is a talented writer and actor who did nothing but simply "stick at it", and in doing this has had a healthy career doing everything he's passionate about - he said he didn't think he'd ever worked on a project his heart wasn't in 100%. he's never lost an ounce of integrity.
his advice - if you want something enough, whether you want to be a writer, a photographer, a filmmaker, an actor, if you have nothing but passion then just work and work and create something you are proud of. even if you have rooms full of discarded ideas and scraps of paper, keep going. find a good idea.
the people who are "stars" don't always deserve to be stars... and there will always be wealths of talented people who never get to be well known for what they do. contacts can only get you so far... talent, hard work and good ideas are worth so much more.