Individual Reading. The moon and sixpence. Part 1

A well-off, middle-class stockbroker, Charles Strickland lives with his wife and two children in London. After 17 years of marriage, Charles leaves the family for Paris. Mrs. Strickland asks the narrator to go to Paris for talking with her husband and convincing him to come back. However, when the story teller has arrived to France and has a serious conversation with Charles, he learns that the latter will never return because he doesn’t love his wife and doesn’t care of his children. Then, the writer finds out that Mr. Strickland has left his family for studying art for which he has decided to devote the rest of his life. He cardinally changes his lifestyle – he changes a cozy home for a cheap hotel, neat appearance - for the look of recluse. At the same time, opposite, his wife sets up her own business and begins to make good money, however, considering that this stuff is not suitable for women.

Rendering №12

The editorail published on April, 11 is headlined “Django Unchained pulled from Chinese cinemas
”. China has cancelled screenings of Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained as the Asian country continues its policy of censoring Hollywood movies.

The article takes a critical view of the fact that Chinese cinemas cancelled all screenings of Quentin Tarantino's Django Unchained as the film was released on Thursday. It reports at length that the Chinese news and entertainment website Sina revealed that cinemas across China were ordered to suspend screenings of the film. There are signs that he order came from the state-run film distributor China Film Group Corporation, which cited an unspecified technical problem with the film. One user of Sina's social media channel claimed they had been watching the film, which stars Jamie Foxx and Leonardo DiCaprio, when it was stopped "after just one minute".
There is every reason to believe that China strictly censors films and other media for sexual and political sensitivities, and limits distribution of foreign films to protect the domestic industry. It’s open secret that the film is full of bloody scenes and they had been toned down for its Chinese release. Giving appraisal to the situation, it’s necessary to note that this is the latest in a number of incidences where China has censored Western films. Men in Black 3, Pirates Of The Caribbean: At World's End and Mission: Impossible 3 are also among films that have been heavily altered by the Chinese authorities.
It remain to be seen that Hollywood studios are now taking steps to recut and edit films to make them suitable for Chinese audiences far in advance of release.
As for me, I think that the reason of so strict censorship is obvious - nude scenes or the "dangerous" theme of underdogs rising up by force had caused the film to be pulled. It’s hard to predict the course of events in future but now I can only say that it is unclear if Django Unchained will be shown again in Chinese cinemas.

Rendering №11

The editorail published on April, 11 is headlined “Mad Men, series six opener, Sky Atlantic, review
”.  Serena Davies reviews the opening two episodes of the sixth series of Sixties-set drama Mad Men starring Jon Hamm and January Jones.

First of all, it must be mentioned about the fact that there are two schools of thought about Mad Men: there are those who delight in its every subtle, sly detail – details that combine, in an intricate tapestry, to make this one of the most sophisticated, nuanced dramas around – and those who find it boring. In particular, the author of the article notes that the AMC show’s sixth series has just begun on Sky Atlantic with a double header. Giving appraisal to it, the correspondent writes that the sixth has started with a subdued buzz. It’s as if we’re already waiting for next season’s grand finale.
The reporter reminds that Season five’s opener had the great set piece of troubled hero Don Draper’s wife Megan (Jessica Paré) doing sexy French singing at him in a public setting, which threw him into all sorts of intriguing existential confusion. Besides, it’s interesting to point out that the start of season six spent most of its time playing catch-up with a series of sometimes elliptical vignettes – the scenes showed us that certain couples were still together for instance, but their significance could be opaque.
In comparison with the previous episodes, it’s necessary to note that apart from the hair and more frequent talk of the Vietnam War everyone seemed the same. Then the author of the editorial gives a critical view. He writes that he is a a Mad Men fan, but then considers that he was disappointed by this start. We need to be shown something more than Don yet again pondering who he is. The journalist proves his opinion by mentioning about each main character.
Serena Davies draws the conclusion that perhaps, even if this opening was tedious at times, Weiner is studying a condition about which he may yet have something very interesting to say.
As for me, frankly speaking I can’t add anything to the author opinion as I have never watched it, so I can judge only the structure if the article and how it Is written. All in all, I like the correspondent’s style of writing, as she always proves her criticism.

Rendering № 10

The editorial published on January, 26 is headlined “The Golden eagle – who wins the main prize”

It carries out a lot of comment on the Golden Eagle Award which is held in Moscow for 11 times by the National Academy of Motion Pictures Arts and Sciences of Russia. The author notes that we may see Danila Kozlovsky, Anna Michalkova, Irina Rozanova and many others among the winners of 2013. Analyzing the situation, the author writes that there was the flower of the Russian cinema there. 

There is nothing out of the way during the 11^th Award – some celebrities were sitting for photo while others were giving interviews.

Analyzing the situation, the correspondent writes that it was rather difficult to get to know who supported who. Summing it up, the author concludes with Irina Rozanova’s statement: “almost all my friends have acted in this or that film, so, it doesn’t matter for me who will win”. Then, the reporter describes the further developments – all guests took their seats and were waiting for the beginning of the show. There is also a lot of comment on Nikina Michalkov, probably one of the most famous guests of that evening. According to the author of the editorial, there is a general feeling to believe that a married couple – Nikita Michalkov and his wife were in the center of paparazzo’s attention.  

Giving appraisal to he situation, it is interesting to point out that victor Vasilyev and his pregnant wife Anna Snatkina were the masters of ceremonies. According to the reporter’s opinion, both of them were too anxious and as the result they were replaced by Alyona Babenko.

Speaking about some interesting and memorable things withing the ceremony, one of them, unmistakably was the way of presentation films in the category “The best live-action film of the year”. It was the video where children try to tell a few words about each movie in this nomination. The author considers it very touching and nice.

Speaking about the winners feeling and emotions about that, the reporter writes about Anna Michalkova who had won the prize for her play in the movie “love with accent” directed by Rezo Giginishvili. The actress was rather modest and told about her talent very modestly, regarding to the more talented (in her opinion) actors. There is every sign that her father, Nikita Michalkov was impressed and pleased by hus daughter and the author quotes him as a proof of it.

The correspondent concludes the article with the winner list of this ceremony.

As for me, I think it’s rather good idea to hold such ceremony in our country and I believe that its quality is rather high. Frankly speaking I am not fond of cinema, but I was pleased to see the films I like so much in the winner list. I hope that such festivals will give opportunities to young film directors as well as infamous but very talented actors to prove themselves. 

Review №3

Artist

Directed by Michel Hazanavicius

Produced by Thomas Langmann

Written by Michel Hazanavicius
Starring         Jean Dujardin
                         Bérénice Bejo

Music by           Ludovic Bource

Cinematography Guillaume Schiffman

Editing by            Anne-Sophie Bion
                           Michel Hazanavicius
Studio             La Petite Reine
                            ARP Sélection


Distributed by Warner Bros. (France)
The Weinstein Company(US/AUS)
Entertainment Film Distributors (UK)

Plot

Hollywood, 1927. Silent film star George Valentin accidently gets acquaintantec with a young pretty woman, Peppy Miller, on the premier of his latest film. The girl bumps into him while he is posing for pictures. However, Velantin considers it as a joke and takes her to pose with him. Next day, these photos are placed on the first pages of all famous newspapers. Thanks to Valentin,  Peppy is accepted to be a dancer in a film and have a part in Kinograph Studios' next production. Later, platonic relationships are established between them and Valentin becomes a mentor for Peppy, helping her with the world of cinema. Two years later, the studio boss, Al Zimmer, announces avout the end of silent cinema era which is gradually replaced by sound ones. However, Valentin disagrees and decides to produce his own silent film as a protest but the premier of his film clashes with the premier of the sound film stared by Peppy. As a result Valentin’s creation comes a cropper. Being unable to bear all these troubles, he had bout of heavy drinking. Soon, fire happens in the house and he is rescued and hospitalized. Finding out it, Peppy takes care of Valentin and takes him to her home. She asks Al Zimmer to take Valentin to co star in her next film and finally Al Zimmer agrees.

Direction

The film skillfully directed by Michel Hazanavicius is a French film director, producer and screenwriter. He is mainly known the film “Artist”. His idea to direct the contemporary film about silent cinema is worth discussing, and he perfectly conveys the atmosphere of that time by both actors’ performance and skilful producing. They say that success is conditioned by unusual way of producing, but I think that the high level of Hazanavicius’ film team in the head of the producer himself results in a film which  was nominated for ten Academy Awards and won five. He doesn’t use any electronic means, thus making his film simpler, thus making the viewers to come back to the cradle of cinematography.

Actors’ performance

I’d like to consider the actors’ performance from very unusual point of view. It is caused by the fact that the movie is the silent one, thus the responsibility of the cast for the success of failure of the film raises greatly. Here, there is no possibility to rely on special effects or something like that. All emotions and thought are conveyed through gestures, mimicry and faces…I think that is the main salt of this film which makes him unique and so popular. The highest acting skills are perfectly illustrated on Jean Dujardin and Bérénice Bejo’s examples. They make you to consider this film not as you used to…it really has a sole…it immediately strikes your eyes… and it is achieved through their talent to convey their emotions relying only on their skills. Undoubtedly, it can not be overestimated.

Costume Design

Costume design is also worth talking about. There are variety of them and all of them catch a viewer’s eye and pay your attention. You may feel what colours are they, thus it is another advantage of the film, which makes you not only think but also imagine according to your own views and considerations. In spite of the beauty and greatness of the costumes, which are represented sometimes by their simplicity, sometimes by their luxury, they don’t override the actors. They somehow help them to express feelings, thus being very suitable addition to this or that actors’ look. Costumes help you to feel the atmosphere of that time more deeply.

My impression

I definitely like this film. First of all, I have chosen it after reading synopsis which has awoken my interest. (Silent movie about silent movie – sounds strange and designing). And now, after watching, there is no doubt, it as really worth watching! The main thing which may attract me in my life is peculiarity of something. I have found a plenty of them in this movie! What makes it more interesting, that in fact I can’t name what they are. You should watch it and then understand me for sure. It is full of ironical sense which lacks by the majority of today’s “blog busters”. It is not too serious, it is not to pompous, just to the point! My statements are very vague, I know, but watch it, and you will know what I mean.

Rendering №9

The editorail published on January, 17 is headlined “6th Kustendorf Film Festival kicks off”. The article takes a critical view of MOKRA GORA -- The 6th International Film and Music Festival Kustendorf started on Wednesday night in Drvengrad on Mt. Mokra Gora in western Serbia. Speaking about the festival, it’s interesting to note that The festival will bring together some of the most important filmmakers from across the world and numerous film students until January 22. There is also signs that the opening ceremony began in front of St Sava's Church, on which the festival's symbol - a gold egg - was projected using light effects. For the better understanding of importance of the event, the reporter mentions The festival is organized by famous Serbian film director Emir Kusturica. 
This was followed by a holographic fight between Kusturica and Bruce Willis, in which the festival host's triumph symbolized a win for auteur cinema over Hollywood blockbusters. In fact, the festival was officially opened by Serbian Culture and Information Minister Bratislav Petković. There is a lot of comment on Kusturica’s impression - said the festival aspired and had been successful in presenting and supporting young people who "believe film is not just a vulgar commercial expression, but the art that Fellini and Tarkovsky talked about, and in which Miloš Forman was one of the greats." The writer quotes Kusturica as a prove of his words : “This is our hope despite the media which are worse than Ancient Rome with its Colosseum where people were thrown to be eaten alive for the entertainment of the masses”. In this connection, it’s worth while mentioning the fact that According to Kusturica, the festival's goal is "the reincarnation of the films of the 1970s and 1980s, when cinema was a combination of entertainment and art."
The reporter also gives a few details about other guests of the festival - Other guests at Kustendorf include Benh Zeitlin of the U.S., Aleksey Balabanov of Russia, Matteo Garrone of Italy, Elia Suleiman of Palestine, Peter Gothar of Hungary, Yesim Ustaoglu of Turkey), Italian actress Monica Bellucci and French actress Audrey Tautou.
The editorial concludes with the author sums up the results of this cultural event - Competing for the gold, silver and bronze egg are 28 films by young filmmakers from 18 countries: Great Britain, Denmark, Israel, Korea, Cuba, Mexico, Germany, Peru, Poland, Portugal, Singapore, Serbia, the U.S., the Philippines, France, the Netherlands, Montenegro and Switzerland.
As for me, I think that such kind of festivals give wonderful possibilities for the young to prove and try themselves in this walk of life. I am sure that Kusturica has earned many people’s respect not only for his talent but for  making a valuable contribution to the development of the world cinema.

Rendering №8

The editorail published on April, 11 is headlined “Narrative, Royal Court Theatre Upstairs, review”.    It is a review of  Narrative, Royal Court Theatre Upstairs with elements of the brief biography of its author. The author of the article considers it as It may have funny moments, but Anthony Neilson's Narrative is self-indulgent and lacks compassion.

The correspondent begins his writing with some facts from Anthony Neilson’s biography. The Scottish dramatist Anthony Neilson was one of the young Turks of the so called “In Yer Face” theatre brigade of the 1990s along withMark Ravenhill and the late Sarah Kane. In later years Neilson’s writing has become less shocking and more imaginative, in often surreally dream-like plays intermittently blessed with both humour and heart. Analyzing some of the brightest moments of his biography, it’s necessary to mention that he tends to arrive at plays by beginning with a few ideas and then working them out in rehearsals and improvisations with his actors, with the script coming together as they proceed. It’s a high risk strategy.
There is every reason to believe that there are several intertwined stories, mostly concerning actors and perhaps based on the lives of the performers. The writer gives appraisal to it by adding examples. One actor agonises that he is about to be written out of a soap, another finds himself cast in a super-hero film, playing the “Elastic Man” opposite George Clooney. There is also an actor who finds himself cruelly humiliated in an audition and an anguished mother whose son has committed suicide. Summing this up and analyzing Neilson’s unique style, the reporter says that at its best, the play proves comic and inventive, and there are sharp performances from Zawe Ashton as the ghastly PR, Oliver Rix as the handsome actor catapulted to stardom, and Barnaby Power as his jealous friend.
The article concludes by saying that nevertheless this is a piece that seems smugly pleased with its own ingenuity, and despite its often dark subject matter, it never becomes remotely moving.
As for me, it was very interesting to learn about The Scottish dramatist Anthony Neilson. According to this article Neilson’s style as well as all his plays prove a decidedly mixed bag, intriguing at times, occasionally funny, but at others self-indulgent and pretentious.