Top 30 Worst Big Brother Production Decisions or Twists (Part 2)

In this post I continue my personal countdown of what I consider to be the worst production decisions or twists that the Great British Public have had to endure at the hands of Big Brother's wonderful production team. In part 2 we countdown from 20th place all the way to number 11, with part 3 focusing on the top 10.

With that being said let us begin:

20) Faye's sister Jem enters the house (Big Brother 12)

This is the second of my 'relative of a housemate enters the house' updates in this ranking, with BB10's Isaac being the first mentioned in part one, and in many way's the issues with Jem as a housemate were almost identical to that of Isaac when he entered the house. Due to the fact that Jem was a non-auditionee as well as somebody who had little emotional connection to the show was unable and unwilling to embrace the concept in the way that a true applicant would have, and arguably the casting of Jem robbed the place of somebody who would have treated the experience with much more enthusiasm. The other major issue however came with Jem's performance as a housemate itself, although his stay was short you can make the arguement that Isaac did have some fun moments and could have been a bigger character had he of stayed around longer, whereas Jem spent the large majority of her time in the show as a largely dreary and negative presence who helped to stifle a lot of the fun in Big Brother 12 at the time before her emergence as pseudo 'villain of the week' following Anton's eviction. Whilst I do admit to liking some of the complexity in the relatioship between her and Faye I found her entry into the show ultimately pointless, especially considering what she brought as a housemate.

19) The Speidi and Rylan show (Celebrity Big Brother 11)

Now I understand in the television industry that you need to cash in and promote your biggest characters and your biggest names for a reality television series such as Big Brother, but in my eyes the over promotion of this feud ended up crossing this line and ended up descending into saturation, which ultimately came at the expense of the quality of the series as a result. Whilst I did find some elements of the Speidi and Rylan feud interesting, in particular the contrast the differences between British and American interpretations of Reality Television I felt that the feud was simply too over-promoted for it's own good, and came at the expense of an entire cast that ended up being blatantly ignored. Now I know some may argue that the reason Speidi and Rylan were so heavily focused on was because the other housemates weren't doing enough but from the snippets we saw and heard this wasn't the case, Razor and Toadie's discussion over the women which caused the nomination rule break hinted at resentment towards the house females whilst we also saw snippets of Toadie's grievances over the house pecking order, both of which could have been given focus. Instead however production chose to focus on a feud which ended becoming incredibly tedious, drawn out and by the end left me hating both parties involved equally, and in the process ruining what could have been a good series.

18) First night nominations (Big Brother 4)

 Now I know that in terms of production Big Brother 4 was a much more innocent time, and that the likelyhood is that twists during those days were likely planned weeks and months before rather then on the fly, but that doesn't hide the fact that this was a poorly thought out idea which ultimately proved to be to the detriment of Big Brother 4 as a series. The idea of having nominations on the first night of the show does sound good on paper, but is ultimately flawed because it leads to the larger and more extravagant personalities on launch night becomming immediate targets without any chance to mellow and integrate themselves into the group, even from launch night it was evident that Anoushka, Federico and Jon were the three biggest personalities and the most potential to be breakout characters, and the fact was we were going to lose one of them after one week (no way was Scott leaving) and in the process do a lot of damage to the series. A show such as Big Brother should do everything it can to keep it's big personalities and yet a twist like this seemed to be designed to intentionally lose them.

17) Billi's nominations are cancelled AFTER nominations have taken place (Big Brother 8)

Now in retrospect this was a good decision which I can support, Charley was a character who pretty much single handedly made Big Brother 8 watchable, whereas Billi would go on to become one of the most annoying and deluded post-show attention seekers that the show has ever had, however from a short term point of view this was a decision which helped to strain the last ounce of credibility from the Big Brother franchise as well as alienate many more viewers. In the aftermath of Shilpa-gate and Emily's ejection production should have been doing everything they could to attempt to try and appease an increasingly cynical audience, and the voting out of Charley, who at that point was the public's enemy at the time, would have gone a long way to do that. Manipulating the process in such a blatant way as this just helped to upset those much needed casual viewers, and in the process dented the ratings and set about a decline in the public perception of the show. Plus it wasn't as obvious at that point that Charley was needed to make the series bearable, and in my eyes the show could have afforded to lose her at this point, especially as someone such as Billi ironically enough had the potential to take up the mantle as the series villain. I do stress this was a good move in retrospect, but undeniable fatally damaged the show's remaining credibility.

16) Fake Week (Big Brother 8)

This twist for me is symbolic of two things; the first being how a good twist can be ruined by incompetent mismanagement and how devoid of focus and erratic the production of Big Brother 8 was. Whilst Fake Week sounded like a good idea it began to fall apart very quickly, firstly actress Thaila Zucchi simply wasn't good enough to pull off her character of fake housemate Pauline, her Australian accent regularly slipped and her stories never matched up, bad enough in any series but with Big Brother 8 being some of the most savvy and cynical housemates in the show's history it was almost fatally flawed from the beginning. Added to this for all the hype and buildup that fake week gave us Thaila's involvement in the show was rather poor, she was regularly given instructions to attempt to stir up the house dynamics and quite simply refused to pull them off, which in the process rendered the whole situation pointless and eventually led to the twist being pulled midway through the week, which in turn led to more questions about the competence and credibility of the show's production team.

15) The White Room (Big Brother 13)

Now I'll admit the payoff to the white room was in my opinion fantastic television, but my god what a slog we had to go through to get to it. Even though I am somebody who considers Big Brother 13 to be one of the better Big Brother series I cannot deny that the White Room episodes are some of the worst in the franchise's history. The first issue with the twist stems from the casting choices for the white room twist, it should have been obvious based on the first 8 weeks of the show that Conor, Luke S and Sara weren't the most interesting housemates of the series, and yet they were being trusted to carry show for a weeks worth of television, and quite simply as a result the television question ended up as incredibly tedious. The other major issue stems from the decision to incorporate the show's prize money as part of the twist, had the twist involved a separate £50,000 the backlash may not have been as great as it was, but because of the way that this twist was set up an undeserving housemate was going to be rewarded with half of the winner's prize money in spite of doing very little to earn it, especially comparative to the winner. The twist may have sounded good on paper, and the tension in it's climax was fantastic, but it was riddled with injustices and unfairness which proved isolating to the show's audience.

14) Rex's girlfriend Nicole enters the house (Big Brother 9)

The third and final 'relative enters the house' twist on this list, and by far the one which was the most infuriating. In my eyes the decision to enter Nicole into the show had two main flaws which proved to be detrimental to BB9 as a series; the first stemmed from Nicole herself, whilst Jem had been relatively annoying and dreary Nicole in comparison was just plain infuriating, threatening to quit on multiple occasion and bringing the house's ethos down with continual whining and tantrums whenever she failed to get her way, and once again made the viewing public question production's abilities by placing someone into the show who had zero interest in being there. The second major stemmed on the impact that Nicole's entry had on Rex, who was quickly establishing himself as a lovable rogue villain character with an increasing fan base, placing Nicole into the house completely stifled Rex's momentum and practically derailed him as a housemate. Placing Nicole into the house achieve little in the way of entertainment and harmed the show's best character, not a good decision whatsoever.

13) John is given a free pass to the final on the first night (Big Brother: Celebrity Hijack)

Being a largely unwatched E4 spinoff series maybe I should go a bit easy on Celebrity Hijack, but that does not for me hide the fact that the show's opening night twist was deeply unfair cast a cloud over what was a rather overlooked BB outing. Whilst I do admit that the Matt Lucas designed launch night twist was very entertaining, and helped give rise to other secret earpiece launch night tasks used by Channel 5, the reward which came for John as a result of it, namely a free pass to the final, was excessive and gave John a massively unfair advantage over the others. Whilst other housemates were forced to engage with the stresses of the Big Brother nomination and voting pressures John was free to sit back and coast to the finale with little trouble, added to this the launch night twist was also unfair as it gave John a major pedestal over the others in terms of exposure and prominence, and arguably proved to be the major factor in his largely underwhelming victory.

12) Emily is ejected as an over-reaction to Shilpa-gate (Big Brother 8)

Now I understand that Channel 4 needed to be seen as zero tolerance when it came to racism following Shilpa-gate, but this in my eyes was a major over-reaction which proved to be more detrimental to Channel 4 then it did beneficial. The major issue with this was simply that in context what Emily said to Charley was not worthy of an ejection from the house,especially not one in the middle of the night, in my eyes the situation could have easily been dealt with behind doors without getting out to the media, as well as this Emily was up for eviction that week and would have very likely gone that week anyway, so the long term damage that the incident may have caused wouldn't have taken place. By ejecting Emily Channel 4 inflicted more unneeded attention onto themselves and further damaged the public perception of the show. The fact that more people complained about Emily being ejected rather then the racial slur itself is telling of how badly Channel 4 misjudged this incident.

11) Shahbaz is allowed to compete despite his poor mental health (Big Brother 7)

Whilst I do accept that Shahbaz was one of the main reasons why Big Brother 7's first week was so action packed and drama filled I have to admit to feeling uncomfortable with Channel's handling of him as a housemate. Even from the outset it was obvious that Shahbaz was not mentally strong enough to handle to pressures of being within the Big Brother environment, and it was in my eyes completely irresponsible of production to place a contestant that was so obviously mentally weak into an environment like that, and as a result made people question in much more detail the ethics of Big Brother as a franchise, especially when you also take into account the mental disorders of Nikki Grahame, Lea Walker and Sam Brodie also. I do respect Channel 4 for realising their mistake and pulling Shahbaz from the programme, but the fact the remains that he should have never been allowed in their in the first place.

So there are another10 disastrous decisions at the hands of the Big Brother production team, but what do I consider to be the 10 worst ever? Stay tuned to this blog to find out.

Top 30: Worst Big Brother Production Decisions or Twists (Part 1)

As a new series of Big Brother dawns on us again on Channel 5 we can come to expect much of the same when it comes to the grandaddy of reality television be it controversy, over the top personalities and more often then not production decisions that quite simply leave us scratching our heads and looking between ourselves with bemusement. For a show that prides itself on it's over-reliance of production twists it's alarming to see just how many of them have ended up being underwhelming or backfiring in the faces of the show's producers with farcical results.

 This ranking is my own personal opinions of the worst twists and production decisions that the show's loyal fan base have had the misfortune of bearing witness to, being split into three parts each counting down part of the list respectively. I want to stress that this my own personal list and there may be elements of this list which you disagree with, but the internet would be a boring place if we all agreed on the same things (just ask China).

With that being said, let us begin:

30) Mario and Steph's fake 'marriage' (Big Brother 9)

On paper this had the potential to be a good twist; the idea of Mario and Steph having to pretend to be a fake couple to decieve the rest of the house had both the potential to be engaging to watch as well as great comedic potential in having poor Steph forced to work with a buffoon like figure like Mario was, but the decision to hold a fake wedding ceremony ended up taking this idea and pushing it in a direction which was tacky and insulting to the viewer's intelligence (as well as the other housemates). Added to this another problem with this twist was the way in which production chose to change the result of the task at the last minute so that Mario and Steph, as well as associates Luke and Lisa, would fail and face the public vote, arguably as a means of attempting to save emerging show villain Alexandra. This in turn was flawed for two reasons, the first being that production were willingly giving up one of the four characters which they had spent nearly the whole week building up and getting the public to care about whilst the other was that Alexandra, the contestant in which they were attempting to save by changing the result, was very obviously a ticking time bomb whose time in the house was going to be short anyway, and simply it was not worth going to such lengths to protect her in the way that production did, particularly at the expense of either Mario or Steph, both of which demonstrated potential to much more mulch-faceted personalities.

29) The £100,000 giveaway (Big Brother 8)

Should I really have an issue with a normal likable guy with a poorly mother being given £100,000? From an ethical point of view certainly not but from the view of interesting television, which is what we watch Big Brother for then certainly yes. This twist is in many ways symbolic of the flaws of Big Brother 8 as a series; a collection of poorly thought out and needless twists solely for shock value with no though given to their repercussions. The twist received little to no buildup and during the actual live show itself lacked any kind of drama and tension that a live show such as this should have done, it was at the end of the day a nice likable man getting £100,000 for doing very little, which you can imagine doesn't sound like particularly interesting television. The fact that the twist also received almost nothing in the way of repercussions and was seldom spoken about by either the housemates or the production team should symbolise just how poorly this twist ended up failing.

28) The cast of Big Brother 12 (Big Brother 12)

When Channel 5 took over running of the Big Brother franchise back in 2011 it was obvious that they would have to attempt to do something different with the show to attempt and regain interest from the British public, their attempt to do so however, something most obviously symbolised with the Big Brother 12 cast, proved to be more detrimental then it would beneficial. Channel 5's motives stemmed from attempting to attract a more youth orientated audience similar to that of scripted reality shows such as Geordie Shore and The Only Way Is Essex, and in the process casted a youthful and more TOWIE derived cast which prided itself on having no housemates over 30. The problem with this was that the youth audience which Channel 5 obsessed itself with simply didn't catch on, and in the process the youthful cast only ended up isolating the older and more hardcore audience that Big Brother had built up for itself during the Channel 4 era. Added to this was that the youthful cast also proved harmful to the show on an entertainment side. Big Brother had been a format which sold itself on bringing extreme personalities from different walks of life together, and instead what the show had was a group from vaguely the same areas of the country of similar age ranges and similar levels of youth and profession, which simply doesn't give us the contrast and diversity the show needs. 

27) The failure to punish Siavash for persistent rule-breaking (Big Brother 10)

This for me is one of many examples of Big Brother's diminsihing lack of authority during the later years of the Channel 4 era and has began to be subsequently seen during the Channel 5 era also. Whilst I understand that Siavash was a major character during Big Brother 10 and particular it's later stages the fact remains that by that point he had mentally taken himself out of the process and was doing everything in his power to disrupt the show's proceedings, and in my eyes if a housemate is blatantly breaking the rules in the way Siavash was during BB10's later stages they should be removed from the process. The fact that production allowed Siavash to get away with this by giving him such weak punishments led to Siavash making his rule breaks more blatant knowing that he would never be truly condemned for it but also it convinced future housemates that they too could abuse and get the upper hand on Big Brother as an entity, which is completely against what Big Brother should be about.

26) Noirin's boyfriend Isaac enters the house (Big Brother 10)

This is the first of many 'relative/ boyfriend of a housemate enters' type of twists that makes the list, and personally this one I consider the most pointless and least relevant of all of them. My first gripe with Isaac's entry stemmed from Isaac's attitude towards the show, he had never seen Big Brother before in his life time (let alone auditioned) and had no interest in engaging himself within the process aside from reaquainting himself with Noirin (demonstrating by him leaving almost immediately after her eviction) and took a potential housemate place away from somebody who would have cared about the show much more. The other grievance stemmed from the way that Isaac's entrance helped spoil what could have been the best eviction of the series, that week's Noirin vs Marcus eviction had looked set to be a closely fought eviction between two of BB10's biggest characters and instead as a result of Isaac it led instead to an all but guaranteed Noirin eviction. Whilst I do appreciate that Isaac's entry did lead to a symbolic ending to Noirin's man-eater storyline and admit Isaac had some fun moments I just found the whole thing to be needless tinkering and pointless, especially considering Isaac left anyway after three days.

25) Big Brother 10's launch night (Big Brother 10)

Now I'll admit I do have a soft spot for BB10 as a series, considering it one of the most overlooked and underrated series of them all, however if you want a reason why it was overlooked look no further then at the weak launch night that opened the series. Launch night is always considered as the most important episode of any Big Brother series, and a combination of a controversial cast for that series and the inability to give a full house tour due to the 'No-Housemates' twist led to the entire show feeling weak, devoid of personality and incredibly lackluster, and no matterhow good the rest of the show may be it will only help to lose those casual fans that are much needed for ratings. The 'no-housemates' twist as well must also be given some criticism as well, as the entire process, which could have been made quite interesting, was reduced to nothing more then parlour games, games of chances and dunking biscuits, not exactly the 'free for all' fight for housemate status that had been promoted to us on launch night.

24) The guru twist (Big Brother 8)

This was just sloppy and amateurish from production in my opinion, as well as demonstrating blatant favouritism towards housemates in a way in which the show really shouldn't have done. Firstly there was the issue with the way in which the gurus in the task were chosen, the contests were incredibly flawed in design and subjective (especially the lie detector task) which only helped to give the impression that the contestants being given guru status were favourites of production as opposed to those who had truly earned the result. The second major grievance with the guru task stemmed from the decision to allow the gurus to decide between the two vote earners that week on which one would go, this too exposed favouritism as it helped Carole, a contestant who was single-handedly helping to stifle the fun in the house, to stay in the process despite a large majority of the public wanting her out. Even had Gerry not have fallen on his sword and asked the gurus to vote him out the likely hood is that they would have done so anyways simply because the format, as well as the gurus chosen, were designed to favour Carole. This was a poorly done twist and another example of how poor BB8 was.

23) The crypt (Big Brother 12)

This task didn't have many repercussions in the house in the long term, but is on this list mainly because of how amateurishly it was produced. Whilst I do understand that the crypt was just a replication of the brilliant bedsit task of BB5, but lacked any kind of tension compared to the original and the poor quality of the crypt's design meant that the housemates in the main house knew that Jay and Anton had not left the process, which rendered the whole task pointless. The twist that came with the crypt however was also a major grievance with the task, as the implication of Jay and Anton's 'ability to change nominations' was chopped and changed so much that gave across a strong perception of incompetence from production as well as favouritism towards Anton and Jay that they were being given a second reprieve within the show despite their poor behaviour making themselves house targets.

22) The treatment of Rachel Rice (Big Brother 9)

This one is entirely personal and the one I'm expecting the most grief about from readers about but I'll try to explain. Whilst I do agree with most people when I say that I don't think that Rachel Rice was the most exciting television in the world I have to admit that I felt particularly uncomfortable with the way in which production looked to victimise Rachel over her lack of entertainment value as a character. Production having biases for or against housemates is bad enough on a show like Big Brother, but what made this worse in my eyes was the fact that producers appeared to have a bias against Rachel simply for being a nice girl, and what kind of message does that send out to viewers as well as potential applicants? The way in which production later condemned Rachel following her victory also showed petulance and immaturity on behalf of production which makes the perception of the production team look even worse.

21) The producers begin bending over backwards to keep John James happy (Big Brother 11)

This entry could in many ways be considered as the evolution of the Siavash entry earlier in the update, but one which I consider worse mainly because it began much earlier in the series and was seen as being much more in favour of John James then in Siavash's case. As with Siavash John James was a housemate whose stubbornness helped to spoil his Big Brother series, namely in his refusal to do tasks and embrace house affairs unless they were catered to his demands, which included him threatening to quit unless his demands were met. Unfortunately production decided to meet all of these and bend over backwards and break their own rules in the process of doing so, including allowing John James to make a phonecall to Nathan from inside the house itself. It, like Siavash, once again showed up Big Brother to be a weak entity with little authority and one which could be manipulated should the right cards be played, and whilst I understand John Jame's importance to BB11 as a series he was in now way bigger then the show, and should have been treated accordingly.

What do you think of the entries so far? Agree or disagree with any? Then don't be afraid to comment.

Entries 20-11 will be posted in due course.

Commentators or Cheerleaders?

Being an avid sports enthusiast who doesn't have much in the way of wealth I find myself exposed to a large amount of televised sport, and as a result I have come to appreciate much about sports broadcasting, in particular the importance of a good commentator is in helping to amplify a viewer's enjoyment of sport as a television experience. Think of any memorable sporting moment of the broadcast era and you'll find that nearly all of them have been accompanied by a wonderful piece of commentary which has helped to make the moment in question even more iconic, be it Kenneth Wolsenholme's cry of 'they think it's all over' as Geoff Hurst approaches the German 18 yard box during the 1966 World Cup final or more recently with Martin Tyler's elongated call of Sergio Aguero as places the ball onto his right foot before powerfully striking to give Manchester City their long awaited league title in the last minute of the 2011/2012 Premier League season.

For all their positives however I do have one major grievance when it comes to sports commentary; the thing in question being bias and prejudice towards particular competitors within a sport. Whilst I understand that this sort of thing is in a way to be expected when it comes to sports commentary, especially when it comes to a sport which has national connotations such as international football, I often feel that far too often then not these national interests end up taking predominance over the professionalism of the commentators to call the sport in as professional and as entertaining a manner as possible. The biggest example of this in recent years was with James Allen's commentary as lead commentator during the 2007 and 2008 Formula 1 seasons for ITV, two years which saw rookie Lewis Hamilton launch himself onto the Formula 1 scene with unprecedented success for a rookie driver in the sport. Being a British broadcaster covering the sucess of a Briton it was obvious for ITV and for James Allen to take this particular party line, but in my view took their coverage to unprecedented levels of fawning over Hamilton which came across as both distracting but also amazingly unprofessional, and in the process distorted a true perception of what were two classic seasons for Formula 1. At that point during his career Lewis Hamilton was in no way near a finished article as a driver or as a media conscious personality, and in those early seasons I found him to be brash, extremely and unjustly cocky as well as accident prone and at times reckless, traits which were overlooked and glossed over by an ITV obsessed with promoting their great British hero. It was in many ways rather sad to see from a broadcasting point of view,especially in regards to lead commentator James Allen who as the face of ITV's coverage, and therefore as the face of what those on the internet dubbed 'Lewhysteria', received a large amount of grief as a broadcaster, grief which in some ways saw him black-balled as a commentator and has only just began to regain his reputation and credibility as a broadcaster. Mr Allen is a very intelligent and a very passionate man when it comes to Formula 1, but he is also evidence of the importance of impartiality in sport broadcasting.

For a colour commentator impartiality is arguably much more difficult, with most colour commentators being ex-professionals the premise of having ulterior motives influencing opinion is much more commonplace, but a true, professional commentator can be able to push aside any of these influences and help in calling a sporting event in as high a professionalism as possible, Andy Gray for example had spells with Aston Villa, Wolves and Everton to name but a few, and yet very little of this can be seen when listening back to any of his broadcasts, and it shows in the high quality of the broadcast as a result. Since Mr Gray was sacked however by Sky Broadcasting there has been an increase however in colour commentators who make little to no effort in attempting to replicate this professionalism, instead choosing to nail colours to their respective masts all with the approval of Sky Sports. An incident in particular which alarmed me about this (and one which helped to instigate the publishing of this blog) came with the decision to appoint Niall Quinn to commentate on last seasons Tyne Wear Derby match. Whilst I have issues with the way that Niall Quinn conducted himself during that match I felt that much more of the blame should fall with Sky for their decision to make this arrangement in the first place. As a playing legend for the club as well as serving as chairman for a number of years Quinn's associations with Sunderland were apparent even before the broadcast took place, and in my view the decision to give him this role to cover a Sunderland game, let alone one as important as the Tyne Wear derby, was certainly a wrong one from Sky, and in the process spoiled the broadcasting of the sport as a television viewer. The Quinn incident however is not the first of these kinds of decisions however, as Sky have taken to doing this with much more of their broadcasting choices, Quinn himself was used as a colour commentator to cover the final televised games of Manchester City's title winning season (City of course being another of Quinn's closest clubs), Gary Neville being used during a number of Manchester United games during the 2011/ 2012 season as well as Soccer Saturday panelists Phil Thompson, Charlie Nicholas and Matt Le Tissier all being allowed to cover the games of Liverpool, Arsenal and Southampton respectively, all of which doing so with little regard for impartiality and subtlety in their agendas.

Whilst I understand that passion in sport is something that makes the sport more enjoyable it should not come at the expense of impartiality and professionalism, and unfortunately in recent years this has become the case, are we now at a stage in sports broadcasting where with so many forums for opinions and agendas geared towards a very particular viewer viewpoint that we no longer need the same level of professionalism seen from an old-school style of commentator? Maybe it is a decrease in standards of sports commentary in general or maybe it is just me remaining in an idyllic perception of sport which simply down to emotion simply cannot be adhered to.

I'll let you be the judge of that.

Review: Heaven's Gate

A Heavenly Delight

When it came to watching Heaven's Gate for the first time I knew that I was going to have a number of preconceptions of the film, after all it's very difficult not to for a film that is considered so notorious in the history of American Cinema. A film responsible for the collapse of the legendary United Artists film studio, being one of the instigators for the demise of the New Hollywood movement of the 1970’s as helping to all but end the Hollywood movie career of it’s young superstar director Michael Cimino, the result of all this leading to the film being considered as one of the Worst ever to grace Hollywood’s studio doors. Recently however, thanks in part to a recently restored directors cut from Michael Cimino and it’s DVD re-release as part of Criterion’s culturally significant films range the film has seen a renaissance in popularity, particularly here in Europe where in some quarters it is regarded as something of a wronged masterpiece, waiting for the redemption that it’s creator had longed for during the past 34 years. Whilst it certainly is hard to ignore the notoriety surrounding Heaven’s Gate, not only through it’s reputation within Hollywood but also the myths surrounding Cimino’s behaviour and the reported animal cruelty on-set, you find yourself being completely rewarded once you do so, and when interpreting the film explicitly from a Mise-en-scene approach of criticism you can yourself identify the reasons behind the film’s new-found reclamation. It is certainly flawed in places, but the many positives as a film in my eyes outweigh the negatives

For those who don’t know the film’s plot revolves around US federal marshal James Averill (Kris Kristofferson), who upon arriving in Johnson County, Wyoming learns of a government sanctioned plot from the rich cattle ranchers of the region to eliminate Eastern European immigrants whom the ranchers suspect of stealing their cattle, a move which results in the full-scale bloody conflict which serves as the film’s climax. During this time Averill falls for the local madam Ella Watson (Isabelle Huppert), involving himself in a three way love-triangle completed by Christopher Walken’s sneering mercenary Nate Champion.

The key starting point to come to when discussing Heaven's Gate on its own merits as a picture is of course to focus on its cinematography. The vistas of the Montana set glisten on set with a vivacity which is very difficult to compare cinematically, and when added with Cimino’s tendencies to elongate shots as long as possible it allows for the viewer to fully indulge and embrace the imagery placed in front of him, similarly the attention to detail that Cimino places into each shot of the film helps to give the film such an authenticity that at times you do get so caught up in the environment and feel transported to the 1890's of Johnson County, Wyoming. Of course in this regard the acclaimed cinematographer Vilmos Zsigmond must be given kudos for crafting this imagery, but Cimino’s background as a graphic designer also shines through in his ability to understand the importance of visual imagery and the best way to exploit that on a cinema screen, and in this regard he in my opinion achieved his pinnacle with this film visually.

This added benefit of the environment and cinematography of the film is that it also helps you to become more engaged and involved with the main plot of the film, and more importantly the critiques and symbolism that the film represented. This is a rather blunt and honest look at American immigration and corruption of the American Dream, and with grievances in regards to immigration still being felt today it strikes an even more passionate chord with the viewer in a way which arguably failed to do so back upon its original 1980 release.

This added benefit of the environment and cinematography of the film is that it also helps you to become more engaged and involved with the main plot of the film, and more importantly the critiques and symbolism that the film represented. This is a rather blunt and honest look at American immigration and corruption of the American Dream, and with grievances in regards to immigration still being felt today it strikes an even more passionate chord with the viewer in a way which arguably failed to do so back upon its original 1980 release. It also helps us to understand the reasons for why the film has proven to be so popular with modern audiences when compared to their counterparts of 30 years ago, where back in 1980 the ideals of the American Dream were still rife and any criticism of those ideals especially from one of their own was considered as sacrilege the modern day filmgoer is a lot more cynical and world weary to that vision, one who understands a lot of the criticisms that Cimino was identifying through his work. Along with this the filmgoer of the modern era is also a lot more tolerable of the film style of Heaven’s Gate in a way that the viewer of 1980 may not have been; films have gotten longer and the modern day viewer is engulfed with television programmes sacrificing the quick fix in exchange for complex story arcs and atmospheric and slow builds, no different to that which Cimino used within Heaven’s Gate. You could even go as far to say that through Heaven’s Gate Cimino inadvertently created the first HBO mini-series.

Inevitably however when speaking about Heaven's Gate we must also address the flaws of the film, and unfortunately there are many. Much has been said and written about of the behaviour of Michael Cimino during the making of Heaven's Gate, a man who just weeks after his victory in the Academy Awards for The Deer Hunter was fuelled with ego and self-importance, and this does shine through throughout the film. The obvious indicator of this is in the length of the film, at 3 hours and 40 minutes long making your way through the film is a major struggle, a rewarding one mind you but still one which requires a lot of hard work as a viewer. On top of this we also had Cimino's obsession with elongating scenes to a disorientating level, one which as mentioned works well in regards to cinematography but fails to allow the film to gain any sort of flow and drama, something criminal in something as traditionally action-packed as the Hollywood Western, this may have been justified had the scenes in question proven relevant to the main plot of the film, but more often then not they are used in filler scenes obviously impressive to look at but pointless in the grand scheme of the picture, the Harvard Graduation scene is a perfect example of this, both in the form of a four minute waltz  but also in a typically rambunctious speech by John Hurt’s character Irvine, whilst some may argue that it helps to disassociate Averill’s attitude of justice with the exuberance of his peers it is still in the context of the film an unnecessary scene devoted to a character which ultimately proves unimportant. The problem with this however is that the inclusion of these scenes helps to create an atmosphere and aura about the film that makes it so compelling, especially for a director as visually motivated as what Cimino was. As a result you are left feeling that whilst you would like some scenes to be cut from the film you know that doing so would help to hinder its atmosphere and distort the vision of Cimino’s work,which was proven to be the case with the re-cut 2 hour version released to audiences in a desperate attempt by Cimino and United Artists to make the film somewhat of a success.

Similarly the casting of the film also proves to be much of a mixed bag, leaning on the positive side, Kris Kristofferson and Isabelle Huppert are solid, if unspectacular in their leading roles as James Averill and Ella Watson respectively, and I never felt as involved in the relationship between the two as I maybe should have been, away from them however the supporting cast prove to be a delight, Jeff Bridges is as ever great as an immigrant turned self-made entrepreneur, Christopher Walken's Nate Champion sneers with an engaging menace whilst Sam Waterston's Frank Canton manages to finely walk the tightrope between being brilliantly sinister and crossing over into mustache twirling pantomime villain.

Heaven's Gate will continue to divide viewers of cinema for years to come, simply due the baggage that comes with the film, but when judged on it's own merits my opinion is that in spite of it's flaws this is an engaging beautiful piece of art that needs to be experienced and I feel should be rediscovered for a new generation.

Remembering Roger Ebert

On the 4th of April 2013 the film and press industry lost a great representative when the acclaimed film critic and writer Roger Ebert lost his battle with cancer at the age of 70. As one of the many film writers who have been inspired and influenced by Ebert's writing style and engagement to cinema I found it a responsibility to pay my own respects to a man who helped to revolutionise the art of film criticism.

As part of a long running TV partnership with the late Gene Siskel, Ebert arguably was the first mainstream celebrity film critic, but rather then taking the art-form of film criticism downmarket by embracing television as a medium Ebert was able to achieve the opposite, instead elevating his audience to his level using a charisma and likability in combination with a natural love of film which came across grandly within the show. Part of the appeal with Ebert as a writer was the way in which he was able to engage with all levels of film-going audiences, appealing to both the schooled art-house film viewer and the casual fan more inclined towards the Hollywood blockbuster, but still managing to do so with an engaging quality which made him appealing to both readers and later to television viewers, and never at any time felt snobbish and arrogant with his views, which in an industry such as this is a very hard thing to do. His relationship with Gene Siskel as part of At The Movies also proved to be an appeal of Ebert, as the two's partnership proved to be engaging, informative and amazingly entertaining without ever getting too confrontational or trashy to ever be off-putting to the viewer, and as a result of the success of Siskel and Ebert film criticism is now a regular sight on any television channel, each of course utilising the informed debate style that Siskel and Ebert had made their own.

Whilst I didn't personally agree all the time with some of Ebert's film ratings, his decision to give Die Another Day a thumbs up being one of his lowest moments, there is no denying that the man's natural passion for cinema and all things film cannot be surpassed, and on top of everything else is why the man should be appreciated. For me he is the Steven Spielberg of film critics, maybe not the best or informative, but by far one of the most high-profile and influential to grace our industry.

Film Review: Pleasantville

More Then Just Pleasant

During the late nineties and into the early noughties a new wave of films hit the big screen focusing on the exploration of a new theme in particular, namely that of the glorification of imperfect perfection and it's belief that the twee, suburban vision of the American Dream was in fact one which was flawed and engulfed in it’s own perfect tedium. Of these, Sam Mendes' 1999 Oscar winning epic American Beauty is quite rightly held as the benchmark of the genre, and whilst I hold all the praise in the world for Mendes' film and consider it one of my personal favourite films my belief is that a film made just 12 months before manages to capture that same agenda and ideology of American Beauty, arguably doing so in much more visually pleasing and technically impressive manner then Mendes' outing, but has in recent years seen itself become criminally overlooked and deserves to be rediscovered for a new audience; the film in question of course being this wonderful debut film from the mind of Gary Ross, 1998's Pleasantville.

Pleasantville opens in 1998, where we see couch potato David (Tobey Maguire) enjoying the thrills of the homely fifties television sitcom Pleasantville, presented to us as a Father Knows Best type environment where everything is safe, wholesome and downright pleasant, following a visit from a rather creepy TV repairman (Don Briggs), David and his outgoing sister Jennifer (Reese Witherspoon) squabble over their new TV remote, and before you can say "I saw that one coming a mile off" both are transformed into Pleasantville itself, taking the role of the show's brother and sister, Bud and Mary-Sue, respectively. Whilst David makes a conceited attempt to continue to uphold the values of Pleasantville and maintain the integrity of the show he loves, Jennifer is soon driven to the brink by the overt niceness of her environment, and begins creating ripples that cause the town to experience significant changes as those who embrace new experiences and new behaviours find their lives injected with vivid technicolour whilst those who refuse to change remain in black and white, in particular causing friction between the rigid and straight-mannered George (William H. Macy) and his repressed and frustrated wife Betty (Joan Allen).

Pleasantville not only deals with the issues of imperfect perfection mentioned previously but also manages to prove itself an engaging social commentary as a televisual satire of fifties sitcoms such as Leave It To Beaver, a coming-of-age tale of morality and loss of innocence as well as a critique of themes including prejudice and social ostracisation. The film also acts as a social commentary on the way that we as viewers interpret nostalgia within our media industry, in the same way as David did at the start of the film we look back at the past as  a time which has been painted as one of innocence and perfection, when in fact the film on the whole is used to highlight the drawbacks of the 1950’s and the need for social progression, making a particular beeline for the issues of sexism and the general disregard for women’s liberation, stubbornness and denial over the need for evolution in society and most prominently by the end of the film racism. If there is a key issue which I have with this film it is the way in which these themes are painted within the film, Ross has never been one to be subtle with his work and indeed he takes to smashing his themes and motives into the minds of the viewer with the subtlety of a sledgehammer, to the extent of borrowing straight from the film To Kill A Mockingbird in the film’s courtroom climax, and indeed it’s incredibly liberal agenda to lead to it picking up a lot of detractors from the right wing upon it’s original release. Personally I can see why they may appear grating to some viewers but to me it helps demonstrate a lot of the qualities of Ross as a film-maker, even though he has to deal with a number of heavy political issues throughout the film on the whole he manage to juggle all of them with a surprising ease and manages to avoid the film becoming too dragged down by the issues it is facing. Remarkably baring in mind the political agenda of this film and the at times touchy subject matter Pleasantville also manages to be incredibly entertaining, most of it’s comedy admittedly fuelled through it’s satire of the 1950’s television comedy but still very humorous and clever in it’s approach. This mix of light-hearted and arguably innocent comedy combined with a heartfelt and overt agenda however is nothing new to Ross however, having served as the writer of 1988’s Big.

 Added to the ethical issues which Pleasantville deals with brilliantly it is also a fantastic joy to watch visually, it's visual effects and use of colour proving both original and striking, and was in 1998 very much ahead of it’s time technically, whilst incorporating it’s technical merits as part of it’s plot dynamic was in my eyes a touch which made the intended storyline behind the film all the more powerful as a viewer. The casting of the film also helps to aid it's cause by a strong cast which whilst understated manage to bring out some emotive and strong performances, Ross was very clever to chose a selection of character actors in his choices rather then someone arguably more ham-fisted who may have caused the film to become too pretentious for it’s own good. The standout performance in particular for me being Jeff Daniels as Mr Johnson, arguably the character who experiences the largest changes and the most emotional drive in the film, a largely robotic figure of the initial stages of the show, driven on routine before being allowed to demonstrate a full expressive and passionate self whilst the ever enjoyable William H. Macy proves a great comedic foil as the out of touch and old fashioned George, this is topped off by a strong anchoring role by Tobey Maguire and a great breakthrough performance by a young Reese Witherspoon.

Pleasantville doesn't do subtlety in the same way that American Beauty might, something which is certainly it’s major deterrent as a film, but it certainly doesn't deserve to be overlooked in the way that it has either. This is a wonderful piece of social commentary and arguably should be held as one of the most underrated movies of the 1990's.

Top 10: Career Killing Films

It's the film that all actors and directors fear, the critically and commercially planned flop, that moment in Hollywood when you are left exposed to all incomers and for a brief period leave yourself with the status as damaged goods. Most actors and directors however are able to get away with the occasional flop, such as seen with the renaissance of Ben Affleck following the failure of 2003's Gigli, but in some of the very worst cases a film is made which is so badly received that the person behind it is so badly affected that they never are able to truly recover, instead settling into roles in minor television dramas or being forced into the world of independent cinema. In this list I will rank my own personal opinions of the ten movies which I felt are the biggest examples of career killing films. I want to stress that this is my own opinion and that everyone is entlted to share their opinion with myself, with that said let us begin:

10) Showgirls (Elizabeth Berkley)

Following her role in the early 90's TV series Saved By The Bell, Elizabeth Berkley was one of the most highly regarded young actresses entering Hollywood at the time, but her typecasting in her TV role as an alpha-female feminist arguably led to her decision to take the lead in this 1995 Paul Verhoeven flick that proved to be nothing but detrimental, and scared away any chance of being taken seriously in Hollywood from that point on.

Whilst Showgirls has seen itself become somewhat of a cult flick in recent years the reaction upon it's release was much more severe, garnering controversy and notoriety prior to it's release for being one of the first major films released with an NC-17 rating and being panned critically and commercially following it's release, with Berkley in particular coming under much criticism for her role which many found to be annoying and tiresome. Scarred by the failure Berkley was never taken seriously as a leading lady again, and these days can be found in direct to video outings such as a failed sequel to Donnie Darko.

9) Striptease (Demi Moore)

 Following 1990's Ghost, Demi Moore found herself as both the highest paid and highest sought after actresses in Hollywood, following her appearance in roles in the critically acclaimed films Indecent Proposal, A Few Good Men, and Disclosure, however Moore's star has since taken a wane from the high days, and her role in this 1996 drama being seen as one of the major reasons for that.

Striptease sees Moore as a former FBI secretary whom after losing a custody battle takes up the role as a stripper as a means of earning the money to fund a retrial. For the role Moore was paid a record fee of $12.5 million and garnered controversy during her publicity of the film including appearing on the show 20/20 pole dancing. Whilst the promotion of the film was memorable and infamous it proved to have little to no effect on the film's commercial success, as Striptease failed to justify Moore's massive salary and was met with negative praise from critics, including it's victory at the Golden Raspberry Awards for the worst picture of the year. Moore would soon find herself priced out of other roles within Hollywood due to her huge salary and an appearance in Charlie's Angels: Full Throttle aside has become more noted for her off screen relationship to former other-half Ashton Kutcher.

8) At Long Last Love (Peter Bogdanovich)

 A product of the New Hollywood era, Peter Bogdanovich saw success early in his career with hits such as The Last Picture Show, What's Up Doc? and Paper Moon, and was soon being held on the same level as the likes of Francis Ford Coppola and William Friedkin. However Bogdanovich's decision to attempt to reinvent the classic Hollywood musical for a contemporary New Hollywood audience proved to be a mistake that would prove fatally damaging for the director.

Borrowing heavily from the Cole Porter and Fred Astair musicals of the 1930's, At Long Last Love proved to be a production nightmare, as Bogdanovich's insistence of having his cast (including the truly bewildering casting of Burt Reynolds) performing their musical numbers live as opposed to miming, in the process inflating the cost of the film's production greatly. The film proved to be a critical and commercial disaster however, to the extent that one year after it's release Bogdanovich would send press releases to newspapers around America apologising for the film. Bogdanovich would never recover from the failure of At Long Last Love, but he wouldn't be the only New Hollywood director to try and reinvent the musical.

7) Boat Trip (Cuba Gooding Jr.)

 You have to feel sorry for Cuba Gooding Jr. at times, hailed as one of the most promising actors of the early nineties with roles in A Few Good Men and Boyz In The Hood, Gooding Jr's career peaked with his role in the 1996 film Jerry Maguire, winning himself a best supporting actor award in the process. From that point on however Gooding's star began to wane, and whilst 2001's Rat Race was seen as a warning the nail in his coffin came when he followed it up with this laugh-less comedy that proved more offensive then it did humourous.

Boat Trip saw Gooding in the role as a bachelor who along with his best friend book a trip on a singles cruise, unaware however that they had actually been booked aboard a gay cruise ship instead. Relying on one weak homophobic joke after another Boat Trip proved to be as insulting as it was unfunny, and seeing an actor of the calibre of Gooding Jr straining to make the puerile jokes of the content work was painful to watch. Boat Trip failed at the box office, and the goodwill that Gooding had earned from his early work was gone. Since then Gooding has resorted to family movies such as the atrocious Daddy Day Camp as well as a number of forgettable straight to DVD outings.

6) Town and Country (Warren Beatty)

 The argument could be made that Warren Beatty's star had faded long before Town and Country, and that a film this late into his career cannot truly be considered a killer, especially for someone who 14 years prior had made Ishtar, however Beatty and this film makes this list simply because of the sheer scale of the failure of the film, Beatty's apparent ego on set and the fact that it made such a pig's ear of one of the simplest formats in Hollywood, that of the ensemble romantic comedy.

Not only did Beatty demand a massive $5 million fee for appearing in the film his perfectionism led to multiple takes on set as well as a complete rewriting of the film's ending. Still not satisfied however Beatty later demanded that the film be entirely re-shot, which involved the cast being paid double their fees to reshoot and pushing the release of the film back by two years. When it was released however Town and Country opened to negative reviews and lackluster enthusiasm from film goers, making only $10 million at the box office, less then a tenth of it's now monstrous $110 million budget. Whilst Town and Country did harm a number of high-profile careers including Goldie Hawn and Gary Shandling Beatty would prove to be the biggest causality, and as of 2013 has yet to return to the big screen.

5) The Happening (M. Night Shymalan)

Following 1999's The Sixth Sense, young director M. Night Shymalan was hailed as the new king of the suspense horror drama, earning praise in particular for the films twist ending which I won't spoil for you, but following that Shymalan soon saw himself on a downward spiral, including the making of one film in Lady In The Water which in itself could have been considered a killer, but for me Shymalan destroyed all credibility for himself with this 2008 failure that comes across more as a spoof then a credible horror film.

The Happening tells the story of the release of a toxin into the earth's atmosphere which when inhaled causes those it infects to commit suicide, Shymalan insists that the film was designed to replicate paranoia horror films such as Alfred Hitchcock's The Birds, but the sight of seeing people in the film being fearful of and running away from THE WIND was just too much for audiences to take seriously, had the film of been set out as a comedy it would have been somewhat OK, but Shymalan seemed insistent on selling the film as a horror that I never got the impression there was this comedic intent. The Happening was somewhat of a commercial success, but those same critics that praised The Sixth Sense panned the film and Shymalan was considered yesterdays news by many, and led to Shymalan no longer being trusted as a scriptwriter. His last work would continue his downward spiral with 2010's The Last Airbender, another critical and commercial failure.

4) One From The Heart (Francis Ford Coppola)  

By 1981 Francis Ford Coppola had earned himself a god like reputation around Hollywood following an unprecedented run of success which saw him produce three undeniable classics in a row, with the first two entries of the Godfather trilogy before managing to pull Apocalypse now from the abyss and turning it into an absolute masterpiece, however at the height of his career Coppola decided to take the same risk that Peter Bogdanovich did and attempt to reinvent the Hollywood musical, in the process bankrupting himself and his production company and leading to Coppola making a selection of films which would dent his reputation somewhat.

Originally planned to be a $2 million budget film designed to ease himself back into film-making after the strains of Apocalypse Now, One From The Heart saw it's costs skyrocket as Coppola insisted that the film be shot on within his studio as opposed to on location in Las Vegas, including full scale replicas of the Las Vegas Strip and McCarran Airport. Coppola's Technicolor musical was ambitious and surreal, but it failed to win the admirers in the way that Apocalypse Now did, opening to mixed reviews from critics and failing massively at the box office, failing to make even $1 million of it's now colossal $26 million budget. The failure of the film caused Coppola and his studio to be declared bankrupt and forcing Coppola to make more downmarket films to make ends meet, including the abysmal 1996 Robin Williams man-child comedy Jack.

3) Cutthroat Island (Geena Davis)

In the years prior to Cutthroat Island, Geena Davis had established as one of Hollywood's most respected actresses, achieving not only commercial success in her roles in The Fly, Beetlejuice and A League Of Their Own but also critical acclaim for her roles in The Accidental Tourist and Thelma and Louise, both of which received academy award nominations. However the decision of Davis to align herself with director husband Renny Harlin in this swashbuckling adventure proved to be a massive misstep, and one which killed Davis as a marketable entity within Hollywood.

Placing Davis in the role of a female pirate, Cutthroat Island was blighted throughout by production problems, which included a last minute scramble to find a male lead after Michael Douglas was forced to pull out shortly after filming had began, and a flurry of A-list actors rejecting the role itself before Matthew Modine's last minute casting. Davis had wanted to join Douglas in pulling out of the film, but contractual obligations forced her to continue with the film's production, her instincts were proven right, as Cutthroat Island went on to become one of the most notorious flops in Hollywood history, bankrupting Carolco Pictures and killing Davis' credibility in Hollywood as a result. Post Cutthroat Island Davis found herself resorted to roles in family movies such as Stuart Little and a return to television in the short lived Commander-In-Chief.

2) The Postman (Kevin Costner)

In 1991, it was estimated that Kevin Costner earned an estimated $51 million dollars and was by far and away one of Hollywood's most popular and most prominent leading men, and was making strides in direction as well following his Oscar win for his production of Dances With Wolves and his commercially successful roles in films such as JFK, Robin Hood: Prince Of Thieves and The Bodyguard. So where did it go wrong for Costner? Most blame his big budget aquatic apocalypse Waterworld, but for me it stems from it's follow-up film which well and truly nailed the door shut on Costner as a bankable star.

The Postman saw Costner return to the apocalypse theme of Waterworld, this time however seeing the actor in the role of nomad attempting to inspire hope and peace to a United States torn apart by nuclear war, including the reading of Shakespearean quotes in exchange for food and water. Whilst the decision to double up as both actor and director had worked with Costner for Dances With Wolves, the move to do so with The Postman resulted in double the scorn from film critics, who described the film as overly pretentious and sentimental, whilst commercial success was even less then that of Waterworld. Two high profile failures in a role left Costner as damaged goods in Hollywood, and he never achieved those same high successes as his 1991 peak. These days Costner can be seen combining roles in the upcoming Man Of Steel with his role in the country band The Modern West.

 

 

1) Heaven's Gate (Michael Cimino)

There was for me only one choice for the film which I had to put at number 1, a film which as of 2013 currently holds ninth place on the list of the biggest financial flops of all time, whilst Heaven's Gate has enjoyed somewhat of a renaissance in recent years, and I list myself as one of the few defenders of the film, the damage that it did to it's director Michael Cimino cannot be ignored. 

What makes the failure of Heaven's Gate even more amazing to look at however was the sheer speed at which it happened, just a year previously Michael Cimino had found himself as the toast of Hollywood following the unprecedented success of 1978's The Dear Hunter, winning five academy awards including best picture and best director, and yet 12 months later he was the scourge of Hollywood, painted as an egotistical tyrant who's obsessive attention to detail drove his crew to their limits, including demanding an entire purpose built street be torn down because it 'didn't look right' and demanding that a minimum of 50 takes be used for every single shot of the film. The behaviour of Cimino may have been justified had the film proven to be a success, but tainted by bad press stories of Cimino's off-screen behaviour, rumours of animal cruelty and a bloated running time that span to nearly four hours Heaven's Gate was described as an 'unqualified disaster' by movie critics, and in the box office only made $3 million of it's $44 million budget.

Cimino would never recover from the failure of Heaven's Gate, making five other feature length films to minimal acclaim or publicity,  and is in many eyes regarded as a man who not only killed off the United Artists film studio but also ending the director driven New Hollywood of the 1970's, in the process creating a new, money orientated industry of Hollywood.