An Evening at The Phoenix.

On a pleasantly warm Monday evening I made my way up to the glorious Phoenix cinema in East Finchley for a fundraising screening of Michael Haneke's Amour, in support of Tavistock Clinic Foundation. Before the film began Amour was expertly introduced by Phoenix patron Mark Kermode, then following the visceral screening there was a captivating panel discussion with film theorist Laura Mulvey and psychoanalyst Margot Waddell, combined with a strongly emotive Q&A session with the audience. 

Prior to this I was extremely privileged to be shown round the Phoenix's stunning and awe-inspiring auditorium by none other than Mark Kermode himself, who cheerily recalled frequently attending late night double bill screenings in his beloved childhood cinema, which started at 11pm and didn't finish until the small of hours of 2.30am. Alongside the vast length of auditorium's walls are most the elegant and exquisite murals, Mark preceded to explain that these wondrous murals had adorned the walls ever since the Phoenix's initial opening in 1910. 

The audience were treated to a skilfully projected 35mm print of Amour, which is sadly a rare experience in this digitally modern era. Amour was painful, heart-breaking, as well as almost unbearable at times and yet counter balanced with well placed humour and the flawless depiction of an elderly couple's devotion and enduring love for one another. Many a tear was shed that evening including my own, as personal memories of my wonderful and sorely missed grandparents flooded to the forefront of my conciousness. Silence fell upon the audience as the credits finally rolled over the screen, the atmosphere was deafeningly sombre and reflective. After a few minutes Laura, Mark and Margot tentatively made their way up to the stage, still obviously deep in thought after Amour's overwhelmingly powerful conclusion. 

Mulvey and Waddell then proceeded to each take turns in eloquently expressing their detailed analysis of Amour, picking out key scenes/themes and scrutinising the elements which made Amour so arduously evocative. Audience members had conflicting views on Haneke's film with one lady being particularly angered and stated that more should be done to raise awareness of the increasing difficulties that the elderly face when a partner enters into a permanent senile state. The conversation and observations may well have lasted all night had it not been for constrained timings, due to the depth and nature of this affective topic. It was certainly a emotionally engrossing night for all those concerned, with lots of money being raised for a very important and worth while cause. Finally I urge anyone who hasn't been to the Phoenix cinema to absolutely pay a visit, because in the words of the good doctor himself 'it's the most beautiful cinema in the UK' and I whole heartedly agree.

Do we need film critics?

In a recent interview for the Guardian Ken Loach said 'sack the critics' or to quote him precisely "sack the critics and get ordinary punters in. People experienced, who know life." This rather touchy statement arises as Loach's latest and final big film production, Jimmy's Hall opened at Cannes to mixed reviews from the film critic circle. 'Ordinary punters' can now catch Jimmy's Hall at selected cinemas throughout the UK from today onwards.

To put it quite simply Loach is wrong, professional film critics are most certainly needed, they have a deep breadth of cinematic knowledge and an undying passion for the film/cinema industry as a whole. Critics are remembered most for lambasting films i.e. Michael Bay et al. But directors conveniently like to forget when critics champion and stand up for movies. (Critics have championed many of Loach's films over his illustrious career, which is why this statement comes as even more of a surprise.)  Directors seem to only complain when a review doesn't suit them, another example being Kevin Smith who famously stopped national press screenings for critics all together, after scathing reviews for several of Smith's films, but as soon as the good reviews for his later movies started rolling in and Smith felt that he was back in favour with the critics, he promptly started critic screenings again. After all film makers rely heavily on film critics as a source of promotion, with quotes and star ratings adorned boldly on their film campaign posters. 

'Ordinary punters' as Loach puts it, often miss out or avoid (depending on how you look at it) a fairly substantial percentage of cinema releases such as foreign language movies, and independent/ indie movies with limited releases. You just need to look at the amount of Hollywood foreign language re-makes being put into production, with 'The Girl with the Dragon Tattoo' being prime example. All because a large section of the public don't want to read subtitles. For instance, I wouldn't have found film gems such as Jeremy, had it not been for Mark Kermode, who regularly and constantly advocates for the viewing public to seek out underdog films, a recent example being Blue Ruin. Critics live and breathe cinema, which is something 'ordinary punters' cannot reproduce, film criticism is a craft which takes years to hone and perfect. And I suspect most 'ordinary punters' would rather go see the latest Hollywood blockbuster over Loach's newest film. It’s harsh but true! On a final note I think film critics need to be respected more, as they are totally dedicated to their profession and who doesn't love to read a well crafted review, negative or positive.

What is your opinion on Loach's latest comments?