VERTIGO VERTIGO

Don't Let the Bastards Grind You Down.

'It's as if they were telling me that my movie didnt exist!' Film-maker Charles Teton's plaintive protest raises a disturbing fear.

Did Sight & Sound discriminate against a new British film?

Dark Summer is an independently produced and financed British feature film, shot in Liverpool. In November 1993 it was screened at the 37th London Film Festival. Presenting it in the Program Booklet, Festival Director Sheila Whitaker praised it thus: 'Another fine example of independent film-making in the regions providing a portrait of life outside the metropolis.' Since then, Dark Summer has been an official selection at a further nine film festivals, twice in competition. Film-maker Charles Teton has been hailed as one 'to watch out for in the future' (Variety), and as 'one of the up and coming film-makers of the new generation' ('Moving Pictures', BBC 2).

As an institution the BFI seems to be supportive of Charles Teton. He tells me that Ben Gibson, Head of Production, is looking forward to seeing, his next script, and that Wilf Stevenson, Director of the BFI, responded positively to Dark Summer.

Sight and Sound, which is supported by the BFI has advertised a comprehensive reviewing policy: 'Full credits, a synopsis and an in-depth review for every feature film released in London.'

Perhaps one of Charles Teton's greatest achievements was to obtain UK distribution for Dark Summer. The enterprising and innovative Robins Cinema chain booked it at its cinemas throughout the country, and for screening at the BFI's Regional Film Theaters in areas where the Robins chain is not active. Not surprisingly, everybody expected a review, in Sight and sound preferably to coincide with the film's opening at the Prince Charles Cinema in London's West End. Nothing doing!

Not surprisingly, Charles Teton was puzzled. He wrote to Philip Dodd, the Editor of Sight and sound, to find out why his film was not being reviewed.

No reply.

He then sent a copy of his letter to Wilf Stevenson, and received a response which, despite its sympathetic tone, contains an analysis of what it means for a film to be 'in distribution which reads as if it had been dictated by Humpty Dumpty: 'When I use a word... it means just what I choose it to mean neither more nor less.' (Lewis Carroll, Through the Looking Glass): 'As it happens, Sight and Sound reviewing policies are currently under review, but at present are to cover any film "in distribution". This is not to be decided by adding up the number of venue's at which the film is screened, nor is it a matter of being distributed by one of the majors. Clearly, at any moment there are a great number of films circulating in Britain, in addition to those "in distribution". There are films which play around an ever increasing number of film festivals; there are the ICA Projects, which are different from the films the ICA distributes; there are films screened by exhibitors (say the Prince Charles and its chain); Institutes such as the Goethe screen films and organize tours around the country; the National Film Theatre does likewise. In addition, there are re-releases of films that were inadequately documented on their original release.'

Despite the confused and misleading account of BFI policy in Wilf's letter one is left with the hope that the attitude to Dark Summer is the result of some squabble within the BFI, some lunatic outburst of inter-departmental pique. The alternative, a Sight and Sound reviewing policy which excludes films like Dark Summer, is too chilling, too ominous for British independent film makers and distributors.

Stop Press: 'Happy Ending!'

On 1O November, Charles Teton telephoned to say that he'd learnt that Sight and Sight now planned to run a review of Dark Summer.

Nice and Tidy!
It's a rule I leant in school!
Get your money every Friday,
Happy endings are the rule!

The Threepenny Opera.
Bertolt Brecht & Marc Blitzstein.

Vertigo has absolutely no pretensions to a comprehensive reviewing policy. However, by this time we had decided that someone would have to do Sight and Sound job for them, so we prepared our own review of Charles Teton's film. As our cultural and critical agenda is radically different from that of Sight and Sound, we have decided this may still be of some interest to our readers.

Editorial Board

FILM REVIEW

....written, produced, directed, photo-graphed and edited by Charles Teton... Dark Summer is more enjoyable on second viewing than on first. Initially one is disappointed by the slight story, and by performances which, though adequate, are neither particularly revealing nor particularly touching. Moreover the treatment of the break-up of the relationship between Jess and Abe, the young couple who are the film's central protagonists, is too perfunctory to be moving or memorable. Thus when Abe, having discovered that Jess has left him, buries his head in his hands and asks 'Why.... Jess? Why me? .....Why me, Jess", the viewer is less likely to share his despair than to wonder at the introduction of a whole new set of psychological narrative and dramaturgical possibilities in the final shot of the film. These are weaknesses which one suspects Charles Teton would to some extent acknowledge. Certainly he feels that one thing he learnt from making the film was the difficulty of combining the roles of cinematographer and director. It is, indeed, the look of the film together with the rhythm of the cutting, which makes it more attractive and interesting on second viewing. Teton's chosen editing strategy stirs memories of Ozu, in that it eschews camera movement, and sometimes makes use of what are effectively still life shots. However, when Ozu cuts in one of his characteristic series of still life compositions, much of the emotional resonance which results is derived from the viewer's awareness of human absence or distance: the spaces shown are full of the traces of human activity, even when empty of human beings. Moreover, they are located as part of a rich filmic texture, and juxtaposed with passages which are full of complex dramatic interactions, albeit ones articulated with such subtlety and delicacy that even the slightest gesture is meaningful. In Dark Summer, however sequences in which Teton distances himself from the articulation of dramatic interaction dominate to such an extent that his still lives, though often beautifully composed, lack emotional resonance.

Certainly Teton does have an eye for striking compositions, and on a purely visual level these work effectively with his style of editing. Moreover, his Use of the Cinemascope frame is often compelling pictorially, justifying his assertion that a great city like Liverpool deserves the wider canvas provided by this format at. Unfortunately, however, he not consistently able to give a sense that his protagonists are really part of this city. Too often they seem to be placed alone in a guidebook composition rather than being revealed as part of the living texture and space of their urban world. Even when the location is bleak, the effect communicated tends often to be one of artifice rather than desolation. It's not just by using closer shots that characters are given depth and complexity, made dramatically interesting. It's also by placing them in a living context, a social and emotional space in which their interactions can be acted out. This is something Teton seems to aspire to only occasionally. Nevertheless Teton remains a courageous young film-maker whose meager resources contributed, for good or ill, to many of his important production and aesthetic choices.

Michael Dampier

Michael Dampier is a film historian.