The rise of the DSLR has changed the filmmaking world forever. I was on a boat in Greece and I counted 42 people in a Japanese tourist group who were, instead of using simple point and shoot cameras, snapping away on cameras capable of shooting broadcast ready 1080p. Digital filmmaking has never been more compact, affordable or simple to use.

Into the fold of student filmmaking steps the brand new Illyria Film Fund, created by Jessica Campbell and Alex Darby (with the generous support of Aidan Grounds), a new initiative that provides equipment and funding for Oxford Universitystudents. Darby’s intentions for the fund are clear: “Filmmaking is undergoing a global revolution. It has never been cheaper to make professional-quality films, and it has never been easier to distribute them. The Illyria Film Fund aims to bring this to Oxford.”

The fund provides camera, sound and lighting equipment for wannabe filmmakers, and, perhaps more excitingly, offers the chance to have the films screened at the Ultimate Picture Palace in Cowley- a rare boon in a world where shortfilms are often confined to YouTube,Vimeo and esoteric festivals that draw an ‘interesting’ class of patron. So, if you’re a writer or director who’s found that there’s a lack of serious support for aspiring filmmakers at Oxford then the Illyria Film Fund might be the place to go in search of cinematic sustenance.They can’t promise that your film will be any good but, as starting points go, this seems like the perfect place to check out the brave new world of lowcost digital filmmaking. For a list of equipment, information about the team and guidelines for pitching to the fund, check out their brand new website, www.llyriafilmfund.co.uk. 

Lord Grantham and Co. are back in town, and the start of the series finally wrapped up that will-they-won’t-they saga, with Matthew and Mary tying the knot.Thing is, that was kind of the point- now that the Earl’s daughter has married the heir the mansion stays in the family and everybody’s happy. Surely, no more programme? But never fear, his lordship has suddenly lost all his money, so they might all get turfed out after all. Meanwhile, Matthew’s about to unexpectedly inherit an equally huge fortune, something he’s making rather a habit of. But will he or won’t he use it to save Downton? Well we’ve got all series to find out.

Despite this looming disaster, it’s largely business as usual: there are random downstairs subplots and incredibly one-dimensional downstairs characters – evil Thomas continues being evil and new valet Alfred’s only notable attribute seems to be being tall. There’s still plenty of clunky, anachronistic dialogue: Sir Strallen casually greets Lady Edith, ‘how’s it going?’ and there are scores of implausible plot twists: an evil house guest slips Tom a drug that forces him to rant angrily about English repression – an odd thing to carry around in one’s dinner jacket.

But there are also some new features, my personal highlight being Fellowes’ forays into sexual references, resulting in some hideously awkward lines: Matthew: “I’m looking forward to all sorts of things”, Mary: “Don’t make me blush”. (Yes it seems Lady Mary has come over all demure lately – you’d think a woman who’s driven a Turkish diplomat to his death with her passionate throes would be a little harder to embarrass). Everyone is still insisting on telling us what year it is, but there’s the newly added feature of reiterating their nationality every five minutes, too: “I’m an American,and it’s 1920”. Yes the roaring twenties have arrived – well, maybe not quite roaring – “Can I tempt you to one of these exciting new cocktails grandmama?” “No, thank you, they look a little too exciting for me.” And, maybe this was just me, but was there a hint of sexual tension when Shirley serenaded old Maggie at the end there? Well, it is 1920.

There’s also been the touching story of Mrs Hughes’ possibly suffering from breast cancer, although this led to a rather rapid change of tone at the end of episode two, as the housekeeper came over all Beckettian: “One day I will die, and so will he, and you and every one of us under this roof.” Steady on, guys. We don’t come to Downton to reflect on the ultimate futility of all human endeavour in the face of mortality; we come for the yards of lace and beads, the evil footmen, the dodgy character development and Maggie Smith’s eyebrows. Parade’s End it ain’t – but a girl can only take so much sophisticated and thought-provoking Edwardian drama per season.

This summer, after a 50-year reign, Orson Welles’ CitizenKane was bumped off its‘Greatest Film of All Time’spot in Sight and Sound’scritics’ poll by Hitchcock’s Vertigo.Peter Bradshaw, the Guardian’s filmcritic, has his own take on the demotion:that it’s “symptomatic of adying interest in the old-fashioned newspaper proprietor, who until recently was still an important figure”.Print journalism is not as enchanting as it was: these are perilous times for the big newspapers, and Bradshaw can provide some insights as to where, if anywhere, film criticism is going, along with the great machine of journalism which funds and sustains it.

Bradshaw has had a smooth career. After completing a PhD in Renaissance Literature at Cambridge,he turned to journalism as the “traditional home for misfits and people who can’t really get a job anywhere else”, and moved from “all-purpose deputy” work at the Evening Standard to film critic at the Guardian after receiving a sudden phone call. Now well-established, he writes reviews almost daily, gets his “showbiz face on” for Guardian Film’s video podcasts, and has found time to write three novels, the latest of which is soon to be published.

Despite his experience of freelance writing (co-writing the sitcom Baddiel’s Syndrome in 2001) he was happy to give up the “insecurity” of it for something “more regimented”. But he wishes freelance writers like filmbloggers would make more of the freedom they have. “If they want towrite a 2,000 word screed on Antonioni, they can, or they can record video links. They can do all sorts of things. But I think the problem with bloggers is they’re sort of independent and sort of not; they’re dependent on the companies to let them into screenings, so they end up praising these new films because they need to get in. I think it’s partly that, and partly that blog writing isn’t from the same tradition of knock about debate and arguing, and not taking it personally.”

As for journalism, “increasingly, I think it’s more of a career for people who want to be star journalists. It used to be [the case that] star journalists were preening, superstar divas as opposed to the ordinary journalists writing the news stories. Now, all the news is now being ground out of the internet, and more and more they’re not using news reporters; what they’re using is entertainers.”However, the BBC has survived and prospered to an extraordinary degree, kept its licence fee, infuriated all the newspapers by going into the internet. Maybe broadcasting’s where it’s at.”

The digital age has affected how we watch films as well as how we write about them, but Bradshaw is suspicious of over-theorising on this front. He points out we’ve had film “on tap” for decades, thanks to television.“But now, there’s a culture studies industry that has to be fed in a way that there wasn’t in the ‘50s, ‘60s or ‘70s. Until about the ‘50s and ‘60s, cinemas showed movies continuously. There weren’t separate programmes where you can see a film at one o’clock, three o’clock, seven o’clock, it was just one film all day. You turned up halfway, you watched to the end, and then you watched the first bit. That’s where the phrase “this is where I came in” comes from. But there wasn’t the same kind of agonised cultural studies going ‘what does this mean?’ They’re eroding the very concept of narrative!”

Over the next few months, the films that Bradshaw’s going to see at ‘one o’clock,three o’clock, seven o’clock’ include Beasts of the Southern Wild (released October 19th), The Master (November 2nd) and Tarantino’s Django Unchained (January 18th). He will also be rewatching Michael Haneke’s Amour (November 6th), ‘a brilliant film but very agonising’. Perhaps comfortingly, he reflects “I still think to an extraordinary degree there is a solid consensus about what makes a film, I don’t get the sense that it’s breaking up. I think it’s quite extraordinary that we still believe that a film lasts from about an hour and half to two and a half hours… It’s frankly remarkable how little it’s changed.”

This film is fresh, it’s quick and it’s clever. You either get it or you don’t. By the end of the journey home you might have worked out what you thought of it but’s that’s unlikely. The thing is with Looper there are bits which are original and new and suspenseful and then in contrast there are other bits (most notably at the beginning of the movie) where it feels slow and poorly conceived. The set ups are a little complex but the pay offs are what makes this movie so interesting. 

So first the set up: we begin the movie in Kansas 2044 where Joe  a ‘Looper’ introduces us to his rather dubious profession which involves killing people at the request of his boss, Abe, played by Jeff Daniels who was sent from the future to supervise the hits. It becomes immediately apparent that the Loopers are not as untouchable as they first appear with the prospect of ‘closing the loop’ meaning a Looper has to kill their future self and thus the game is over. All this is presented coherently but in places it could be more believable. 

But once this is established the action begins with the arrival of a rather aggressive Bruce Willis. He plays the old version of Joe and once Joe realises his employers are ‘closing the loop’ on him the trouble begins with all guns blazing and (surprisingly in a film of this genre) many a moral quandary for our experienced assassins. ‘The Rainmaker’ is a character who wants to close the loop on everyone involved and it  soon becomes clear the crux of ‘Looper’ is who is ‘the Rainmaker’?  What follows is a battle between Joe and his future self over how to resolve the threat posed to the Loopers

.There are some surprises along the way but like all time-travel flicks there’s a level of complexity which isn’t always entertaining. There are some wasted characters such as ‘Susie’ who doesn’t seem to serve any real purpose and some aspects feel out of place in what is principally a sci-fi movie.

However, this film is most interesting because writers like Rian Johnson aren’t afraid to try something new, to switch between characters, to put you in the midst of the action then stop you in your tracks with a scene from a character’s memory. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Inception, The Dark Knight Rises) shows leading man capabilities in yet another intelligent, box-office hit and Emily Blunt manages to put herself firmly back on the map after her slightly dull turn in ‘Salmon Fishing in the Yemen’. Not forgetting young actor Pierce Gagnon playing Cid (Sara’s son) who arguably makes a breakthrough performance alongside Hollywood’s current ‘ones to watch’.

For some this film will be a complex mess of action, unexplained time-travel and unusual direction. For others this film will be exciting, thought-provoking and fresh. It’s definitely a step in the direction of intelligent movie-making backed up by a strong cast. Overall potentially controversial but well worth a watch. 4 Stars

The title of David Halperin’s How to Be Gay is clearly intended to be controversial; it’s also more than a little misleading. Apparently chosen for clarity’s sake, I rather doubt Halperin didn’t see the reaction from conservatives and liberals coming. This is hardly ‘truth in advertising’; a more accurate title would have been Why You Should Be A Gay Man. And why, on that point, should homosexuals embrace ‘gay culture’? His answer is less than satisfying.

The historical perspective that Halperin provides on LGBT history is interesting and enlightening. The US 1948 Kinsey Report concluded that all homosexual and heterosexual men are male. Today this may sound obvious, but the report ran against the grain of contemporary thought on sexuality, when it was commonly believed that homosexuals belonged to genders discrete from heterosexuals. During WWII, many straight servicemen deemed it acceptable to sleep with gay men, on the account that they were closer to women than men in terms of gender: Kinsey knocked this on the head, and created much of the groundwork for the concept that Halperin rejects in his book.

The LGBT rights movement considers ‘gay’ to be part of one’s identity. I, like many, would argue that being gay means attraction to people of the same sex. You may have blue or brown eyes; black or blonde hair; be male or female. The cause is for human and civil rights, and thus focuses on equal right to marriage, military service, adoption, employment and the donation of blood.

However, Halperin argues that this plays into the dominant ‘heteronormative’ culture. ‘Gay’ shouldn’t be thought of as an aspect of identity, but as a distinct culture, complete with a distinct way of living. With more and more homosexuals turning towards the ‘heteronorm’, and gay communities declining, this distinct culture is under threat.

The value of ‘gay’ as a cultural form, he argues, is that it subverts dominant heteronormative institutions and values. His strength lies (as you would expect from an English professor) in his interpretation of ‘straight’ cultural artefacts, and the appropriation of them by gay culture. The Wizard of Oz, ‘I Will Survive’ and the actresses Joan Crawford and Bette Davis have nothing ostensibly to do with homosexuality, and yet are indelibly associated with gay men. They are appropriated because of the catharsis provided through supplying a uniquely gay perspective, i.e. a subversive and ironic one. This is why, he argues, Lady Gaga cannot possibly achieve gay immortality with her song ‘Born This Way’: the song explicitly addresses gay rights and therefore cannot be appropriated. By embracing gay culture, we critique values taken for granted in our Western society.

But it’s wrong to argue that gay men are the only ones subverting heteronormative values. As Halperin admits, heterosexuals are today deconstructing the dominance of marriage, monogamy, joint bank accounts, and other apparently corrosive ‘norms’. This isn’t even a recent development: Nietzsche and the Modernists challenged commonly accepted bourgeois Judeo-Christian norms in the late 19^th century. Free love wasn’t only practised by ‘gay culture’: how about the writings of Robert Owen? The Swedenborgians?

This book, despite at times valuable insights, is a sad attempt to have homosexual men live in a society where they have to reject ‘LGBT’ as an identity and instead embrace a way of life that is derived from ironic takes on ‘heteronormative’ media. It is also an attempt to apply the author’s personal experience to every generation of gay men alive today. Apparently, if you’re gay, and aren’t a neurotic, mother-obsessed, cynical, perpetually sarcastic, cultural snob, then there must be something wrong with you.

Thanks to a number of shoddy GCSE drama performances, I tend to be a little hesitant upon seeing the title A View from the Bridge. Done badly, this Tony Award winning play by Arthur Miller has the potential to be dull, with the odd overdramatic shouting match thrown in for good measure. But done well, the script allows for a performance that is built on the subtleties of real, human emotion. I am glad to say that this production should certainly be assigned to the latter category.

Set in Brooklyn, the narrative tells the story of longshoreman Eddie, who lives with his wife, Beatrice, and orphaned niece, Catherine. When two of Beatrice’s cousins, Marco and Rudolpho, illegally emigrate from Italy, they are welcomed by Eddie. However, a romance between Rudolpho and Catherine makes Eddie jealous, and sparks tension in the household and the community.

What I saw was an open rehearsal and so a work in progress – but boy, what progress it is making. In front of my eyes I watched moderately well-acted scenes transform into a believable reality. The directors have engaged with the characters and given each a story. In particular, the roles of Catherine and Beatrice, who are relativelyunderdeveloped in the text, aregiven a purpose. I also witnessed anon-going discourse between directorand actor about the characters’ motivations and how each scene should be played, producing remarkable results.

There are a few moments, those of particularly high emotion, which lose the sense of reality which hasbeen so carefully cultivated in other less ‘dramatic’ scenes, although I don’t doubt that these will bebrought up to scratch by show time. A particular mention should go to Barney White as Eddie. He is entirely convincing as the troubled man from Brooklyn docks and portrays perfectly the dichotomy of the character’s simultaneous hero and villain roles. Despite the preview taking place in a small room in St Peter’s College, complete with a rather incessant drilling sound, White’s performance remained entirely believable.

One of the main challenges this talented cast faces is accents. Identity and nationality are fundamental themes in the play, and so a convincing Brooklyn or Italian accent is key. Mostly they are good, with occasional slips. However, too many lines were lost due to the focus on accent, making some parts of the script incomprehensible. However, I am certain that this dedicated production team and talented group of actors will rise to the challenges and overcome them before first week.