Lindsay Got An 18 + Went To The Movies Every Day

One of my favourite sites to visit is the BBFC's (British Board of Film Classification, in case you don't recognise the acronym), because it fascinates me to see what ratings upcoming films recieve (and also, it sometimes clues me in to the fact that some films are actually getting released). Now, looking there today, I note two new ratings of interest: 28 Weeks Later, predictably yet excitingly, has got an 18 rating for "strong bloody violence and gore" (yummy); but intriguingly (for "very strong language and strong sex"), so has Hallam Foe, Stale Popcorn favourite Jamie Bell's new film (with the gorgeous Sophia Myles). I didn't know much about Foe, to be honest, but looking it up shows me that perhaps I shouldn't be so surprised: its director, David Mackensie, was the helmer behind the explicit (and rather dull) Young Adam, and, well, Foe IS about voyeurism. And not Rear Window-style. (Oh, and what an awesome poster! Jamie Bell looks really creepy.) Now that I am actually 18 (well, almost 19), these ratings are all irrelevant to yours truly, and yet it's always interesting when one appears, because they're notably rare. I mean, 300, one of the most violent movies of recent years (for all its stylization) was a 15, for cripes sake! So I do often wonder what consitutes an 18. Luckily, the 18 doesn't carry the stigma that the NC-17 does in the US- it just means that if you're not 18, you can't see it (well, theoretically).

Now, Miss Lindsay Lohan is subject of a piece on IMDb's news page today: "I Am a Serious Actress & New Film Will Prove It". This is both good and bad. On the positive side, it shows us that Lindsay is serious about her career and means to commit herself to it. On the negative side, the article features a bit too much of Lindsay's hunger to win an Oscar- because, as we all know, winning an Oscar requires taking "serious" roles. Said "New Film", I Know Who Killed Me, apparently features Lindsay as a torture victim who loses both her legs- which clearly means that she'll be in a great deal of suffering and pain. No smiles. But, as we've learnt, smiles are what Lindsay does best- has she forgotten Freaky Friday and The Parent Trap? No, Lindsay's career hasn't exactly been stellar (the horror of Just My Luck is still present in my head), and while she is perfectly capable of dramatic scenes (she was solid in Bobby), I don't understand why she feels that she must go down this route. Enjoy your career, Lindsay, don't chase something so boringly.

This week will be a mega one for movies: Saturday sees me finally seeing two films I've been chasing for a long time (almost two years in one case) in the form of Joan Allen's long delayed vehicle The Upside of Anger (see here, and here) as well as Amadeus director Milos Forman's Goya's Ghosts starring Natalie Portman (what a horrid poster. It looks like something I could have made on Photoshop in about three minutes). And then on Sunday, it's the big one: the family will be heading out for an afternoon showing of Spider-Man 3, which, despite the rather iffy reviews, I have high hopes for, given how much I enjoyed the last one. And from Monday to Thursday next week, the university arthouse cinema is trying to derail my revision by throwing me the enormous total of four different films to see: Curse of the Golden Flower, the re-release of Luis Bunuel's Belle de jour (Catherine Deneuve!), lenghty monastery documentary Into Great Silence, and Oscar-nominee After the Wedding. But where did all the money go?

The Downside of Oscar

I'd like to talk to you, readers, about the elusive film that is The Upside of Anger. What's that, readers? You've forgotten it already? Well, that's understandable. It has been released everywhere. Except here. Yes, that's right, dear readers. Britian still hasn't been deigned worthy of recieving The Upside of Anger. The 11th of March will mark two years since it was first released in the USA, and yet, still, it hasn't turned up in Britain. I went to New York exactly a year ago and I held the DVD in my hands. I could've bought it. I wish I'd bought it. I could have watched it, enjoyed it, and moved on. But that's in the past. Unfortunately the film persists to live in the future. I first noticed that it was scheduled for released in December 2006, though I don't know if it was scheduled for a released previously. Then it moved to the end of January. January came, went, and no Upside was enjoyed. February 16th, you say? Nope. Perhaps the 23rd? No. Next month? No. According to the website of my local cinema (hardly a reputable source, but still) it will now be released on the 5th of May. I hold out little hope. Will I ever learn exactly what the upside of anger is? Because at the moment I am only experiencing it's downsides.

I don't pretend to know why the film is having these distribution problems. But I tend to think that it might have a little something to do with the lack of that little golden man. There was uproar when the gorgeous Joan Allen wasn't nominated at the Oscars for her performance in Upside, and I'd bet a lot of money that if she had got one, they would have released Upside in a flash. All but Felicity Huffman's Transamerica had been released in the UK by the time of the Oscars, and they promptly popped that one out on March 24th. Would a little film starring a TV star have been so quickly released had she not been Oscar-nominated? Maybe. I don't know, I'm not a distributor. But Oscar can mean a lot, and Joan Allen's lack of it meant her film got stuffed in a drawer and forgotten about. I doubt there's many besides me clamouring for it's release so long after it was the talk of the town, but my god, why can't they just put it quietly out there and let me sate myself? Why do they persist in pushing it away? And why, why can't this anger have an upside?