Layer Cake And The Business

[catslikefelix]

"What point are you making here, beyond trying to be aggressive to another contributor? What is "glamour" to one person, would not be to another - all that proves is that people look at the world differently, depending on their point of view. Hardly world shattering..."

I think Rob has summed this up nicely if I understand his response correctly.

Whilst some people may look at the film and potentially be drawn into thinking that this dangerous & illegal "occupation" is attractive, others like me, will watch it, appreciate it for its writing, directing, cinematography and overall entertainement value and then move on.

If people can't differenciate between what is entertainment & reality then god help us.

[theuofc]

(theuofc @ Mar 12 2006, 02:36 AM) ... If you, or anyone else, haven't yet seen "Layer Cake," be assured that there are still lots of surprises to discover, characters and plot twists I deliberately didn't include, not to mention the music, the cinematography and other effects in store for you. Best, Barbara

I see that "Layer Cake" 2 disc edn, is on sale at HMV: £5.99 delivered.

Barbara

[David Brent]

If it's a reality - and drugs and crime are a living reality then I think films have a duty to show it as it is.
I do not believe that old flannel that says crime depicted on screen makes people rush out to take drugs and rob banks.
I prefer a near the knuckle, real life drama to an American type fantasy story any day.

Dave.

[theuofc]

(David Brent @ Mar 19 2006, 06:01 AM) If it's a reality - and drugs and crime are a living reality then I think films have a duty to show it as it is. I do not believe that old flannel that says crime depicted on screen makes people rush out to take drugs and rob banks. I prefer a near the knuckle, real life drama to an American type fantasy story any day. Dave.

Well said, Dave. For certain social messages, e.g. the negatives of conformity, class consciousness, etc. a director may often try coating them with humor which can work well. The audience laughs but knows full well what's really what. But for cancerous evils like drugs, crime, battered women, etc. I agree: depict it as it really is, up close and personal, "near the knuckle," to let viewers see what that life is really like and the outcomes from it. This is another scenario where black and white can add to the grit of that scene.

Best,

Barbara

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

(felix @ Mar 14 2006, 09:02 AM) If people can't differenciate between what is entertainment & reality then god help us.

It would appear that there are people who are unable to differentiate clearly between the two as is suggested by the tales told by those who play soap -star "villains" who have abuse hurled at them when they go down to their local supermarket. There are also plenty of stories regarding the mounds of sympathy cards which arrive at TV studios when a popular soap charater is killed off, etc. I believe that popular entertainment can have a very subtle influence on peoples' lives - most peoples' lives and not just those capable of the sort of inanities I have just mentioned who we feel we are so superior to.
I have not seen the film that is the subject of the thread but feel that eelsy is raising a valid point, similar to the one he/she raised as an earlier topic.

[foha80]

(felix @ Mar 14 2006, 09:02 AM) If people can't differenciate between what is entertainment & reality then god help us.

Unfortunately it seems that many people cannot,In this history starved time that we live in there are plenty of people whothink that what you see on the big screen is always the truth.It is not helped when directors say that their is film based on actual events or for the sake of box office sales try to pass themselves off as documentary makers.I have met many people who think that Amadeus was a true depiction of Mozart or Saving Private Ryan is an accurate re-enactment of The D-Day Landings.

The problem with films 'that tell it like it is' is that they never quite do,truth is always a casualty of artistic license or in the case of the two recent films of on Johnny Cash & Ray Charles,what they don't show makes the film dishonest as screen biography.

Terry

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

(foha80 @ Mar 21 2006, 12:08 PM) Unfortunately it seems that many people cannot,In this history starved time that we live in there are plenty of people whothink that what you see on the big screen is always the truth.It is not helped when directors say that their is film based on actual events or for the sake of box office sales try to pass themselves off as documentary makers.I have met many people who think that Amadeus was a true depiction of Mozart or Saving Private Ryan is an accurate re-enactment of The D-Day Landings. The problem with films 'that tell it like it is' is that they never quite do,truth is always a casualty of artistic license or in the case of the two recent films of on Johnny Cash & Ray Charles,what they don't show makes the film dishonest as screen biography. Terry

Quite true, Terry. I studied at the Royal College of Music at the same time as David Helfgott, subject of the film "Shine" - at one time had a room next door to him in a student hostel. While I won't say that the college sequences were totally inaccurate they were sufficiently distorted by half-truths and exaggerations to make me think that the rest of the film should also be treated with caution. For instance it was implied that Helfgott was the only student talented enough to tackle Rachmaninov's difficult 3rd Concerto. Rubbish! Two others played it during my time there. Helfgott's teacher, Cyril Smith, was played by the somewhat epicene John Gielgud. Smith in reality was a blunt Northerner who constantly had a fag in his mouth (which had given him one stroke so that he lost the use of his left hand and eventually killed him). Perhaps we might forgive David Helfgott for letting this sort of thing pass, because by the time the film was made he was a pathetic figure, with hardly a vestige of his talent left, being dragged around the world and vaunted as a great pianist by those who should have had more conscience. But what about the diminutive, homosexual Cole Porter who allowed the film "Night and Day" to depict him as a full-blooded romantic heterosexual, played by Cary Grant? I guess Porter chuckled up his sleeve, but, in the absence of information to the contrary, I bet most people who saw the film at the time thought this was a true portrait of Porter's life.

[foha80]

(Jeff @ Mar 21 2006, 02:29 PM) Quite true, Terry. I studied at the Royal College of Music at the same time as David Helfgott, subject of the film "Shine" - at one time had a room next door to him in a student hostel. While I won't say that the college sequences were totally inaccurate they were sufficiently distorted by half-truths and exaggerations to make me think that the rest of the film should also be treated with caution. For instance it was implied that Helfgott was the only student talented enough to tackle Rachmaninov's difficult 3rd Concerto. Rubbish! Two others played it during my time there. Helfgott's teacher, Cyril Smith, was played by the somewhat epicene John Gielgud. Smith in reality was a blunt Northerner who constantly had a fag in his mouth (which had given him one stroke so that he lost the use of his left hand and eventually killed him). Perhaps we might forgive David Helfgott for letting this sort of thing pass, because by the time the film was made he was a pathetic figure, with hardly a vestige of his talent left, being dragged around the world and vaunted as a great pianist by those who should have had more conscience. But what about the diminutive, homosexual Cole Porter who allowed the film "Night and Day" to depict him as a full-blooded romantic heterosexual, played by Cary Grant? I guess Porter chuckled up his sleeve, but, in the absence of information to the contrary, I bet most people who saw the film at the time thought this was a true portrait of Porter's life.

Thanks Jeff for you personal insight,it just reinforces what I feel about film,but unfortunately if you say
Cole Porter,no matter what you tell me about him I immediately I picture cary Grant,so it worked on me.

[Ascoyne D'Ascoyne]

(foha80 @ Mar 21 2006, 06:38 PM) Thanks Jeff for you personal insight,it just reinforces what I feel about film,but unfortunately if you say Cole Porter,no matter what you tell me about him I immediately I picture cary Grant,so it worked on me.

Didn't you get suspicious when Monty Woolley, then getting on for 60, played himself in his college days?

[arty-dave]

(foha80 @ Mar 21 2006, 12:08 PM) The problem with films 'that tell it like it is' is that they never quite do,truth is always a casualty of artistic license or in the case of the two recent films of on Johnny Cash & Ray Charles,what they don't show makes the film dishonest as screen biography.

Well said Terry

[theuofc]

(foha80 @ Mar 21 2006, 12:08 PM) Unfortunately it seems that many people cannot,In this history starved time that we live in there are plenty of people whothink that what you see on the big screen is always the truth.It is not helped when directors say that their is film based on actual events .... Terry

Hello, Terry,

I'm at the point where I assume nothing in a film is "true" but just a story, and one I'm praying they tell even adequately well to pay for the high cost of the ticket. A shame one reaches this point. I'm driven to asking those who are knowledgable about the history of the time just how accurate the film is. I don't think I've ever had a comment that the film was 100% accurate. I understand a filmmaker's need to eliminate certain material because of time constraints but never to change facts which, as you say, seems par for the course, alas.

Best,

Barbara

[Johnny Rico]

There are several types of " Dealer" in the Media . One is the seedy street pusher as so often nicked on "The Bill". The other is higher in the food chain ( ie Layer Cake and The Business ). The latter one is the more influential because he has the "Bling" ( Designer Gear , Models, Cars etc ) - and he has "Respect".
They are both very attractive for some people as it gives the idea that you can be "somebody" as opposed to a face in the crowd. This is nothing new - You can see Paul Muni or Edward G Robinson driven by such motivation in the 1930's and 1940's. Only the material being trafficked has changed.

In a sense the Blitz of images are even more pervasive now. Almost every Rap Act ( with notable exceptions like Kanye West ) peppers their Videos with the imagery of a successful "Player" ( either a Dealer or a Pimp).

Also it is worth bearing in mind that not all the audience will see beyond the visceral surface of a film. I watched "Robocop" in the Cinema , and was taken with the wry Black humour of Verhoeven . However many of my fellow cinema goers were obviously "getting off" on the Violence. So , although "Layer Cake" has many levels ( well , I can't use Layers! ) it is likely that some in the audience will see only one. I hope that this doesn't sound elitist - i'm just basing it on hearing reactions from people watching films.

[dbz-buu]

Originally Posted by Ambrosia To what extent does crime not win? Buster glamorised the exploits of low level criminals trying to make big. Buster was seen as a comic jack the lad criminal, however in reality he was a calculating career criminal who was caught and punished. having served his time he was portrayed as a rehabilitated person. How does this image of a criminal getting away with the crime and ending up on a moral point turing himself in to see that his family is taken care of, I see no difference in this film than in Get Carter in which violent crime is so called glorified by dipicting the brutal truth of an under strata of society. Making $$££$$'s Vs Social responsibility, is a cop out question, from the time of the Roman Empire to give an example has not the vices of mankind been displayed and exploited in some way for entertinment, politic's and profit, what makes this soceity any different?

theres allsorts of criminals out there like the business they make it be known what they do unlike some cant say on here who i.m talking about but a fine example the goverment are criminals firstly poll tax and then we have speed cams etc but they are not classed as criminals lol but i take my hat off to those like in the buisness as they have the bottle not to hide it its a good point i,m making here and if there was no criminals there would be alot of people out of a job so they should thanks the crimonal for keeping them in a job at to get this off my chest.

[dbz-buu]

Originally Posted by catslikefelix "What point are you making here, beyond trying to be aggressive to another contributor? What is "glamour" to one person, would not be to another - all that proves is that people look at the world differently, depending on their point of view. Hardly world shattering..." I think Rob has summed this up nicely if I understand his response correctly. Whilst some people may look at the film and potentially be drawn into thinking that this dangerous & illegal "occupation" is attractive, others like me, will watch it, appreciate it for its writing, directing, cinematography and overall entertainement value and then move on. If people can't differenciate between what is entertainment & reality then god help us.

nice one mate, entertainment and move on, well the way i look on it is like this it takes allsorts to make the world go round and i dare say some have made one hell of alot out of what they do, if they did not do it ya would have no entertainment lol, well i aint going o run them down because the way i look on it is i wont knock it until i,ve tried it maybe thats just me but why does all people auto think if ya a criminal that ya a bad person theres good and bad in everybody thats all i have to say.

[dbz-buu]

Originally Posted by theuofc I see that "Layer Cake" 2 disc edn, is on sale at HMV: £5.99 delivered. Barbara

thats a good price will have to order mine tomorrow me think.