Comments(0) I have put together this simple slideshow to give you some more information about the setting and the author Khaled Hosseini so that you will find it easier to understand the novel.
Comments(0) 
I have added a review of “Schindler’s List” from the BBC as I think it is one that will be useful for the students who are preparing for the Formal Writing assessment.
In the same year, that Steven Spielberg had a huge hit with “Jurassic Park”, he also made his powerful testament to the suffering of the Jewish people during the Second World War, “Schindler’s List”.
It gave him the critical acclaim he wanted with seven Oscars including Best Picture and Best Director.
Shot in black and white, with the odd carefully chosen touches in colour, the horror of the holocaust is laid bare and speaks for itself. The documentary style allows Spielberg to deliver his message without preaching. The clever use of light and shade also makes it visually stunning. When Oskar Schindler visits a night club, he looks like a 1930s movie star as his cigarette smoke spirals above his head, his eyes hidden in the shade.
It is the story of German businessman Oskar Schindler which captivates right to the end. He is transformed from physically imposing, charismatic philanderer to the humbled man, wishing he had saved more lives.
We watch nervously as he tries to save over a thousand Jews from almost certain death in concentration camps by getting them to work in his factory. He bribes officials and befriends Nazis including evil camp commandant, Goeth, played brilliantly by Ralph Fiennes.
Spielberg has cleverly juxtaposed Goeth and Schindler as two sides of the same coin. They both love the finer things in life, easily swayed by money and women. Playing on this, Schindler tries to show his contemporary that power can be better served by sparing people’s lives rather than taking them. It is an idea that Goeth acknowledges, but is destined not to adhere to for long.
The film finishes on a powerful note in present day with the real Schindler survivors and their descendants visiting his grave. It is the final reminder that this is a true story of one man’s bravery and that in “saving one life, you save the entire world”.
Comments(0) 
This week Year 12 students will start to write longer responses about the film. What should you be writing about? I have put a few ideas below.
The people in the story are the characters. When you first mention them you should give the name of the actor who plays the part, in brackets, after the character’s name, in this way: Oskar Schindler (Liam Neeson). You should write about the main characters, commenting on such things as their circumstances and situation, their personality and anything else which engages our sympathy or disapproval. Characterisation refers to what the actor or writer does to establish what the character is like: this means such things as physical actions or gestures, habits of speech or favourite sayings.
The setting is ss important as the human characters in many cases, and often more so, are places where the action occurs both as identifiable locations and for what they represent or the feelings associated with them. In some kinds of film (eg.Westerns) the setting is grand and panoramic while in others (eg. horror films) it may be narrow and claustrophobic.
In Edward Scissorhands Tim Burton depicts a caricature of small-town America, with elements from the 1950s to the 1980s, with identikit manicured lawns and suburban tidiness; but at the end of the town is a Gothic castle, complete with manic inventor - the effect of this juxtaposition (mixing) of details is surreal and unsettling. At the start of the film an Avon lady, doing her rounds, calls at the castle - and this is presented as perfectly normal.
This refers to the “look” of the film and the way this contributes to its total artistic effect. Look at the lighting of particular scenes; look at use of colour; consider camera technique - steadicam or hand-held, long tracking shots, reaction shots and cutaways. Directors sometimes deliberately make films in black and white (e.g. Peter Brooke, Lord of the Flies; Steven Spielberg, Schindler’s List). Why do they do this? Among many films remarkable for their artistic design or cinematography are Ridley Scott’s Alien, Bladerunner and Thelma and Louise; Tim Burton’s Edward Scissorhands and Sam Mendes’ American Beauty.
Accompanying music is important for the mood of a film. This may be achieved by playing well-chosen popular music, to establish a sense of place and time or evoke nostalgia; or it may be done by original composition. Try to comment on the effect of any musical accompaniment in films you watch.
Comments(0) 
Some of you are studying Tim Burton’s film ‘Edward Scissorhands’ at the moment. A website that you might like to check out is ‘The Story of Snow‘. On the site you will find photos, flash games and information related to the film.
Comments(0) 
The Irish actor Liam Neeson has the features and presence of a film star from the 1940s which made him ideal for the role of Oscar Schindler. Physically the actor cuts a strapping figure that also makes him ideal for larger than life hero roles. However, there is also a vulnerability about him that makes him equally suitable for the role of a sensitive hero, as well.
Neeson brought all of these characteristics to his star-making, Oscar-nominated, performance in Spielberg’s Schindler’s List. The film accentuated Neeson’s old-style Hollywood looks by being shot in film noirish black and white. Neeson’s Schindler, who saves the lives of more than one thousand Jews from the extermination by the Nazis, is shady but honest, pragmatic but altruistic—the quintessential noir hero, a man walking a tightrope down some very dark, very mean streets. He is also a man with a desperate need to feel accepted— a typical Spielberg hero.
As we have discussed the real Schindler was an enigma. History still can’t put a finger on the actual motives that prompted him to save the lives of so many of his Jewish employees. Was he a humanist who saw a terrible wrong and did his best to right it? A charismatic conman? Or was he a clever opportunist who saw no profit in sending productive workers to the gas chambers? In fact, does it really matter? What does count is that he did save lives when others in similar positions sat back and did nothing.
For most of the film, Neeson plays Schindler as just such an enigma, a genuine man in the middle—until Spielberg blows the character’s fascinating ambiguity at the conclusion by having him break down in front of the Jews he has saved and despairing at not having been able to save more of them. This is the most criticised scene in the film. Some critics believe that this behaviour is inconsistent with the character Neeson, the screenwriter, and Spielberg have created for us up to this point that they can’t buy in to it. For others it strikes such a false note of strained sentimentality that it weakens Neeson’s performance. Is it his only unconvincing moment in whole film?
Comments(0) 
More on ‘The Kite Runner’ film. Here is James Croot’s review from The Christchurch Press.
Kabul, Afghanistan, 1978. While the country faces a growing threat from Soviet-backed communists, the only worries best-friends Amir (Zekeria Ebrahimi) and Hassan (Ahmad Khan Mahmidzada) face are the local bullies. Whether it’s watching The Magnificent Seven for the umpteenth time (admiring the performance of their favourite “Iranian actor” Charles Bronson) or using Hassan’s slingshot skills to annoy neighbourhood canines, the pair are as thick as thieves. Their teamwork is particularly evident during kite battles, where they combine to see off all comers.
However, there are those who feel their friendship is inappropriate. While Amir is a well-to-do Pashtun boy, Hassan is a Hazara and the son of Amir’s father’s servant. Amir is taunted about his friendship, with other boys suggesting Hassan is really only an “ugly pet”. And while Hassan would gladly put his life on the line for his best mate, Amir is more reticent.
That’s put to the test when Hassan is cornered by some hoodlums and physically assaulted and humiliated. Amir sees the incident but does nothing, leading to a falling out between the pair which escalates to the point that Hassan and his father leave the household.
Shortly afterwards, with the Soviet invasion imminent, Amir and his father move to America, but the boy can’t help feeling a sense of guilt and unfinished business in his homeland, something that will haunt him for decades.
Based on Afghan-American author Khaled Hosseini’s 2003 novel of the same name, this fine film is illuminated by David Benioff’s faithful adaptation, frill-free direction (barring Forster’s overuse of kite-flying symbolism) and some terrific acting.
Kite Runner provides a fascinating insight into Afghan culture and ethnic variety, as well as the country’s recent historical background - from the arrival of the Soviets to the Taliban - before invasion by American forces. And although the storyline is regret-filled, it never descends into melodrama.
While youngsters Ebrahimi and Mahmidzada have stolen all the headlines, it’s Homayoun Ershadi who deserves the acting plaudits. Disapproving fathers tend to be fairly one-dimensional, but his Baba is more nuanced and complex - a man unafraid to speak his mind and disappointed that his son won’t do the same. “If you won’t stand up for yourself now, you won’t stand up for anything,” he chides Amir.
Such is the power of his performance that most audience members will sympathise with him rather than his charge. Credit also must go to China’s oasis city of Kashgar for its performance standing in for Afghanistan, the latter sadly proving far too risky a prospect to film in.
Comments(1) 
It won’t be long until the film of Khaled Hosseini’s novel ‘The Kite Runner’ is released in New Zealand. It has opened in the US and I have posted a few snippets from the the first reviews to give you some ideas about how the film has been received.
According to critic Richard Schikel at Time “The Kite Runner flies”. “The movie version of Khaled Hosseini’s best selling novel doesn’t feel like it has been, as people used to say, “ripped from headlines.” It instead has about it something of the air of a big, rich, very old-fashioned novel, telling the far-ranging story of two boys, one of them rich and well-favoured, the other a servant in his household, growing to manhood in an increasingly violent world… It also features a heartbreaking betrayal, a disappearance into disparate refugee voids by both of them and the inspirational working out of one of those deep family secrets that were the great specialty of Charles Dickens and, for that matter, of American movies in their classic age, when they so often made first-rate entertainments of second-rate popular fiction.”
For Laura Flanders at AlterNet, “Khaled Hosseini’s moving novel and film hits on all the right themes for a tale about the West and Afghanistan.”
She felt that, “Within the first five minutes of the newly released film The Kite Runner, the leitmotif is laid out in a Karachi-to-California telephone call. Come home to Afghanistan, the protagonist, a young writer “Amir” is told by an ailing uncle. It won’t be an easy journey, the uncle explains, but it’s not too late: “There is a way to be good again.”
She also noted, “At the level of metaphor, the film adaptation of Khaled Hosseini’s best-selling novel is right on target. Abuse of power, remorse, shame, grief, guilt and the dream of redemption: They’re exactly the right emotions to stir in a movie about the United States and Afghanistan. The Kite Runner is a tear-jerker for the politically conscious. Unfortunately, when it comes to real-life U.S.-Afghan relations, the metaphors hit more bases than what’s actually on the screen.”
Ron Wilkinson at Monsters and Critics thought the film was “A sweet and masterful story of survival, transcendence, loyalty and friendship told with striking cinematography. A spiritual piece of work.”
‘The Kite Runner’ has not impressed all the critics but as you can see from the comments above there are some very positive comments on the film. I am looking forward to seeing it and making my own mind up.
Comments(0) 
For Rose!
Here are some quotes from the film ‘Heavenly Creatures’:
Juliet Hulme: Only the best people fight against all obstacles in pursuit of happiness.
Juliet Hulme: All the best people have bad chests and bone diseases. It’s all frightfully romantic.
Pauline Parker: She is most unreasonable. Why could not mother die? Dozens of people are dying all the time, thousands, so why not mother? And father too.
Pauline Parker: [voiceover, from her diary] We have decided how sad it is for others that they cannot appreciate our genius.
Pauline Parker: Oh, I wish James Mason would do a religious picture! He’d be perfect as Jesus!
Juliet Hulme: Daddy says the Bible’s a load of bunkum!
Pauline Parker: But we’re all going to heaven?
Juliet Hulme: I’M not! I’M going to The Fourth World… it’s sort of like heaven. Only better, because there aren’t any Christians!
[Of Pauline's ‘problem']
Doctor Bennett: Chances are she’ll grow out of it. If not… well, medical science is progressing in leaps and bounds. There could be a breakthrough at any time!
Pauline Parker: [narrating] We realised why Deborah and I have such extraordinary telepathy and why people treat us and look at us the way they do. It is because we are MAD. We are both stark raving MAD!
Pauline Parker: [narrating] This notion is not a new one but this time it is a definite plan which we intend to carry out. We have worked it out carefully and are both thrilled by the idea. Naturally we feel a trifle nervous, but the pleasure of anticipation is great.
Juliet Hulme: Stick it up your bottom!
Juliet Hulme: Bloody Bill’s sniffing around Mummy something chronic!
Pauline Parker: I thought he was supposed to be terribly ill.
Juliet Hulme: That’s what we were led to believe.
Pauline Parker: [narration] The next time I write in this diary, Mother will be dead. How odd… yet how pleasing.
Pauline Parker: It’s a three act story with a tragic end.
John: I love you so much Paul. Do you love me as much as I love you?
Pauline Parker: Of course I do, Nicolas.
John: My name is John.
Pauline Parker: Oh, but I like Nicolas so much better!
Juliet Hulme: [speaking too brightly of the murder of Honorah Parker Rieper] I think she knows what’s going to happen. She doesn’t appear to bear us any grudge.
Juliet Hulme: [Juliet has just arrived at her new school. For French class she has taken the name Antoinette] Excuse me, Miss Waller, you’ve made a mistake. “Je doutais qu’il vienne” is in fact the spoken subjunctive.
Miss Waller: It is customary to stand when addressing a teacher,
[pause]
Miss Waller: Antoinette.
Juliet Hulme: [stands] You should have written “vînt”.
Miss Waller: I must have copied it incorrectly from my notes.
Juliet Hulme: [stands] You don’t need to apologise, Miss Waller. I found it frightfully difficult myself until I got the hang of it.
Juliet Hulme: Affairs are much more exciting than marriages.
[Then, with disgust]
Juliet Hulme: As Mummy can testify.
[shortly before the murder]
Juliet Hulme: [admiring the view that includes the path down the hill, where the murder occurred] Isn’t it beautiful?
Pauline Parker: Let’s go for a walk down here. Come on, Mummy!
Honorah Parker Rieper: Oh! No, I’d like a cup of tea, first. Come on!
[the girls reluctantly follow her into the tea-house]
[last lines]
[the last lines show scenes of the murder intercut with b&w shots of Juliet being taken away by her parents on the ship. Pauline and Juliet are sobbing and screaming for each other; and the girls scream as they beat Honorah Parker to death]
Juliet Hulme: Gina!
[sobs as she reaches a hand over the ship railing]
Pauline Parker: Juliet, don’t leave! I’m coming! Don’t go! You can’t! Oh, no!
[as the girls cry and reach helplessly toward each other, Juliet's parents come and stand on either side of her, trying to comfort her]
Juliet Hulme: I’m sorry…
[Pauline screams, and the b&w scene fades into the murder scene]
Pauline Parker: No!
[That last bloody shot fades into the credits]
[first lines]
[Director Peter Jackson opens with the scene that should, logically, end the film: that is, the moments immediately following the murder. The girls Juliet and Pauline run screaming up the hill-path to the tea-house, sobbing and covered in blood. The scene is intercut with b&w visions of the two running across a ship deck to meet Dr. and Mrs. Hulme, whom they both refer to as their mother, as the first three exclamations of "Mummy!" demonstrate]
Juliet Hulme: Mummy!
Pauline Parker: Mummy!
Juliet Hulme: Mummmmy!
[the scene changes from the ship to the hilltop tea-house. The girls are screaming hysterically as the tea-house woman runs out to see what the noise is all about]
Pauline Parker: It’s Mummy! She’s terribly hurt!
Juliet Hulme: Please! Help us!
Quotes taken from IMDB. For more go to Heavenly Creatures script.
Comments(4) 
I have posted a level one ‘Heavenly Creatures’ essay below.
Describe a situation or event in the text that shocked or surprised you. Explain how visual and/or verbal features were used to make you feel shocked or surprised.
A shocking event in the film ‘Heavenly Creatures’ directed by Peter Jackson was the murder of Honora Rieper by her daughter Pauline and friend Juliet Hulme. Jackson used sound, point of view camera shots and a flash-forward to make the viewer feel shocked and horrified by the murder.
The use of sound is perhaps better described as the absence of sound. The murder scene is eerily quiet. Jackson chooses not to use overly dramatic musical accompaniment, or particularly loud sound effects as one would usually expect in the climactic scene of a film. All that the viewer hears is the sound of the brick smashing into Honora’s skull, and the girls yelling and screaming as they beat her. Jackson wants us to hear the scene as Pauline and Juliet would have. When they were murdering Honora, there wasn’t an orchestra in the background. Jackson makes this event so shocking by letting us hear it as it would have been heard. The murder becomes not some dramatic moment in a story, but a real event that occurred in the foothills of Christchurch. It is so shocking because it becomes real.
The murder is shown to us in a series of point of view camera shots, to shock us by showing the murder from all three characters perspectives. We see close up shots of the bloody faces of Pauline and Juliet, of Honora lying on the ground, and of the brick being flung. Not only do we experience the murder through the ears of those present, but Jackson shocks us by showing us the murder through their eyes too. By seeing things from each character’s perspective, Jackson helps us to understand some of what the characters must have been feeling. How awful it must have been for Honora to watch her daughter, covered in blood, flinging a brick at her own mother’s head. It is shocking to us that the girls could continue with the murder when we see, through the point of view shots, how horrendous it must have been. We cannot understand how they could commit such an awful crime.
Jackson uses the convention of flash-forward to further shock us at the brutal murder of Honora. At the beginning of the film, we see Juliet and Pauline running up a hill, covered in blood. Pauline cries ‘It’s Mummy! She’s terribly hurt!’ The viewer realises that something awful has happened to ‘Mummy’, and as the film progresses, we discover the plans of Pauline to ‘moider’ her mother. But it is still hard to believe that she will actually carry out her plan. Jackson uses flash-forward to show us that Pauline does in fact murder her mother. Somehow, knowing all along what the outcome will be makes the murder even more shocking. Jackson wants us to be horrified that Pauline and Juliet have the internal drive to go through with the murder.
Jackson makes the murder of Honora Rieper even more shocking through the use of sound, point of view shots and flash-forward. He shows us the murder through the eyes and ears of the characters, helping us to experience it in a real and shocking way. And we are shocked that the horror that we knew must be coming does actually occur; that Pauline and Juliet have enough hate for Honora to go through with her murder.
Comments(1) 
Today’s essay is on the David Lynch film The Straight Story and like the others it was written in exam conditions. Any comments?
Describe the main idea or purpose in the text you have studied. Explain what you think the writer/director/producer wanted you to learn from this idea or purpose.
An important/main idea in the film “The Straight Story” by David Lynch is that of family bonds. In the story Alvin Straight embarks on a last pilgrimage to see his brother Lyle after a 10 year separation as a result of a fight. Alvin is faced with a terminal illness that may prevent him from making this journey in the future.
Alvin is fiercely independent despite needing two canes to walk. His attitude toward his illness and the advice of doctors “no cane no walker” lead us to believe that Alvin is stubborn and in denial about his illness. However, Alvin displays a different attitude toward the John Deere lawnmower salesman which exposes to the audience his straight and eloquent manner. The director of the film may have wanted the audience to be in two minds about Alvin’s real disposition to display to them that looks can be deceiving and that Alvin has a very volatile nature.
On his slow and protracted lawnmower journey, Alvin meets a runaway who is arrogant and judgemental toward him describing his lawnmower as “a hunk of junk”. This may have been the intention of the director as the viewer expects Alvin to react in the same violent way. However, his sweet cheery disposition is exposed in the comment “eat your dinner missy.” The director wants to expose to the audience that Alvin can relate to anyone despite the age gap. In society the beliefs and actions shape our perception of others in society. Often when actions that are commonly perceived as “wrong” the ideas and perception of that person can be dramatically altered, due to that action which they will be judged and associated with.
Alvin’s description of family as “unbreakable” impact the runaway who returns, we assume, back to her family who were the cause of her leaving and running away. Alvin shows his wisdom and knowledge of life, which could be due to his age that may not have been present 10 years ago when he fought with his brother Lyle. In society foolish fights are commonplace often without reconciliation. The director wanted the audience to learn that it is the stronger, selfless person who will breach the gap in the effort to reconcile.
Alvin meets a pair of bickering brothers. It reminds him of his relationship with his brother and conveys to the viewer how the fight with his brother may have materialised. Once again Alvin’s straight nature exposes the problem of the twins when he asks “how much working was fighting?” The unpressurised manner of Alvin exposes to the twins their obvious predicament. “No one knows your life like your brother” reinforces the director’s intention to the audience that Alvin is trying to prevent these twins from following a similar path of that Alvin and Lyle took.
Alvin and the director are trying to teach younger generations who may not place family as highly as Alvin at his age that family is important and irreplaceable. Society will only realise this after they are older, in that time family may have moved on. Early in life younger generations place emphasis on establishing a life and profession that they forget to nurture the bonds of their family. When old age takes hold and the need for family is great, they may have ruined the chance of establishing and enjoying their family.
