Considered as one of the greatest love stories of all time, William Shakespeare’s Romeo and Juliet is a timeless literary classic and remains perhaps the most appreciated piece of literature in all of history. The enduring tale of love between two “star cross’d lovers” has been told, acted, and read countless times since its original debut. Throughout generations, varied interpretations of the perpetual love story have also been released, including the 1968 film directed by Franco Zeffirelli featuring Leonard Whiting and Olivia Hussey, as well as Baz Luhrmann’s 1997 modernized version, starring Leonardo DiCaprio and Claire Danes. Though both are based on the original playwright, several parts of both motion pictures exemplify subtle and major distinguishing differences from each other, and the innovative play.

In the original play, Romeo’s unrequited love Rosaline remains unseen throughout the play, and is instead only mentioned by other characters. However, she is anticipated to be a guest at the Masquerade ball which gives Romeo an incentive to attend as well. Contrarily, in the 1968 film Rosaline is shown to viewers at Capulet’s banquet. The film additionally portrays that Romeo is only one of the many suitors who Rosaline disdains, though seeming to enjoy the mass of attention being thrust upon her. During the same scene in the play, Tybalt is enraged when learning Romeo’s true identity, declaring “to strike him dead I’ll hold it not a sin” (1.5.58) before being interrupted by Lord Capulet. In Zeffirelli’s version of the film, Tybalt instead discusses his protest to Romeo’s attendance with Lord Capulet. The play features Juliet delivering a drawn-out soliloquy contemplating the risks of drinking the sleeping potion (4.3.14-59). After frantically worrying about suffocating, being poisoned, smelling awful odors, committing suicide by bashing her head in “with some great kinsman’s bone”, and seeing what she believes to be Tybalt’s ghost, Juliet finally drinks the vial. In the film, Juliet merely states “Love give me strength” before swallowing the potion.

After learning the news of Juliet’s “death”, a heartbroken Romeo buys a vial of lethal poison from an apothecary in Mantua, planning to later kill himself with it. In the motion picture, this scene was eradicated completely and substituted with Balthasar and Romeo heading back to Capulet’s tomb together. The 1968 film never discloses where or who Romeo obtained the poison from. When arriving at the entry of the tomb, Romeo is suddenly stopped and questioned by Paris, who egocentrically attempts to arrest the banished Romeo. Upon doing so, Romeo kills Paris in a fit of anger. This scene was also removed from Zeffirelli’s film.

Following the deaths of Romeo and Juliet, Friar Lawrence was apprehended by the Prince and subsequently revealed the truth of the secret wedding, the potion, and all other plans for the destined lovers. His story was validated by a letter written to Lord Montague from his son, Romeo. In the movie however, Friar Lawrence was never heard from again after he fled from the tomb. Because of this, the exposure of Romeo and Juliet’s marriage was not explained in the film, though both families seemed to be aware of the situation by the time the double funeral took place. After the Capulets and Montagues agree to resolve their differences, the final line of Shakespeare’s original version of the play was spoken by the Price: “…For never was a story of more woe/ than this of Juliet and her Romeo” (5.3.325-326). Though this same line was also the concluding line in the film, it was performed by the concealed narrator whom also delivered the introduction: “Two households, both alike in dignity/ in fair Verona, where we lay our scene”.

Years after Romeo & Juliet was first released as a film, another on-screen, modernized adaptation was released in hopes of appealing to a more youthful audience. Though this portrayal of the classic love story was much different in terms of novelty, the characters still spoke in Shakespeare’s original dialogue. There are several obvious differences between this version of the story and the others. For example, instead of having swords, the characters used 9 mm pistols to fight. The Montagues and Capulets represented business empires fighting, in place of the original play’s family feud. Elegant castles of Verona were traded for modern city skyscrapers, while the setting of the story switched from small-town Italy to big-city Verona beach. In the beginning of the original play, the Capulet’s provoke the Montagues by biting their thumb at their enemies. In this movie however, the roles are reversed and the Montague’s are responsible for initiating for first quarrel. Also, the role of Abra, who was known as Abram in the play, reversed his character to become a Capulet instead of a Montague. The Masquerade Ball is one of the most memorable scenes in the entire play, for it is where Romeo and Juliet first meet. In the play, the Montague boys learn of the party by meeting an illiterate servant who asks the Montagues to read him the invite list he was given to pass out. Still in love with Rosaline, Romeo and his friends take advantage of the opportunity and invite themselves to the party. In the movie however, the Montagues hear about the party on television while they play pool.

Another major difference in the 1997 motion picture is the recurrence of water. In this version, Romeo and Juliet initially meet through a fish tank at the Masquerade ball. The illustrious “balcony scene” from the original play is replaced with the “pool” scene. Furthermore, when Romeo kills Tybalt in the play, the setting is high noon. In the movie however, Tybalt is killed at night during a rainstorm. His dead, limp body proceeds to fall into a fountain, continuing the water theme. A subtle change in the movie is the modification of one of Juliet’s lines from when she is informed that Tybalt was killed: “Oh God, was it Romeo’s hand that shed Tybalt’s blood?” (3.2.72). In the modern film version, this was changed to be said as a prayer in place of an exclamation. Another difference is that in the 1968 film, Mercutio and the Prince appear as Caucasians while in the 1997 film, they are both African American, giving the movie more diversity in the characters. The Prince is also referred to as the chief of police in this depiction of the story. As does the 1968 film, the modernized Romeo + Juliet does not include the scene in which Romeo kills Paris at the Capulet tomb, leaving Paris to assumedly survive in both of these films.

Perhaps the most major change in Luhrmann’s version of the film is that Juliet awakes from her deep sleep immediately after Romeo drinks the poison, allowing them to have brief final seconds together, leaving Romeo to ultimately die in Juliet’s arms. In the play and original film, Juliet wakes up after Romeo is already dead. She is then regretfully told by Friar Lawrence that her husband had died, and adamantly insists on staying alone with his body. After delivering a long monologue, entailing her unsuccessful attempt to kiss the remainder of the poison of Romeo’s lips (5.3.173-184), Juliet stabs herself with Romeo’s dagger and dies by his side. In the movie, the monologue is obliterated and instead, Juliet silently commits suicide with Romeo’s gun. One final distinction is the findings of Romeo and Juliet’s bodies. In Shakespeare’s version, the church watchmen find their bodies while the 1997 movie depicts police officers discovering them. Again, the “Prince” delivers the final lines of the movie just as he did in the previous film and play. However in an updated twist, the film ended the same way it began: the lines were spoken through the news report on a television screen.

Though various versions of William Shakespeare’s original playwright exist, they all have the same central message and theme of love versus society. The everlasting story of love between Romeo and Juliet will always be cherished, and possibly act as an example to future generations that social class and family rifts should not be deemed as proper reasons to separate two lovers. After all, there was “never was a story of more woe than this of Juliet and her Romeo.”

If one wants to understand the directors’ vision of the short film Balance, he/she would have to possess great knowledge of German history or be prepared to delve into the subject. The leading political parties in those days may have (and I use ‘may’ because I’m not entirely surely) curtailed the freedom of expression, which including films by censoring direct references or attacks against the government. Unless we have lived in those times or are as curious as Leo Tolstoy about World history, we may not understand many elements in Balance: the numbers on the… (What should I call them?) daunting figures, why these figures looked identical, and what the musical box represented etc, since they are represented symbolically.

But one can grasp a general idea about the film- some say it is about corruptive power, some feel the movie castigates materialism while a few reviewers with good historical knowledge talk about fascism and related topics. After a couple of watches, I observed one small detail that cleared some concepts in my mind- the person who was sitting on the box while the platform kept tilting left and right managed to eliminate most of his companions, and while at first he does this accidentally, by the end his deed is deliberate and cruel.

This made me think of the box as some form of throne or title. Before it arrives, the five work in perfect harmony till the contents of the box are heard by the characters. Then one decides to do away with the box (he possible prefers harmony) and tries to create an imbalance to knock off the foreign object. But he is stopped by another as the rest witness the action, baffled. When one begins to dance to the music playing from within the box, another applies pressure on the platform to bring the box towards him. This causes the performer to sit on the box to prevent falling, while the rest move hurriedly in a state of panic and confusion. The guy on top of the box doesn’t push the first guy intentionally and we can make this out by the look on his face. The second person too is kicked accidentally, but when the man had an option to save his last mate, he decided not to.

Now understand this situation using this context: the man on the box or the throne inevitably acquires power. The first few times people close to him suffer unintentionally by him or the power he has (the weight of the box) and he can be exonerated for those crimes. But when the person realizes that the box is the source of dominance, he cuts off any others’ reach by killing them intentionally and deviously. No one is left to question him, and he seems to be satisfied in the ending. But he doesn’t realize how lonely his position at the top is and how far he is from ‘power’ in metaphorical terms (he doesn’t get the fruits of power).

Everyone should see Balance at least once for the various messages it sends across. But make sure about the kind of film you are in the mood for: this isn’t your Pixar, happy, all’s-well-that-ends-well treat.

“To love another person is to see the face of God.” -Jean Valjean

Les Miserables tackles the history of France and how the French Revolution took place. The novel is well-known for its remarkable story written by Victor Hugo and was first published in 1862. The 2012 movie adaptation was directed by Tom Hooper. Is repenting ever too late? How to start a new life?This review will focus the story of prisoner 24601, Jean Valjean.

Happened in France during the early 19th century, Jean Valjean was finally released after spending nineteen years in jail for stealing a loaf of bread. He eventually became a mayor of a town but is always alert to the risk of being captured again by inspector Javert, who is ruthless in hunting down law-breakers. Before Fantine died, Valjean promises to take care of little Cosette. Eventually, Cosette meets Marius, a student of the rebellion and it leads them to loving each other which triggered Valjean. He later accepted that he needs to let go of Cosette.

Valjean’s transformation from a hate-filled and hardened criminal into a well-respected philanthropist calls out hope. Once Valjean opens up his heart, he becomes a testament to the redemptive power of love and compassion. In taking care of Cosette, Valjean learns how to love another person and how to pass that love onto others. While Valjean’s efforts on behalf of others inevitably cause him problems, they also give him a sense of happiness and fulfillment that he has never felt before. Valjean’s love for others-in particular, for Cosette-is what keeps him going in desperate times. This ability to change makes him a universal symbol of hope- if he can learn love and charity after suffering so much injustice, anyone can.

After watching the movie, Les Miserables, I was definitely left in awe. There is more to it than just a story about the French Revolution. The movie tackles broad topics about faith, patriotism, love, compassion and how people were treated. It was definitely worth the time. The film justified the story well. The actors portrayed their characters remarkably. The compositions were exceptional as well as how the actors performed them. Anne Hathaway was phenomenal although she was only shown for a few scenes. Hugh Jackman also stands out as usual, the tension he brings helps so much to the story. It is no doubt that Les Miserables is Oscar-winning.

In November 2004, an entertainment news story in USA Today caught my attention. It was an extraordinary illustration of “playing the role” that we desire to become.

The young man in this story was a natural – he was unknowingly using the same principles taught in my Feel Free to Prosper® program – Lesson Three, “Accept It Now.” As a result he manifested himself a super role in a movie. Literally. And in spite of some pretty tremendous odds.

Here’s the inside scoop…

On Halloween 2003, Brandon walked into a Hollywood bowling alley in a very distinctive costume – glasses, dark suit, tie, and white shirt unbuttoned to reveal a blue undershirt with logo. Add the recognizable hair and it’s no wonder he won 1st prize as Superman in their costume contest.

He had always wanted to play Superman and all his life people said he looked like Superman. But he was an unknown actor. On that Halloween night, though, Brandon was Superman.

Little did he know that a year later, after being chosen from thousands of international candidates, he would become the next Man of Steel in a movie role that wasn’t even a possibility that previous Halloween.

The name of the bowling alley was Lucky Strike, by the way. Was Brandon Routh just lucky? Of course not. We know better. It’s not luck. It’s law.

Accept It Now

Your acceptance of your desire in the now moment is your bridge that will take you from your present outer reality to your fulfilled desire. Words and affirmations are a great means to condition the subconscious mind to eliminate negative patterns and prepare for this advanced work. But I believe that one moment of acceptance of your desire, one moment filled with the reality of your answered prayer, is more powerful than a thousand affirmations stated without the corresponding feeling. That’s because when we bring our feeling nature into play, we are imprinting directly on the subconscious mind and linking ourselves to the great creative forces of the Universe. It’s like imprinting an image directly onto photographic film. Words and affirmations have their own important role because they help us to eliminate the mental debris so that we are able to access the film and produce an untarnished image.

-Feel Free to Prosper Lesson Three, “Accept It Now”

Most people have either read the book (1971) or seen the film (1973) ‘The Exorcist’, where a young girl called, Regan MacNeil was thought to be possessed by demons. However, in reality, this film was based on the true life events of a boy named, Roland Doe.

This story became the inspiration for probably one of the most popular horror films of all time.

The writer, William Peter Blatty became inspired to write this book after he discovered there were diaries of the exorcism, written by the Jesuit Priests during and after Rev. William S. Bowdern’s repeated attempts to exorcise thirteen year old Roland Doe.

In 1949, William Blatty was an English major student at Georgetown University, when he began reading the newspaper articles regarding the exorcism of Roland Doe. He subsequently approached his lecturer, Rev. Thomas Bermingham informing him of the story. The Reverand then went on to conduct further investigations and discovered that the diaries of Roland Doe had in fact been chronicled by the Jesuit Priests.

It was unfortunate for Blatty, but he was unable obtain permission to read the diaries, therefore, he had to turn to lengthy newspaper investigations, which resulted in some amazing discoveries:

In January 1949, a young boy called, Roland Doe and his dysfunctional family began experiencing strange occurrence’s in their home. The location is still undecided for many reasons. One of them being:

Years later when Father Bowdern was asked by Blatty during the making of the film if he should visit the Doe family, the Father became insistent that the family’s location and confidentiality remain secret to protect the boy. However, I can reveal, it was either Maryland, USA, or Mount Rainer, USA.

Wherever the true location may be, it is known that the family’s troubles began with minor disturbances, namely scratching sounds heard in various locations of their home (usually coming from the ceiling or the walls). This led the family to suspect rodent infestation. However, after contacting a rodent extermination firm, who carried out a full investigation, it was determined that the house was free of infestation.

It was not long after this when the cause of these disruptions began taking on a more dramatic and sinister role.

Roland Doe was to be the unfortunate victim of this relentless phenomena.

Whilst sleeping, he began experiencing violent bed shaking episodes and sheets being dragged off his bed. These onslaughts rapidly increased in intensity and could often be heard and witnessed by the family.

As Roland’s family became convinced these attacks were genuine, they also started to link Roland’s fascination with the Ouija board. Roland began to dabble with this ‘game’ thanks to his Aunt Tillie, who introduced him to it before she died on January 26th, 1949 – eleven days prior to the start of the paranormal activity.

Although Roland’s mother suspected Aunt Tillie was the cause of the haunting, the family had to act quickly as concern grew for Roland’s welfare.

As Roland had been baptized a Lutheran after birth, the family called in the help of two Lutheran ministers – one being Rev. Luther Schultze. Accompanying them was a Rabbi, who it is believed was only there because of his knowledge in this type of suspected phenomena.

Whilst the young boy was being assessed by the Rabbi, it is said that Roland suddenly began ranting in a language he had no previous knowledge of.

The two Lutheran ministers had no clue as to what Roland was saying, however, the Rabbi understood every word…Roland was speaking the rabbi’s native tongue of Hebrew – fluently!

THE DOE’S CONTACT THE DEAD ‘AUNT TILLIE’

After researching a number of conflicting articles on the exorcism of Roland Doe and studying the Jesuit priests diaries, I can now give you the facts surrounding the lead up to and the actual exorcism from the best of my knowledge.

It was first understood by myself, after reading various analogies, that Roland’s mother held a number of Ouija board séance’s in order to contact Aunt Tillie, however, I discovered this was not the case:

Roland Doe’s mother ‘suspected’ that recently departed Aunt Tillie was the cause of Roland’s regime of relentless torment. During one episode where Roland was being terrorised by this unknown force, his mother shouted out, ‘if that’s you Tillie, knock three times’.

Immediately, a cold breeze loomed down and weaved its icy breath around Roland’s mother, grandmother, and then Roland himself. Then came three distinct knocks on the floor, which all three of them heard.

Mrs Doe hesitantly asked, ‘if that really is you Tillie, knock four times’. Again, all three heard four knocks on the floor…but most disturbingly – claw like marks were later discovered on Roland’s mattress.

However, Aunt Tillie was later discarded as the cause after the paranormal activity carried over into Roland’s school. Roland was aghast as his school desk began moving around by itself in full view of the horrified teacher and school children. This later resulted in Roland’s expulsion from the school.

Understandably, the Doe family where traumatized as well as fearing for Roland’s health as the phenomena increased. Reverend Shultze was brought in to observe the attacks on Roland. Over a period of several nights, Shultze witnessed the boy seeming to be in agony as he slept – flaying his arms around and ripping his sheets. The Reverend was still however unconvinced of paranormal activity and referred Roland to the Mental Hygiene Clinic of the University of Maryland for tests. The tests came back with conclusive results…Roland was considered in no way abnormal.

Still sceptical of paranormal activity, Shultze asked Roland to stay over at his parsonage. Shultze’s main purpose was to discover if Roland’s home was being haunted, or whether it was Roland himself.

On February 17th 1949, Roland was taken to Shultze’s home where he would spend the night and be monitored by Shultze. The Reverend would not be disappointed.

During the night, the Reverend stated that distinct scratching noises were heard coming from Roland’s room. Shultze then entered the bedroom and was horrified to witness Roland being tipped out of the armchair he was sitting in and the bed at his side vibrating.

Shultze would later observe scratches appearing on Roland’s body in front of his eyes. The Reverend realised that time was now of the essence and recommended the Doe family contact the Catholics.

Roland’s parents were by now so desperate; they decided to take Roland to see Father Albert Hughes at St. James Catholic Church in Mount Rainier.

In the meantime, a very concerned cousin of Roland’s, who was a student of Father Raymond J. Bishop at St Louis University confided in him about the paranormal activity taking place in the Doe household. After concluding he had no doubt she was speaking the truth, he decided to discuss this matter with his old friend, Rev. William S. Bowdern.

Father Bowden would go on to be the main instigator in the exorcism of Roland Doe.

THE EXORCISMS OF ROLAND DOE

Roland Doe’s family were by now clear in mind that evil had possessed their 13-year-old son after he had conducted numerous Ouija board sessions. Their only choice left was to visit Father Albert Hughes at St. James Catholic Church in Mount Rainier for assessment.

Father Hughes was initially disbelieving and hesitant about the case. However, he agreed to conduct the interview…encountering probably one of the worlds most inconceivable, unearthly cases of possession known to date.

THE INTERVIEW

It was reported; as Father Hughes began interviewing Roland, the icy breath felt by the Doe family during their ‘supposed’ contact with Aunt Tillie had once more made its hostile return.

Still sceptical, Father Hughes carried on with the interview, which was soon followed by Roland spilling out a tirade of ungodly language directed at the Father. Hughes was evidently stunned but still remained unconvinced. However, this was swiftly dispelled when Roland suddenly began speaking fluently in Latin. A language he had never been taught.

At the end of the interview, there was apparently no doubt in Father Hughes mind that Roland Doe was indeed possessed as he immediately contacted his archbishop, Cardinal O’Boyle and asked his permission to conduct an exorcism. This was approved after the Cardinal studied the case and the medical evidence.

THE EXORCISM

The first exorcism of Roland Doe took place at the Georgetown hospital. Before the ritual Roland was tied securely to the bed, which was a normal practise.

As the exorcism commenced, Roland launched a spitting frenzy directed at Father Hughes. It was reported the outpouring was sent with such force and incredible aim, it was described as ‘beyond natural.’

The exorcism then came to its grisly end as the young boy began screaming obscenities at the Father and broke free from his restraint. Roland then manifested a power far beyond his years and condition – ripping a metal spring from the bed and slashing the Father’s left arm – resulting in Hughes needing over 100 stitches.

Roland promptly became peaceful after Father Hughes left the room – not referring to the exorcism at all; it was as though all memories had drained into a void of obscurity.

Roland was not considered to be in need of hospitalisation after the exorcism and was sent home. In the meantime, Father Hughes was unable to comprehend the reality of what he had just witnessed and suffered a mental breakdown.

The case however remained far from closed; something needed to be done to help Roland. After his cousin had spoken with her professor, Father Bishop at St Lois University (mentioned at the end of part two), it was decided that he and his good friend Father Bowdern would visit Roland.

On March 9th 1949 Father Bishop and Father Bowdern, together with a young Jesuit priest, Fr. Walter Halloran went to Roland’s home. During the visit, they were horrified to discover Roland’s body had been disfigured with bleeding scratches to his chest. Other phenomenon was also witnessed, which resulted in Cardinal Ritter being petitioned by the priests in order to carry out another exorcism.

The exorcism was granted by Cardinal Ritter on March 16th 1949…soon afterwards the priests began the exorcism rites.

The exorcism took on a sinister air from the start, with violent bed movements reported, extreme hostile language and extensive spitting coming from Roland. When further bloody scratch marks apparently spelled out the words ‘hell’ and ‘devil’ it was decided for everyone’s safety, the exorcism should be carried on in the psychiatric ward at the Alexian Brothers Hospital.

At the hospital, Father Bowdern began the exorcism by reciting prayers from ‘The Roman Ritual’. Whilst Father Bishop wrote a diary of the events.

Roland then screamed in apparent pain as the prayers went on. At one point Bowdern was clearly shaken as the boy spat out the words, ‘I’m in hell – I see you – you’re in hell – it’s 1957.’

Roland then began spitting at the priests again. Fr. Halloran was reported to have said that Roland was an absolute marksman when he spat, he stated that even with his eyes closed Roland would spit right in your face.

The exorcism went on for nights with each episode becoming more fearsome than the last. On one occasion Roland exploded with such rage, he hit Halloran with a force which broke his nose.

Bowdern began reciting the Roman Ritual of Christian Exorcism over and over again:

‘I cast thee out, thou unclean spirit, along with the least encroachment of the wicked enemy and every phantom and diabolical legion. In the name of our Lord Jesus Christ, depart and vanish from this creature of God.’

After hours of reciting, Bowdern and the others were alarmed when Roland sat bolt upright and announced in a booming voice he was the ‘Arc Angel Michael’ and demanded the demon to leave Roland.

Roland writhed around, contorting his body in obscure positions until eventually he lay still. Then he sat up and spoke in his normal voice declaring to all the relieved witnesses, he had just seen a vision of St Michael holding a flaming sword. The exorcism was a success!

Twelve days after the exorcism Roland’s family moved from St Louis to Maryland. Roland later wrote to Father Bowdern telling him he was settled and had very vague recollections of what had happened to him.

The last report of Roland Doe is of a happily married man with three children and still living in Maryland.

The Catholic church has a filed dossier which states that the possession of Roland Doe was ‘genuine’ with forty one signatures of witnesses to the events.

Groundhog Day is a 1993 comedy distributed by Columbia Pictures. Some of its stars include Bill Murray as Phil Connors, Andie MacDowell as Rita, Chris Elliott as Larry, Stephen Tobolowsky as Ned, Brian Doyle-Murray as Buster, and Marita Geraghty as Nancy. The movie is produced by Trevor Albert (Multiplicity), C.O. Erickson (Project X), Harold Ramis (Year One), and Whitney White (Stuart Saves His Family). The director is Harold Ramis.

The story starts out in Pittsburgh, Pennsylvania but soon moves to Punxsutawney, home of the world-famous groundhog. Phil Connors is a narcissistic weatherman from Pittsburgh who hates going to the small town every year to cover the festival. When it’s over, he can’t wait to leave until one year he’s unable to due to a blizzard. He returns to his bed-and-breakfast to retire for the evening. When he wakes up the next morning, he receives a shock. Apparently, yesterday never happened. Phil doesn’t believe it until he leaves and discovers that the same people are in the same places as they had been the day before. Upon waking up the following morning, while hearing the same song “I got you, babe” on the radio the conceited weatherman begins to think he is going crazy. As the day keeps repeating over and over again, Phil tries everything from living life without worrying about consequences to suicide, but nothing works. He is apparently stuck in a time-warp.

Having a man like Phil Connors live a day that he despises over and over again may have been a message from the “man upstairs”. He could have been telling Phil that the universe does not revolve around him and he should start treating other people as well as himself better. Eventually, Phil gets this message and does begin treating other people better. He starts going around Punxsutawney doing favors for complete strangers like when he changes the tire of a car with some elderly women inside. Also, the weatherman saves Buster Green, the organizer of the Groundhog Day festivities, when he nearly chokes to death. Additionally, he tries to better himself by picking up some hobbies like ice-sculpting, playing the piano, and studying poetry.

One supporting character that I found particularly interesting was Phil’s cameraman Larry, portrayed by Chris Elliott. Larry is always making jokes at Phil’s expense, especially when he is claiming how great he is. It could be said that the cameraman was the one person who tried to keep Phil down to earth. Larry makes a joke early in the film after Phil says that a lot of networks are interested in him. He says, “Yeah, that would be the Home Shopping Network!” When they arrive at the hotel, Phil compliments Rita the producer on her ability to keep the talent happy. After the conceited weatherman gets in the van Larry says, “Did he just call himself the talent?” Later on, Rita says to Larry that there may be something “really wrong with Phil” to which the cameraman replies, “There’s a lot of things really wrong with Phil.”

To wrap, I believe Groundhog Day is a great family movie that every film viewer, especially Bill Murray fans, would enjoy!

In this article I will be talking about the true benefits of actually enrolling in a drama school as this drastically improves any actors chances of really succeeding in this industry as well as the hurdles that come along way.

Most actors in today’s films have had some sort of guidance before they made it to where they are. I guess there are some actors out there that do not need such help as for these special few the skills needed to achieve in this business have always come naturally. For the most of us we have no acting skill what so ever and then there are some who do not know there true talents until someone or something comes along and shows the person the right direction and then this magical thing happens and an actor is born.

A great way that determines if you have what it takes to become an actor or not is to really understand what is involved to become a successful actor. This can be done many ways for example hanging around movie sets, reading up on acting, and learning from instructional videos. The dedication required to make it in this business is what sets the big screen actors apart from the b-list movies you never hear about. Learning the material from someone who has been involved in this industry for sometime now and to inquire if possible where to start acting is your best bet in the beginning. There are many books and DVD’s out there that explain in detail just what is required to even have a chance at the red carpet. Also by grabbing these books or audio tapes or even instructional videos, one can learn exactly if this is what their career will be and have a better understanding if this is for you or not. This way also will save you hours of casting calls if you are already at that point or even better thousands of dollars running around dealing with agencies, creating portfolios and getting no where.

Another way but more expensive and I only recommend this path if you have some what of an understanding how the movie business works is to enroll in a film directing school and acting workshop. This method is not only the best but also the most expensive and let alone an audition must take place in order to qualify you into the school. You must also be at least eighteen or older to become a professional actor but once an audition is passed a place in the school is offered along with your ten’s of thousand tuition and not to forget the living expense as you most likely will have to move to another city to attend the campus. I still believe that to start acting, you really need expert advice from actors in the real world that will tell you how to get into acting as they have been film acting for sometime and now and have the best knowledge if this is really your true calling or not. Film acting schools can take a lot out of you because these are extensive two or three years intense training for you to succeed. These schools take you by the hand and teach you every aspect of acting including facial expressions, voice impressions, gesture, and space and movement to name a few.

To be continued….

Using the exact words of Javert, “I am the law and the law is not mocked!” Les Misérables is a 2012 epic musical drama film directed and scripted based on the musical of the same name which is in turn based on the 1862 French novel. It was set on the 19th-century France, which climaxes with the anti-monarchist Paris uprising of 1832; primarily the cities of Arras, Digne, Montreuil-sur-mer, Montfermeil, Paris, and Toulon. This would serve as a reminder that Javert, the main antagonist, who is known for being ruthless in hunting down law-breakers, believing they cannot change for the better. As the narrator tells us: “He was one of those people who, even glimpsed, make an immediate impression; there was an intensity about him that was almost a threat. His name was Javert and he belonged to the police.”

It started with Javert, being an assistant guard, releasing prisoner 24601, Jean Valjean, after 19 years of imprisonment for stealing bread and failed attempts at escaping and gave him a parole. Years after, Javert served as an inspector with the local police of the factory owner and mayor of Montreuil, Pas-de-Calais, Monsieur Madeleine. He suspects the identity of Madeleine when he rescues an injured worker trapped under a heavy cart. Then, Madeleine dismissed his attempt of arresting Fantine, a prostitute, for having a violent row with a street idler. The police caught someone they assumed as Jean Valjean so he went to Arras to confirm and went to the Madeleine to beg for him to be dismissed because he was mistaken as he suspected him to be Jean Valjean. Later then, Jean Valjean revealed himself and Javert arrests him but failed to do so. After a few years, Javert was recruited to be an inspector in the capital. He crossed paths with Valjean along with Cosette and tries to arrest them but failed again. Few years passed again and this time, Javert is a leader of a squad of policemen in the capture of a gang which had been terrorizing Paris for years. He pretended to be an ally to spy on the rebels but got recognized by Gavroche, a city urchin, and they imprisoned him. Valjean suddenly came in and offered to execute Javert but actually releases him and faked his death. When the rebellion ended, Javert expected Valjean to come out of the sewer he’d been hiding, though with a company that he agreed to help when Valjean asked him for a favor before he’ll be captured. After helping, instead of capturing Valjean, Javert wandered the streets in emotional turmoil. He was morally confused by the mercy of Jean Valjean, so he commits suicide by throwing himself in the river Seine.

Law implies imposition by a sovereign authority and the obligation of obedience on the part of all subject to that authority. In Les Misérables, it’s personified as a persistent man, Javert. He knows what exactly is law and assures that people know it too. He alone, is a living law. Just by mere seeing him, you would be reminded about the do’s and do not’s. He has been given different roles by the government regarding control and coordination. Even though the law changes it statement, it still is law, thus, should be obeyed. Until his last breath, as he throws himself, he buries every single thing on his heart and mind.

The film shows a variance of people. The visuals were very powerful, the places used were appropriate for the scenes. It makes you feel as if you’re in the picture with a touch of modernity. The transitions between scenes are made smoothly. The overall spectacle as a musical was delivered right through on-screen. Also, the actors and actresses were picked thoroughly and gave justice to the specified role they had. 160 minutes runtime was maximized by not only having dramas but also with a little touch of comedy on some parts of the film. As a musical film, it respectably delivered with, of course, great voices. The choice of songs were actually nice and proper as well as the message and emotion being conveyed to the watchers.

Film schools around the world are mainly focused at teaching the technical aspects of filmmaking. These areas include art direction, cinematography, digital media, editing, directing the actors, directing the camera, theater acting, and even critical studies in film. A very important aspect of filmmaking is managing the entire show which means putting everything together as every individual department takes care of its individual needs. Unfortunately, degrees in specifically production are very rare. It is interesting to not however that the management side of filmmaking before, during, and after a shoot is very similar to event planning.

Event planning schools teach skills that are in some ways very similar to skills needed to manage a big production. From the beginning of a project, the producer tries to gather together a crew just as an event planner picks out key players who will run their program. Similar types of phone calls, budget planning, and location scouting are needed in pre production stages for both fields. In the day of the actual event or the film shoot, the producer and the event planner are both making sure that all the individual departments are running smoothly for a shot to take place successfully or an event to run properly.

For example, just as a producer would make sure that the actors are well taken care of, the sound mixer is running smoothly, and the grip department has arrived on time, the event planner will have to make sure that the correct music is playing, the tent rentals have prepared the tents on time, and the correct cake is ordered. Both departments need to make sure that the important people are well taken care of- the producers will make sure their actors are pampered and happy as the event planner will make sure that the VIP guests are comfortable and treated luxuriously in there designated areas.

Because of these similarities, I believe that it will not be too difficult for someone who previous experience or has taken event planning courses to step into the production and management side of the film industry as they do share similar backgrounds. Of course, as they advance in their field, they will need to learn the industry specifics that only apply to filmmaking and not just general management. Such skills include knowing the right industry contacts as filmmaking is more so based on networking than event planning and also having a general idea of the technicality of filmmaking because although the producer does not need to get involved in any department very specifically, a general idea is required so they can guide and keep the team together through example.

A business plan is a tool with three basic purposes: communication, management, and planning.

As a communication tool, it is used to attract investment capital, secure loans, convince workers to hire on, and assist in attracting strategic business partners. The development of a comprehensive business plan shows whether or not a business has the potential to make a profit. It requires a realistic look at almost every phase of your film project, in particular the distribution and subsequent revenue streams needed to recoup your investment. Furthermore, it shows that you have worked out all the problems of your project.

As a management tool, the business plan helps you track, monitor, and evaluate your progress. The business plan is a living document that you will modify as you progress in your project. By using your business plan to establish timelines and milestones, you can gage your progress and compare your projections to actual accomplishments.

As a planning tool, the business plan guides you through the various phases of your business. A thoughtful plan will help identify roadblocks and obstacles so that you can avoid them and establish alternatives.

But even more importantly, in a film project the business plan also serves another major purpose; you need it to attract investors to fund your project. No one is going to invest in your project unless they can see how they are going to get repaid and more importantly, make a profit.

“Anyone looking for financing for anything should have a business plan, period,” says talent manager Glenn Rigberg, of the Beverly Hills firm of Rigberg, Roberts, Rugalo. “An independent film business plan [without money and a hard offer to go with it] won’t get actors attached. But a solid, compelling plan can give a filmmaker a certain degree of credibility in the fundraising arena. That’s where it counts.”

What should go into a film business plan? Your business plan should always be simple and straightforward. Don’t waste a lot of time developing a 40 page document that no one will read. Keep it to 10 to 15 pages at most. Generally, every plan includes the following;

* The Executive Summary – a cover sheet that lists the credits of the producers, director and talent and describes the budget, start date and other key information in short, bite-size paragraphs.

* A Synopsis- A short version of the storyline followed by an “investment merits” section, which breaks down all the positive elements of the project, but does not include the ending (you want them to read the script). These elements might be established talent, distribution guarantees, or large potential audiences for the film.

* Environment- A brief summary to educate your reader about the industry and opportunities within the industry. You can also describe who your potential customers are and you can mention a few films that resemble your project.

* Operations- Description of how your internal operation will be structured from the top down in order to produce the project. Indicate what support services, casting, equipment, facilities, locations, legal advisory services, subtitling, etc. will be required to successfully execute the project. Document any key capital requirements necessary for delivering your project. Outline sources of and terms for funding. Indicate what financing has been sourced and how much is still required.

* Marketing- Describe your company’s approach to pursuing the market to distribute your film and earn revenue. Summarize your distribution channels and strategy.

* Financial Projections- Provide an analysis of what it will cost to produce the film which addresses total funds required, funds source, and balance to be financed. Include a budget summary with projected above-the-line and below-the-line costs. List your sales projections and briefly describe how you derived them.

* Financial Statements- Prepare a cash flow statement showing inflows and outflows of cash from month to month during the first year. Prepare a balance sheet reflecting the assets and liabilities of the project. Prepare an Income Statement showing the income, expense, and profitability of the project.

In these recessionary times, cash is hard to come by. It’s no longer enough to present a killer script and a terrific pitch. In this new independent film economy, the people who still have money want to see recoupment projections, marketing plans, internal rates of return, and multiple revenue streams. A properly prepared and informative business plan will go a long way in helping you to obtain the financing for your project. It can also be a valuable tool in ensuring the timely and efficient completion of your film.