The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion
The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion |
| Posted: 31 May 2013 05:25 PM PDT JUNE 1 — Before I even start, let me first make it clear that the film I'm going to write about was written and directed by a friend of mine, and I even have a (speaking) cameo role in it. But a good film is a good film, and deserves to be written about, especially in a Malaysian film landscape that's starved of even decent films to write about, let alone good or great ones. Because of the consistently low quality of most Malaysian films, the default mode of most Malaysians when it comes to new Malaysian films being released is simply — meh. In the last two years or so only Bunohan and Songlap got people to sit up and take notice and caused waves of excitement amongst local filmgoers. And this year it's looking like Kil, a film made as a low-budget indie but which later got picked up for distribution by the big guns at Grand Brilliance, that's going to cause that very rare stir of excitement in the Malaysian film scene. I first met the film's director Nik Amir Mustapha when my band Couple got invited to play a few shows in the United Kingdom and he was part of the team shooting and documenting our adventures there. Our love of films meant that from then we've not only become friends, but also part of a gang of fellow film-loving dudes who talk about films, make short films for fun, and of course dream about the sort of changes or difference we hope to make when we do get to make a feature film some day. Kil was and still is a passion project. Nik Amir and his friends at Flux Visual Lab somehow managed to cook up the film's very low budget which I'm not sure I can officially mention here, but let's just say that it's probably about 1/10th what it'd normally cost to shoot a feature film here in Malaysia. In other words, the budget is much closer to a Malaysian TV movie than you'd think. With that low budget in place, the gang shot the film with a very small crew, tried their best to make it as "proper" a production as well (meaning there's catering, etc like on most normal movie shoots), but wisely spent the money where it'll matter most, which is to make the film look and sound as professional as possible. It is a common complaint about local movies that the visuals, despite most Malaysian films costing an average of RM1.2 million to RM1.5 million to make and only until recently shot on 35mm film, look laughably cheap and can't even live up to the standards set by our neighbours in Indonesia and Thailand, let alone Hollywood. The same goes with the sound of local films, with most scores sounding like cheap rush jobs in a cheap home studio. Not so with Kil. Whatever people may think of the film's story or acting, anyone who's seen it will marvel at how polished it looks and sounds. And they will marvel even more when they find out that the film was shot in only 11 days on a low budget. The story itself should be intriguing enough to pull punters into the cinema, as the film tells the story of a depressed and suicidal young man called Akil who, despite his many attempts to take his own life, just can't seem to finish the job. Enter an organisation called Life Action Bureau, which offers to perform voluntary hits on people like Akil, and just when it seems like Akil's desire to kill himself will finally become a reality, he meets and connects with a cute girl named Zara. With a contract on himself already in place (which cannot be cancelled), what's a boy to do? Personally, I'm more of an arthouse film guy, and Kil is definitely not an arthouse film. But a good popular film (albeit one sprinkled with a little bit of that American indie film flavour we often associate with the Sundance brand, meaning it's got class but it's audience-friendly) is pretty much a rarity here in Malaysia. And I'm especially proud to see a good friend actually make one. And to see the kind of buzz it has been creating among Malaysian netizens, with it trending on Twitter a few times already in the last few weeks, is just heartwarming, especially considering its very humble beginnings. Being part of the gang (and ahem, one of the "stars" of the film, haha!), it's even more encouraging to see Grand Brilliance's PR team behind the film getting all excited, talking about how this film might just kickstart a new era of slightly smarter mainstream filmmaking in Malaysia if audiences respond to this film and make it a box-office success. So go on, buy that ticket and go watch the film, now showing at cinemas all across Malaysia. Together we can make that change. Ini Kil lah! * This is the personal opinion of the columnist. | |
| Posted: 31 May 2013 05:18 PM PDT
JUNE 1 — With the domestic leagues coming to a close, European football's silly season of big-money transfers is now under way. And thanks to the unexpected intervention of Monaco, it looks like being sillier than ever. The French league club have just won promotion to return to the top flight after a two-year absence, and thanks to the funding of billionaire Russian owner Dmitry Rybolovlev they are ready to make their mark. In a big way. Monaco have already signed James Rodriguez and Joao Moutinho from Porto for a combined €70 million (RM280 million), are imminently expected to complete the capture of Colombian striker Radamel Falcao for €60 million, and are in the frame to sign Barcelona goalkeeper Victor Valdes. They may well be more to follow, too. Quite how Monaco's current spending will fit in with the Financial Fair Play (FFP) regulations being implemented by UEFA is rather unclear. Monaco, it seems, are prepared to take the risk that they can construct a team to challenge for Ligue 1 and the Champions League without attracting a sanction from UEFA, even though their current spending is exactly the kind of thing the FFP is supposedly seeking to outlaw. There are two sides to this debate. UEFA want to prevent clubs from falling into the trap that Portsmouth, for example, entered in the last few years: over-spending and committing themselves to unsustainable debt in pursuit of short-term success that will inevitably be followed by long-term disaster. Portsmouth's FA Cup win in 2008, it could be said, was based on a form of cheating: they gambled money they didn't have on players they couldn't afford to bring success; and it did. But then it backfired rapidly and they are now facing life in England's fourth tier after leaving a trail of debris behind them. That kind of conduct should be stopped and UEFA, led by president Michel Platini, have every reason to do so. However, the main premise of FFP is that clubs can spend money linked to their revenue. So Manchester United earning, say, 100 million can spend 100 million on players, while Monaco, earning say 10 million, can only spend 10 million. While this would prevent clubs from getting themselves into unsustainable debt, it would also effectively create a closed shop whereby only the already-rich clubs can earn the revenue from TV rights, gate receipts etc to buy the necessary players to prolong their success. For smaller clubs like Monaco, there would be virtually no chance of breaking into the elite, because FFP prevents them from spending beyond their means and growing the club. This is something to be uncomfortable about. Success and status should not be the perpetual preserve of mega-clubs such as Manchester United, AC Milan, Barcelona and Bayern Munich. If historically smaller outfits such as Monaco, Manchester City and PSG want to break into the higher echelons, the only way to do it is by investing heavily on top-quality new players. FFP prevents them from doing so, meaning they never have a realistic opportunity of improving themselves and realising the ambitions and aspirations of their owners, leaving us with a situation where exactly the same teams challenge for the major honours year-in, year-out. The key difference between clubs like Portsmouth and Monaco is the source of their money. Portsmouth were using borrowed money and getting themselves into debt; Monaco under Rybolovlev, City under Sheikh Mansour and PSG under the Qatar Investment Authority do have funds. Their owners are billionaires and they are giving their money to the clubs, not plunging them into debt. If they wish to spend their millions on a football club, that is a very different case from the likes of Portsmouth gambling with money that isn't theirs (although it becomes a big problem if, as has happened to Malaga, the owner then suddenly pulls out of the club). So FFP, although admirable in intent, is only half a solution that in turn creates a new problem. There's also the question of whether it will actually be implemented. Will UEFA have the conviction to ban a club such as PSG from the Champions League, even if it sparks a potential rebel breakaway by affected clubs, who could threaten to create their own lucrative Super League to directly compete with UEFA's Champions League? So far, UEFA are talking a good game, but actually implementing a stiff penalty against a major club is infinitely harder than threatening one. Will they have the backbone to do it? Like Monaco, we can only wait and see. * This is the personal opinion of the columnist. |
| You are subscribed to email updates from The Malaysian Insider :: Opinion To stop receiving these emails, you may unsubscribe now. | Email delivery powered by Google |
| Google Inc., 20 West Kinzie, Chicago IL USA 60610 | |
0 ulasan:
Catat Ulasan