Review Roundup: September 2025

It's time for another edition of Review Roundup. I've watched a fair amount of stuff this September and have written quite a few reviews, and gathering some of the best ones here has made me realise that, oddly enough, issues of adaptation seem to be a recurring theme. So, on that topic and more, here are some writings about various things I've watched and reviewed!

 

NEW: The Life of Chuck (Mike Flanagan, 2024) - reviewed 09/09/2025

    "An exceedingly faithful adaptation of a curious short story, though slightly to a fault as there’s almost a sense of laziness about how the latter is put to the screen here. Rather than recognising the cinematic medium as a distinct form of storytelling and extracting as much potential for a unique conveyance of the given meditations on predetermination and the scope about one’s own existence, Flanagan more often than not settles for realising the bare essence of [Stephen] King’s descriptions and then letting overbearing narration that practically recites verbatim extracts of the original text do all the heavy lifting in terms of articulating the ideas at play, thereby greatly disregarding the power of the image as its own form of expression. This is a shame because there are glimpses of a ‘show don’t tell’ mentality here and there, but they never get the chance to properly thrive because they exist alongside painful barrages of perfunctory, on the nose construction elsewhere. While it remains impressive how neatly the film brings to life almost every small detail of the source material, the end result feels a tad hollow as an adaptation, doing little with the new space to make this story compelling from an alternate perspective. I still enjoyed the film and all the themes I found compelling about the original short story are all here, but I can’t say it completely takes advantage of its place as a cinematic interpretation of such." 6/10

 

THROWBACK: War of the Worlds (Steven Spielberg, 2005) - reviewed 11/09/2025

    "The height of post-9/11 cinema. The sheer terror and anxiety that radiates through every scene, the gritty sequences of destruction from the perspective of helpless civilians unable to rationalise on what danger lies before them, be it where it came from or what they should do next. [Tom] Cruise is our lead, yet even his character is overcome with shock and fear, a memorable spin on the usual persona we associate with him that adds to the tension. Moreover, here we have an adaptation of a classic text (which I regretfully have not read yet) that recognises what timeless qualities exist about its essence and functions them into a distinct context to create something altogether more striking. Mankind may have felt helpless when faced with great threats during [H.G.] Wells’ time, rendering the thought of extraterrestrial invasion a terrifying prospect, and while one would like to think that over a hundred years later we’ve guaranteed ourselves a greater sense of security and control over what threats come our way, September 11th, 2001 would be one instance that seemed to prove otherwise. But, consider this, what happened on that day remains a completely man made act of violence, one that emerged from within our collective existence, and it created a completely new wave of paranoia and hysteria in the modern world. With that in mind, just imagine what kind of response would come of a threat from beyond our world, even for us today. What Spielberg does here is give you a feel for precisely that, and it’s nothing short of horrifying. Maybe we will always be a helpless species, no matter how far we seem to progress, and that truly is a scary thought. We all know how in 1993, Spielberg directed both Jurassic Park and Schindler’s List. One was the cosy summer blockbuster that inspired awe and wonder in all those who saw it, and the other was a bleak, unforgiving portrait of one of the most disturbing atrocities in human history. In 2005, however, while Munich saw the acclaimed director leave his audience with more harsh truths about real-world conflicts in the landscape of another slow, challenging piece, War of the Worlds is more than the accessible, escapist antidote of the same year. It doesn’t disappoint when it comes to spectacle, but the way such registers in the audience is wholly unique. There’s a desirable heroic story at its core, but one that is only achieved after the turbulent world outside of the cinema is subconsciously recognised and reaffirmed." 8/10

 

THROWBACK: The Great Gatsby (Jack Clayton, 1974) - reviewed 18/09/2025

    "Recently seeing The Great Gatsby musical reminded me that I still needed to check this version out, and Robert Redford unexpectedly passing away earlier this week finally got me to sit down and watch it, thankfully at a time far removed from my own “younger and more vulnerable” A Level English days when the thought of anything Gatsby related made me want to bash my head against my desk. That said, I probably would’ve appreciated seeing this back at that time as it probably is the ideal adaptation. The casting and characterisation are on point, and its execution of the main narrative points and motifs are relatively sound. Furthermore, as a film, it does a decent enough job of uniquely using the cinematic apparatus to convey the same themes that Fitzgerald did through writing, namely by downplaying Nick’s internal monologue as the guiding force of critique and instead using the subjective viewpoint of the camera to get the same points across, whether that’s in letting the images of 1920s excess framed in a certain light speak for themselves, or, more incisively, signifying to the audience that here they are the spectators in Nick’s position perhaps intrusively looking in on the lives of others and unfairly passing judgement, regularly reinforced by the zooms in on the characters from a distance during their most vulnerable or intimate moments. Despite these efforts, the film can’t quite escape feeling a little… dull? I think the absence of a clear authorial stamp seems to do it a disservice, as while its wholly cinematic approach to the material sufficiently distinguishes it from Fitzgerald, the directorial voice about the film as a whole isn’t especially refined or memorable, which feels odd for a film from the 1970s, a time when auteur filmmakers were becoming more commonplace in the Hollywood scene. While I don’t really like Baz Luhrmann’s 2013 take on Gatsby, primarily for his signature maximalism inadvertently and obnoxiously aestheticising much that the original novel aims to critique, I can’t deny how Luhrmann successfully made the material his own, which I suppose is really the key to adapting timeless pieces of literature. When a text finds itself so well established within the collective consciousness, an adaptation should seek to foreground a particular artist’s own interpretation of it if they want to leave a lasting impression. This is no doubt a better adaptation than the 2013 version since it comes across as better aligned with the essence of Gatsby, but the lack of a clear and unique identity outside of its occasional creative flourishes consequently renders it a lot more forgettable." 6/10

 

CATCH-UP: Elio (Domee Shi / Madeline Sharafian / Adrian Molina, 2025) - reviewed 21/09/2025

    "Since Cars came out in 2006, I’ve seen every theatrically released Pixar film at the cinema. However, that streak ended with Elio earlier this year. In line with what the esteemed ‘animation is cinema’ crowd would suggest, is this because I don’t want to see original animated films? No, of course not. I’ve gone out to see plenty of original animated films at the cinema this last year, be it Memoir of a Snail, Savages, or the Oscar-winning Flow, all of which peeked my interest for their striking visual styles, intriguing tones, and distinct voices. On the other hand, Elio just looked to me like the most tame and predictable kiddy schlock, with superficially impressive visuals but a dull sounding narrative and a cringe inducing sense of humour. So, even as a Pixar completionist, I simply could not justify going out of my way to see it, especially now that we’ve been conditioned to expect new Disney releases to be readily available on our home screens not long after their theatrical debuts anyway. If you’re one of the people who thinks my decision here lessens my credibility as an animation enthusiast (or something else of the sort), I encourage you to try looking at the state of our beloved medium at large, particularly outside of the cosy, family-friendly Western scene. So what if Elio failed commercially and Pixar’s upcoming slate consists of mostly pointless sequels? There will always be original stories being made by smaller studios and less prolific filmmakers (whose interests lie outside of making as much money as possible) out there for you to enjoy, much like the one that literally won the latest Academy Award for Best Animated Feature, what matters is whether you are curious enough to look for them beyond your usual comfort zone. If the extent of the animation world for you ends at the likes of Disney / Pixar / DreamWorks / etc, that’s entirely your own fault. All that being said, this is the perfect example to get my point across because my suspicions were proven completely correct. Elio is not a terrible film, it just isn’t a particularly good one. The narrative has all the usual Western animation cliches, whether it's the generic quirky outsider protagonist, dead loved ones being a large part of what shapes their personality, fish out of water scenarios involving them to create comedy, and a series of misunderstandings and ‘liar revealed’ situations for them to navigate. It’s about as ‘been there, done that’ as you can get for this sort of film, and even the particular science fiction context at hand had trouble standing out. I liked the overarching sentiment about finding a sense of belonging in the universe, but the emotional catharses and reconciliations that come as a result similarly aren’t able to escape that same feeling of familiarly. It has its heart in the right place, but that’s not enough to make it especially compelling. When it comes to the animation, it’s not that it’s bad in any way, but despite the immense talent on display, it’s remarkably quite bland. While Pixar absolutely built a reputation for telling great stories during their golden years, what also undeniably secured their status as one of the best in the industry was the fact that they significantly pioneered the use of CGI and all the detail that comes with it. After all these years, it’s clear they continue to rely on this as a main selling point of their visual construction, but the fact of the matter is that I don’t think anyone is really that impressed by realistic water physics or meticulously detailed surfaces anymore, even though such obviously takes a great deal of work to achieve. Even I, someone who almost always fixates on tiny background elements when watching any animated piece, have become rather desensitised to the care and attention that goes into a modern Pixar production given how ubiquitous their sort of thing is nowadays. What I think we’re all keen to see more of at this point are distinct styles in animated aesthetics; take Flow as an example, there’s something so magical about the look and feel of that film, as its adherence to grounded physics and behaviours combined with a simplistic, heightened design about its characters and landscapes amounts to a bold and striking atmosphere that perfectly complements its philosophical aspirations. I don’t want to act as though the work behind Elio’s animation was technically perfunctory or that the end result is visually unappealing, but I do feel like the whole Pixar brand of animation has sadly lost a lot of its charm and novelty by now and no longer feels ambitious. As I said, this isn’t a bad film. It was adequate viewing for ninety minutes and there were plenty of moments that made me chuckle or put a smile on my face (that Alien reference in particular was really cute and clever), but it’s more proof that mainstream Hollywood is not the place to look for exciting animated endeavours at this current moment. On that note, I’ve been meaning to watch the increasingly popular KPop Demon Hunters ever since it started blowing up on social media, and while I have more hope in that than I had in Elio given that it seems more stylistically inventive, there’s a reason I’ve not got around to watching it just yet, because I more or less know what I’m going to get out of it, likely just a solid, briskly enjoyable time. That may sound dismissive of me, but I’ve been underwhelmed by similar films enough times by now to know I’m probably better off lowering my enthusiasm. Thankfully, films like these two are not the be all and end all when it comes to modern animation, so here’s to more unexpected animated outings that pop out from the unlikeliest of places and leave a far greater impression!" 6/10

 

THROWBACK: Lady Windermere's Fan (Ernst Lubitsch, 1925) - reviewed 24/09/2025

    "It took some time for this to click with me, but when it did, it revealed itself as yet another significant stepping stone in the career of Ernst Lubitsch. Previously, The Marriage Circle saw him rein in his usual over the top expressive tendencies, instead locating the traditional Lubitsch absurdities in the context of a more grounded story; he loves his complicated romantic relations and almost always derives a lot of delightful chaos from the ways in which they interact, but there was a film that constructed more everyday scenarios in which such could be observed and was thus more nuanced in its formalism and performances. Lady Windermere’s Fan, adapted from an Oscar Wilde play of the same name, is a very logical next step, as it continues on a similar trajectory of visual expression, but accounts for the key thing that The Marriage Circle lacked, that being a strong emotional core. Narratively, this is achieved through the subversive focus on a forbidden mother / daughter relationship instead of being purely about romance. It’s engaging to watch as the older Mrs. Erlynne navigates a harsh social order to connect with her completely unknowing child, the titular Lady Windermere, who has achieved a much more privileged status through her marriage. It then becomes even more compelling as the entry into her daughter’s life prompts a series of unfortunate but ultimately logical misunderstandings and complications, testing the boundaries of the relationships at hand and eventually requiring great sacrifices for mutual wellbeing. As with any Lubitsch film, there are plenty of funny moments, namely in his visual representations of the gossip among the upper class individuals, but what was especially striking here was just how effectively he made the more dramatic side of the film work. There’s a particular moment near the end during a pivotal climactic scene where the simple actions of several characters slowly unfolding was a perfect mixture of satisfying and chilling, you’ll most likely know it if you’ve seen it. This is most curious because, in the case of Lubitsch’s Anna Boleyn, the more dramatic tone was a key part of what weakened the film for me, the director feeling restricted at the helm since he’d mostly done comedic efforts up to that point and thus didn’t feel best suited to the more serious material. But, as this film arrives at an aforementioned point in Lubitsch’s career where he has developed a more subdued approach to visual storytelling, it works really well. You feel that signature absurdity is in there, but rather than striving for pure irreverence, it emphasises all that is a lot more emotionally profound." 8/10

Review Roundup: August 2025

We've reached the end of another month, so you know what that means, time to look back and round up the best of my recent Letterboxd writings. This August has been somewhat uneventful for me in terms of film viewing, with a lot of rewatches as well as first-time watches where I didn't find myself with much to say afterwards. Nevertheless, we've got some good bits and pieces to go through, so let's get started!

 

NEW: The Naked Gun (Akiva Schaffer, 2025) - reviewed 06/08/2025

    "Such a great time at the cinema. This is not your average lazy and crass crime comedy that merely exploits the goodwill of the Naked Gun name, this is a faithful and truly hilarious successor to the classic trilogy. It maintains the spirit of those original films in its style of humour absolutely perfectly, and it might just be the funniest of the bunch. I was sat there laughing out loud for most of the runtime at the endless stream of top notch jokes, and it’s definitely one of those comedies that will be a pleasure to revisit as I’m sure there will be plenty that I either missed or will have forgotten given the sheer density at hand. [Liam] Neeson is an inspired choice to fill [Leslie] Nielsen’s shoes, being effortlessly funny in delivering each and every gag, both physical and spoken, and I would love to see the guy do more comedies like this. None of it feels perfunctory, none of it feels cynical, it’s clearly all come from a place of love and the end result is a concise 85 minutes of pure cinematic joy. Probably would’ve gone down even better with a packed crowd as my midday screening was far from lively." 8/10

 

THROWBACK: Paprika (Satoshi Kon, 2006) - reviewed 07/08/2025

    "People seem to compare this to Inception a lot for obvious reasons, but I think a more apt [Christopher] Nolan comparison to draw is with Tenet, which this feels like the equivalent of in Satoshi Kon’s filmography. This is mainly to say, it’s an elaborately plotted piece with clear intellectual / philosophical aspirations about the ideas being conveyed within, but one where the more mechanical narrative elements often get in the way of such. I don’t mind a complex narrative to wrap my head around, but it is frustrating when a film leaves you trying to piece together the more practical aspects of what’s presented rather than feeling the more meaningful effects of whatever those things are intended to convey. Admittedly, I did struggle to follow along with the narrative here and consequently left the cinema with the many complications about the logistical side of what was going on at the forefront of my mind, and even after a bit of time I still don’t think I’ve quite comprehended enough to begin pondering what further meaning, if any, underscores it all. All that being said, on setting those issues aside and just rolling with the vibe of what’s on display, Paprika is still a mostly stunning experience, with more of Kon’s signature elegance in terms of drifting between worlds and different levels of reality, and an endless array of creative and unique visuals at every turn. It’s more explosive and focused on spectacle than his previous films, which for me is a bit less interesting than the more quietly profound and unconventional conflicts about such films as Millennium Actress and Tokyo Godfathers, but it at least enables the director to further his versatility in some areas. Whatever way you look at it, you can’t deny the film’s immense ambition, and considering this would go on to be Kon’s final feature film, one can only imagine how many further cinematic boundaries he would’ve dared to push in any works that followed. Even on considering my personal issues with Paprika, it nonetheless feels right at home in his stellar filmography." 7/10

 

THROWBACK: Luxo Jr. (John Lasseter, 1986) - reviewed 16/08/2025

    "This is still such a brilliant short, showcasing an immense level of talent in both artistic and technical fields, bringing endless life to mundane objects and upholding a close attention to detail regarding the physics of how they operate. How they made these inanimate lamps so expressive from a purely visual standpoint is really astounding when one stops to think about it, the fact that so much character and personality is derived from such basic movements and behaviours carried about by the seemingly restrictive avatars is really quite remarkable, testament to just how limitless the possibilities of the animated realm really are. I’ve seen this many, many times now, and I naturally find myself fixating on the very small details at hand with each subsequent viewing, and honestly, every corner of this film is just stunning. It’s easy to dismiss as simple by today’s standards, but as the straightforward exercise in early computer animation that it is, I can’t help but be in awe of seemingly trivial aspects such as the precision about the lighting (both in terms of how it comes from and reacts to the characters) or the seamless portrayal of such practical elements as the waves that move down Jr.’s cable with each jump or the rolling of the bouncy balls. I’ve tried to do animation myself (albeit stop motion as opposed to anything on a computer), and so I take great pleasure in appreciating the little things in any animated piece I watch, because I know from experience that it’s really those that amount to a satisfying whole, and it’s in these formative works that their impact can be easiest to observe. The same obviously applies to early Pixar features like Toy Story 1&2, but there’s an extra layer of wonder about something as deceptively simple as shorts like this." 10/10

 

THROWBACK: The Lone Ranger (Gore Verbinski, 2013) - reviewed 17/08/2025

    "I’ve always had an underlying suspicion that this film is secretly far better than its less than kind reception and legacy seems to indicate, and on recently revisiting the original Pirates of the Caribbean trilogy and realising just how much those films hold up and stand tall above present Disney slop, it felt like the time was right for me to finally see if my suspicions were correct. And oh boy, I could not have been more right. The Lone Ranger is awesome, reducible in large part to a [The] Big Country esque deconstruction of western mythos masquerading as an accessible Disney blockbuster, an apt status given the prominent symbolism about the mask worn by the titular character. Verbinski lets you know of this right away, with the framing device for the story in question being within the context of a colourful funfair attraction that dwells on the mythicised frontier spectacle yet is told from the perspective of someone who supposedly saw the real thing for themselves, the so-called ‘Noble Savage’ that is Tonto. What follows in his retelling is nothing like the theme park style ‘Wild West’ hinted to us during the opening; Verbinski’s vision of the frontier is harsh and ruthless, aesthetically defined by its washed out colours, unforgiving exposure, and stark shadows. There is no wonder about this space, rather all that is dangerous about it is emphasised, and the scope at hand is more terrifying than it is awe-inspiring. This subversive worldview extends to the characters, whose violent, greedy, and pathetic tendencies are what drive the narrative more so than anything worthy of mythology. John Reid, the Lone Ranger himself, a figure clearly idolised by the starry-eyed child we see at the beginning, falls considerably short of fulfilling any kind of legendary folkloric status for the most part. Similar to Gregory Peck in [William] Wyler’s film, he’s by all means an ordinary man in a larger than life environment, regularly rendered pathetic through his misguided insistence on upholding lawfulness in an inherently lawless society as well as his ineptitude in living up to traditional western sharpshooting iconography in practice. In contrast, Tonto is the comparatively wise voice of reason, far from the exoticised ‘savage’ Native American that is initially alluded to. Their partnership is satisfying to watch unfold, not to mention extremely entertaining too. Much like the Pirates films, Verbinski implements plenty of expertly crafted visual comedy here, which is not in the least bit ill-fitting as it so easily could’ve been in the wrong hands, instead seamlessly adding to the overarching goal of the film, whether it’s demonstrating Reid’s clumsiness so to acerbically undermine whatever heroic image is suggested by his legacy, or displaying Tonto’s effortless ability to outwit the cruel, unintelligent antagonists. I really hate how much I liked Armie Hammer here given everything surrounding him in real life, but he rather annoyingly happens to achieve the perfect balance of being both charismatic and bumbling in the central role. Also, as much as I do like Johnny Depp, I can’t deny that the casting of him is a bit insensitive and his performance does often unfavourably lean into caricature, thus running counter to the intent of the film elsewhere. Nevertheless, what can be criticised about the cast does not extend to how the film is produced elsewhere, as also just like Verbinski’s Pirates films, this is a $200+ million film that actually looks like it cost that amount of money, with so many rich environments, sets, and costumes to take in, as well as a proper cinematic texture about the image. Computer-generated / digital augmentation does become a bit more apparent as the film pans out, but it remains leagues above what we tend to see from big-scale productions on our cinema screens today, especially from Disney of all companies. Speaking of which, I am fully convinced that Disney let this film happen as it did by complete accident. It seems like they just wanted themselves a replacement for Pirates of the Caribbean after that series began running out of steam, and seemingly threw as much money as possible at the same creative team to try and replicate its success. That is obviously not what they got, instead ending up with one of the most infamous financial flops in film history, however, what they do have here is one of the most striking live action films to fall off their production line in maybe all of the 2010s, and honestly perhaps the best Western of the 21st century too (Killers of the Flower Moon is the only thing I can imagine competing with it, though for completely different reasons). It breathes new life into the somewhat dormant classical genre by carefully unpacking the implications about such in the modern age, and even when it does eventually indulge in the more predictable western spectacle, it’s not only earned but all executed absolutely magnificently, and put an enormous smile on my face for most of the hefty runtime. Someone get Verbinski out of director jail and give him another $200 million and I guarantee he will produce something that will put most other contemporary blockbusters to shame, and we all better actually show up to appreciate what he does this time." 9/10

 

THROWBACK: Carrie (Kimberly Peirce, 2013) - reviewed 27/08/2025

    "I initially thought there was no point in readapting Carrie on film, but having read the original Stephen King novel for myself, I realise that it actually isn’t as vapid a notion as I first imagined. As much as I love Brian De Palma’s version, what was particularly fascinating about my experience of reading the source material was finding out how that film isn’t the most faithful adaptation, as instead of being primarily about demonstrating the ignorance shared among people trying to understand a troubled individual without ever really knowing who they were, it focuses more on the tragedy within the central turbulent mother / daughter relationship and is thus more directly introspective about the protagonist and who she is. This isn’t a bad thing in the least as Carrie 1976 is extremely powerful and heartbreaking in its own right, but what it does mean is that there is room for a potentially more faithful rendition of this story on the screen that is closer to how King originally articulated it. More specifically, perhaps a version in which Carrie herself isn’t necessarily the protagonist in order to create a clearer sense of the outsiders trying to understand her without letting the truth of the matter function as the main emotional core, or additionally an attempt to factor in the retrospective angle about the novel by setting things during the aftermath of the central horrific events and having issues of memory and personal reflection be raised throughout the narrative, something that the more subjective viewpoint of cinema is well equipped for. Sadly, Carrie 2013 is less interested in exercising these unique aspects of the source material in taking it to the screen and is instead more accurately understood as a direct remake of De Palma’s film. I don’t want to sit here and just go on and on about how it fails to live up to such, but I really don’t have much of a choice based on what it brings to the table. While not entirely shot-for-shot, it nonetheless goes through all the exact same beats that Carrie 1976 consists of and opts for the same thematic angles to be what defines its interpretation of this story. The crucial difference is that, expectedly, it’s not nearly as expertly helmed as that original version, and unintentionally regularly reminds the audience of that fact in multiple ways. On the one hand, there are perfunctory attempts to replicate what De Palma achieved; right from the opening POV-style tracking shots, it’s clear just how derivative and unoriginal the film’s directorial voice is, rendering it largely a weak imitation of what has come before instead of looking to foster its own unique identity. On the other hand, when there are more distinctive features about how it’s constructed elsewhere, such are almost entirely inferior creative choices. This is most apparent in how many of the confrontations and moments of terror are far more explosive this time around, adhering to more conventional dynamics of horror filmmaking and consequently falling short of the inventive tone and formalism in Carrie 1976. For example, the whole prom scene in the latter features a nerve-racking build-up of tension, glacially pacing things as Carrie and Tommy make their way to the stage while Sue slowly realises what fate awaits them from the sidelines. Then, even once the bloody catharsis is reached and the subsequent violence ensues, it remains somewhat slow so to let the shock about what is unfolding truly sink in, say for a few scarce hyperactive moments dotted throughout that keep the audience suitably on edge all the while. It’s masterful filmmaking that is equal parts suspenseful, exciting, and horrifying. In contrast, Carrie 2013 switches things up for the worst, being a lot more frantic and fast paced in the build-up to Carrie’s fateful moments on the stage and maintaining that energy afterwards, making the impact of the eventual death and destruction feel unearned and not striking in the least. This leads onto another issue, that being the film’s general misguided characterisation of Carrie as a whole. While Chloë Grace Moretz actually does really well playing the part and doesn’t feel miscast (unlike the actresses for Chris and Sue, both of whom I had trouble believing in those roles), the film sort of missteps in terms of making her as compelling as she has been in previous incarnations. She’s still sympathetic, but feels a bit overpowered in her abilities; I love the way that the other versions featured a very gradual discovery and development of her telekinetic powers, such as her first instance being the minor movement of an ash tray, followed by more small yet increasingly extreme incidents leading up to the climactic prom night, the moment that I feel is supposed to be when the ultimate might at hand is properly revealed. In this film, however, not only is that first moment the comparatively more outstanding act of smashing a water fountain, but she then gets a grasp on what she’s capable of all too briskly and achieves rather elaborate telekinetic acts before the climax arrives. Once again, it makes things come across as unearned rather than satisfyingly built up to and paid off. I suppose it’s worth also mentioning that much of Carrie’s powers are brought to life with overbearing CGI rather than the mixture of practical effects and clever editing / camerawork that De Palma utilised to create the illusion of them, but it should go without saying how the former is far less interesting to take in. The one mildly worthwhile alteration to the story is the film’s functioning of such into a more modern age, with digital screens and other technologies being key to how aspects of the narrative are conveyed. This was welcome and prevented the film from feeling completely unimaginative, but there is a certain timelessness about the original story and 1976 film that does get undermined as a result, so I can’t say for sure if this enhances things or not. I didn’t mind Carrie 2013 while it was on, in a vacuum it’s a passably snappy horror film with some committed performances and solid production values. But, when situated in the lineage to which it belongs, rather than being reflective of the inherently useless endeavour that is remaking a borderline flawless masterpiece with minimal room for improvement or reinterpretation, it’s a frustratingly wasteful and uninspired take on a story that, as it exists on the screen (and just from what I’ve seen, I still need to see the 2002 version), has rich elements that are yet to be fully explored or taken advantage of. Because of this, on looking to the upcoming Carrie miniseries involving regular Stephen King filmmaker Mike Flanagan, while I’m not especially optimistic that it will come close to exceeding what was accomplished back in 1976, I do hope that it at least tries to use the new format to find ways of more closely realising King’s original story. It’s not something I can say I’m in desperate need of, as the original novel and De Palma’s adaptation complement one another perfectly well as distinct versions of this story utilising varying aspects of their respective mediums, but if it really must exist, it would undeniably be preferable to another hollow and repetitive reimagining like this." 5/10

 

THROWBACK: The Magnificent Ambersons (Orson Welles, 1942) - reviewed 29/08/2025

    "Meet Me in St. Louis’ evil twin, and I mean that as a compliment. Both are Hollywood films from the 1940s that use the concept of the small town American family at some point in the recent past as a vessel for articulating anxieties held by those in the present regarding change and progress. Rather than using the artifice of cinema to create a space in the past where the inevitability of time passing has no effect and thus the troubling present is completely avoidable, here we see a vision of the past where such is a persistent threat, constantly looming in every scene as death and decay feel increasingly imminent. In contrast to [Vincente] Minnelli’s warm and vibrant Technicolor worldview, Welles’ black and white world of harsh shadows and large empty spaces creates an unnerving atmosphere, properly registering the pessimism and terror that is felt within each and every confrontation and depiction of inner turmoil regarding the future. The characters are simply forced to face what comes next, to surrender to what bleak chapter awaits them next in life, one that audiences of 1942 would be all too familiar with aspects of. That said, the film also does not settle with the notion that the old days were a better time, rather it uses this mood to effectively convey the frustration that comes from remaining too comfortable in the same place despite what change it is bound to experience over time. It may be uncomfortable to witness unfold, as signified by that chilling montage towards the end, but it is ultimately the way of life. Nothing stays the same forever, people die, and the legacies they leave behind may not be built to last as desired. Sometimes embracing that step into the frightening unknown of tomorrow is a necessary part of life. Quite something how between these two texts alone we can aptly observe cinema’s ability to both realise our inner desires that cannot be made true and speak honestly to the human condition as it is lived by all of us in the real world. The obvious signs of studio interference alongside some slightly inelegant characterisation holds The Magnificent Ambersons back from being a true masterpiece, but I can imagine it becoming even more profound upon revisiting." 7/10

Reflections on an undergraduate degree in film studies

Introduction

 

A few weeks ago, I officially graduated from the University of Southampton with a bachelor's degree in film studies. It's been a long time coming, having started my degree all the way back in September 2021, but I have now reached the grand conclusion. There's been a large sense of an ending these last few months, first with finishing my last ever assignments, then moving out of Southampton for good and saying goodbye to friends, then receiving my official classification, all the way to the graduation ceremony itself. As of now, it would seem I'm officially done with this chapter of my life and must face the next stage, that being the real, adult world.

 

With the thought of that being extremely daunting, I thought I'd spend some time reflecting on my years at university, specifically in the form of a written retrospective about the course I've completed, and since such regards film studies, here seems like a suitable place to discuss it! To clarify, this will not go into detail about broader factors regarding my time at university, partially because there's a lot to process there, but also mostly because the majority of it would simply not be relevant for a film blog. Instead, I'll just be focusing on the degree I've done and my feelings about that, much of which may be of interest to anyone wondering what studying film looks like and what Southampton specifically has (or had) to offer. In particular, I'll go into detail about what modules and topics I studied at each stage of my time at university and what the positives and negatives of such are in my mind, as well as how I feel the content and material has impacted my interest in film. This is definitely going to be a long, slightly repetitive, and generally scattershot bit of writing, so I hope you're sitting comfortably as I take you through my university journey!

 

Prologue (2019-2021)

 

For a bit of context, I had never studied film in any form prior to university. In fact, I didn't even know it was a thing you could study for the longest time. When I was in sixth form, everyone was talking about going to university, and naturally, I wanted to go as well. However, I didn't have a particular area I desperately wanted to pursue, least of all the subjects I was studying at A Level, those being English language and literature, history, and philosophy. I eventually fell out of love with all of those as the two years unfolded, except for philosophy, which was easily the most tolerable of the bunch. For a short while, I remember considering philosophy as well as new subjects like anthropology as potential degrees, but there was always an underlying sense of picking something for its own sake here, rather than because I was genuinely interested and passionate. Well, cut to January 2020 when my Mum suggested film studies as an option. I had always been interested in film, and throughout 2019, started to engage with cinema beyond what I was most familiar with, those being animated films and big blockbusters, so going to study it at university seemed like a logical next step for my developing interest. Needless to say, I was actually interested in this as a subject and now felt like I was going to university with proper reason, even though I was also just excited for the overall experience of uni that seemed to attract everyone.

 

University of Southampton Avenue Campus (12/04/2021)

 

With that in mind, I didn't exactly know what to expect from film studies as an academic subject when first starting in late 2021. Beyond the mere fact of watching and analysing films, one of the main things enticing me was the prospect of no exams, as at practically all of the universities I considered for my degree, everything in film studies was based around coursework. I cannot express just how welcome this was for me at the time, as what really killed my enthusiasm for subjects like English and history at A Level was just how horrendously they were assessed. For example, in history we were tasked with writing something like three essays in under an hour, and with no access to our study notes, which is all kinds of unfair if you ask me. Personally, I don't think writing-based subjects are best suited to the exam format, as the factors of being timed as well as needlessly forced to remember all that you've been studying off the top of your head means you don't focus on writing the best answer you can, rather just writing an answer in any form, as that's better than nothing, isn't it? So, the chance to have all my assessments done through coursework that I could properly work on and refine over time was really exciting. That said, I obviously hadn't written a film essay before. Sure, I've been writing on this blog since I was fifteen years old and started doing the same on Letterboxd a few years later, but the focus in those places has never been in-depth analyses or engaging with scholarly theories and writings, instead just jotting down my superficial thoughts on new releases and joining in with the given relevant discourses. So, there was a lot to learn going into my first year, and once I was all moved in and settled in Southampton, things got going.

 

First Year (2021/22)

 

To outline some basics, the way that the modules worked at Southampton (and presumably at other universities too) is that each one had an overarching topic, which was broken down into around ten smaller individual themes / areas, each of which occupied a week of study. A week of study then consisted of a lecture, followed by a film screening, and then followed by a seminar, the screening being a film that supposedly emblematised the theme in question and would go on to be a key point of discussion in the seminars. Then, each module would have two to three assignments, typically a small 1500-2000 word essay followed by a larger 2000-3000 word essay, as well as sometimes a presentation too. The content for assignments would vary in terms of creative freedom, sometimes requiring us to choose from a selection of essay prompts, other times being completely up to us what would be written about and what case studies could be used. For most of this retrospective, I will be focusing on the screening choices and assignments as reflections of particular modules, as such were the most noteworthy elements throughout my time.

 

My first year accommodation (25/09/2021)

 

My degree began with two modules in the first semester, one being titled 'Introduction to Film I: Hollywood' and the other 'What is Cinema? Film, Art, Technology'. As someone new to the subject, these proved to be an effective introduction, placing my understandings of cinema at the time into perspective and easing me into new areas both in terms of the films themselves and how they ought to be interpreted.

 

Let's begin with the Hollywood module, which remains one of the very best of my entire degree after all this time. As the title suggests, the theme was looking at the fundamental features of film form and using influential classical Hollywood texts as a means of demonstrating their significance and effects. This was a perfect module for me for two reasons, one being that I needed to be properly familiarised with the fundamental features in question, such as mis-en-scene, cinematography, editing, music, and more. These are all things I had a vague understanding of beforehand, such as what I knew of various awards categories that were based around each, but the module was great for teaching more specific aspects about them that I didn't know prior. It was also my introduction to certain essential theories within film studies, a notable example being 'auteur theory', which concerns the issue of authorship within cinema, something that had crossed my mind in the past but was now made clearer upon engaging with scholarly writings. The second reason was that the selection of films for screening was excellent, all being essential texts for any film enthusiast, and most being ones I hadn't seen before. The thing is, as much as I would've considered myself a film fan before university, looking back now I realise just how insular my understanding was back then. For one thing, I had seen barely any classical Hollywood films, that meaning films made in Hollywood from the 1930s through the 1950s, with the only ones I can think of being The Wizard of Oz (1939) and 12 Angry Men (1957). My initial knowledge of cinema from that era mainly came from what Disney animated films of that time I had seen, such as Fantasia (1940) and Bambi (1942), but on putting those aside, my familiarity was extremely limited. Well, this module had me covered, as it was simply back-to-back icons of cinema week after week: Casablanca (1942), Psycho (1960), Singin' in the Rain (1952), Citizen Kane (1941), and Some Like it Hot (1959), to name a few. However, as good as this may seem, it is true that I sadly didn't instantly take to classical Hollywood, and it wouldn't be until some way into my degree that I started to properly enjoy films of the era on the same level as more modern material. Consequently, I walked away from many of these films not especially enthusiastic, the most crushing of all being Citizen Kane, a film I knew was considered the greatest of all time by many that I thought was just alright. There are some external factors I tried to convince myself were the cause of my lukewarm reactions, such as my initially overly studious attitude hindering me from simply enjoying the films or the fact that the screenings took place at 9am, but I think the fact of the matter is that it was just an aversion to older films that needed overcoming. That said, it wasn't all doom and gloom, as I did thoroughly enjoy some of what the module had to offer, the most significant being Singin' in the Rain. I will never forget seeing this film for the first time, being sat at the back of the lecture theatre and just grinning with delight at what I now consider to easily be one of the best films ever made. The importance of this one will become clearer with a certain topic regarding my final year, so I'll discuss it in more detail later on, but for now, it was the undeniable highlight of this module. Overall, despite my personal reservations, this was a terrific introduction to both film studies and an essential area of cinema, and it has sadly become a thing of the past at Southampton. Since my time, from what I've heard, this module has been reworked to feature more modern films representing the same topics, with my cohort seemingly being the last ones to get the classical Hollywood experience. This is a real shame in my eyes, as I'd imagine many will be approaching film studies at university with the same level of familiarity that I had, thus making it important to take the focus away from more presently popular texts and instead onto what could be said to have paved the way for them, so I consider myself rather lucky to have made my way onto this course when I did.

 

As for the What is Cinema? module, this one was a little less refined in terms of what the overarching theme was, but proved to be a solid enough counterpart to what we were experiencing with the Hollywood module. Essentially, each week concerned a frankly random topic which we students were then left to try and rationalise on in relation to cinema, and when I say random, I mean extremely random, including history, superheroes, the gothic, trains, robots, and more. I'm not entirely sure what the rationale behind each of these in isolation was, but I do appreciate that our lecturer was trying to get us to think outside the box and forge connections that we may not have considered otherwise, so I can get behind them to some extent. As for the screenings, what made this work well alongside the Hollywood module was that the selection was not only more eclectic but also more modern, thus it felt like between the two introductory modules there was a lot of range regarding the content we were focusing on. Additonally, many of them were simply great films in general; the first on the module (and by extension my entire degree) was Detroit (2017), and later highlights included Source Code (2011), The Grand Budapest Hotel (2014), La La Land (2016), as well as a couple episodes of Breaking Bad (2008-2013), which encouraged me to finally watch the show shortly after. There were some questionable choices too, however, namely Captain Marvel (2019) being selected to represent the topic of superheroes despite there being countless superior options, and The Illusionist (2006) for the gothic and phantasmagoria when The Prestige (2006) is a far better film regarding that topic from the exact same year! Regardless, easy as it may be to poke fun at this module, I didn't mind it at all, and looking back now, it helped make my first semester of film screenings nicely varied and unique.

 

But, the screenings were not all, as these modules also saw my first attempts at film studies essays, and honestly, the first semester remains one of my strongest times on this front. Part of me thinks that maybe the lecturers were being more generous with their marks for freshers like myself at the time, but even so, it was nice to feel as though I got a grasp on academic film writing quite easily. The Hollywood module had three essays, most of which were very enjoyable, such as writing a scene analysis for Psycho or writing at length about the use of music in Fantasia. Those two instances remain two of my best ever essays at university, the Fantasia one in particular being something I only scored higher than on one subsequent occasion! Additionally, they were actually fun to write and didn't feel like much of a chore, and I find myself looking back rather fondly on the experiences of doing so. The What is Cinema? essays weren't quite as good, but still weren't bad at all, the first of the bunch being a literature review that allowed me to get started with developing my research and referencing skills (the latter being something that took a long time to master), and the second two giving me chances to write about some personal favourites, those being Spider-Man: Into the Spider-Verse (2018) as well as the aforementioned The Prestige. All things considered, my first semester at university was rather great on the academic front, I felt like I was suitably getting the hang of the subject and was enjoying how it was being taught and assessed.

 

Southampton from Itchen Bridge (20/01/2022)

 

Going into the second semester of my first year, I was rather excited to continue, however, it definitely wasn't as good as what the first semester had to offer, both in terms of what we were being shown and how the assignments went. Once again, there were two modules, and both of them can be understood as spiritual successors to that of the previous semester, one being 'Introduction to Film II: European Cinema' and the other 'Theory, Culture and Society'. 

 

The European cinema module was essentially everything the Hollywood module was for classical Hollywood but for a different cultural context, that being films made across various European countries. Instead of being organised around features of film form and academic theories, this module was more oriented around artistic movements and trends within the numerous cinemas of Europe, thus being extremely insightful into areas I hadn't the faintest idea about beforehand. However, if you thought my initial aversion to / unfamiliarity with classical Hollywood was bad, that was nothing compared to my where I stood with European cinema at first. Prior to university, I'd watched barely any films from countries outside of the USA and UK altogether, the only major exceptions being Japan (primarily due to Studio Ghibli) and perhaps the occasional European country I saw the odd animated film or awards contender from. I was hardly consciously willing to explore these unique cultural contexts to begin, so once again, it was good to have a module that exposed me to a variety of films from different parts of Europe, all of which belonged to significant movements and styles for cinema as a whole. Some of the weeks here were enjoyable, particularly learning about early cinema and watching iconic shorts such as A Trip to the Moon (1902) and the countless Lumière films, or taking a look at Soviet montage with Sergei Eisenstein's Battleship Potemkin (1925) despite the traumatic flashbacks it gave me to A Level history. But, against my best wishes, I really didn't have the best time with the majority of this material despite how interesting much of it was. One week we were introduced to the French New Wave and watched Cléo from 5 to 7 (1962), which I thought was just okay. Another week, we learned about Italian neorealism and watched Bicycle Thieves (1948), which I thought was just fine. Then another week, we focused on German expressionism and watched The Cabinet of Dr. Caligari (1920), which I thought was just decent. And another week, we looked at spaghetti westerns and watched the far more accessible For a Few Dollars More (1965), and yet I still found myself really uninterested. I didn't have any real constructive reasons behind these reactions, in almost all cases I just found the films kind of boring or meandering. Given that this was the second module in a row in which I wasn't immediately drawn to the new content, I remember being quite disheartened at the time. Part of me felt like maybe I didn't belong in the world of film academia or that maybe I wasn't as interested in films as I thought I was, and this would certainly not be the last time throughout my degree that I would find myself overcome with such irrational thoughts.

 

It didn't help that the Theory module we took at the same time wasn't a whole lot better. Much like What is Cinema?, the theme here was very loosely defined, each week concerning a random theory or idea from outside of film studies from what I remember; for example, Freud was the subject of one week. As for the selection of films, it was similarly quite all over the place, and didn't complement the European module quite as neatly as how What is Cinema? complemented Hollywood. However, there were plenty of gems to be found, and it ended up featuring my first viewings of such iconic films as Blade Runner (1982), The Sixth Sense (1999), Goldfinger (1964), and The Full Monty (1997), all of which I thankfully enjoyed a lot. There were some classical Hollywood offerings too, and I enjoyed a few of them. One notable trend across the classical Hollywood films chosen in many of the modules I took at university was films by Alfred Hitchcock; it makes sense given that he's one of the most influential filmmakers of all time, but I can't deny that it also might've been nice to have more variety in terms of classical auteur filmmakers being showcased to us, as I now see that Hitchcock is most certainly not the be all and end all upon being more familiarised with his era. The Hollywood module had three films of his, the aforementioned Psycho along with Rebecca (1940) and Rear Window (1954), and the Theory module had not one but two more, North by Northwest (1959) and The Birds (1963). While I found the Hollywood choices a mixed bag, the Theory ones were both great, with North by Northwest being easily my favourite film I've seen from him, and The Birds also being very enjoyable, though perhaps not for the right reasons. I remember this screening so distinctly because instead of being struck with fear as audiences of previous generations apparently were, everyone in the screening room was laughing at just about everything that happened! Looking back now, it does irritate me that me and peers opted to point and laugh at what we were shown because I now find that sort of behaviour towards any kind of art quite dismissive, but in this case... I mean, it's The Birds. Hate to say it but, it's quite hard to not laugh just a little at a film as goofy as that! Putting those aside, though, there were some more films I didn't enjoy as much, namely Rio Bravo (1959) and Black Narcissus (1947), which only furthered the thoughts I was left with after most of the European screenings.

 

What made things worse in this semester was that I also didn't have quite as much success on the assignment side of things. For the European module, the three essays were quite challenging largely due to my lack of engagement with the material, and they rank among some of my weakest work to this day. I did manage to wiggle my way into talking about Singin' in the Rain in the final essay, though, as the topic I wrote about involved comparing early European silent films to classical Hollywood films. I remember getting solid feedback on this one in terms of content, but I was also considerably let down by my referencing skills here more than ever, the examiner calling my bibliography and footnotes a "complete mess" if I remember rightly. This was something I knew I'd have to improve as my time at uni continued, especially since I now realise it's easier to be marked down for getting features like this objectively incorrect rather than being challenged for an argument being put forward. On top of those, this module saw my first presentation, which took place on the final week of the module and concerned European cinema in the twenty-first century. It was a group project, but I happily did most of it myself as I usually can't be bothered to wait around for others in these sorts of situations. It went fine in the end, and while it certainly wouldn't be last presentation of my degree, it remains one of the few that actually impacted my mark on the module in question. Theory was no better, only consisting of two essays, the first essay being my absolute worst of all time simply because, well, the essay had nothing to do with cinema! We had to analyse a text about one of the broader theories, which was not fun at all. The second was a bit more interesting as we got the chance to write about a theory from the module in relation to any film of our choice, and I discussed the conventions of folk tales as outlined by a man named Vladimir Propp in the context of none other than Finding Nemo (2003), a fun essay to research and write that sadly didn't turn out to be much good. With that, my first year of university was over.

 

Riverside Park, Southampton (30/06/2022)

 

At this point, first year feels like a lifetime ago. But, what's good is that, on placing myself back in the headspace I was in at the time, I do feel like I have subsequently grown a lot and that my attitudes towards cinema have since changed for the better having reached the end of my degree. I may have struggled to engage with classical Hollywood films and unique European cinema at the time, but now I love many films within those areas and am always happy to stumble across something new from within them. Academically, I think my first year was successful in every area it ought to have been, as I was adequately introduced to film studies as a subject and came to realise what skills I would need to refine going forward, which, considering that nothing in first year counts towards one's final classification, is a good thing. It was essentially a practice round, and despite the lowpoints, there was enough to keep me enthusiastic about what I was doing and thus I was eager to keep moving forward.

 

Second Year (2022/23)

 

After a horrendously long and hot summer back at home, I returned to Southampton in September 2022 more ready than ever to resume my studies, and things definitely got more extreme in this next stage. Unlike first year, second year saw four modules per semester, thus resulting in practically double the amount of work for the same number of credits. What was also key is that, while all first year modules were compulsory, here saw the introduction of optional modules, as each semester consisted of one compulsory module and three that were up to you based on what was available. Nice as this may sound, there wasn't a particularly extensive selection of potential modules for each semester, so it was usually more a question of which ones you weren't interested in that decided your eventual choices, at least in my case. Because of this, even though I got the chance to personalise my degree just a little bit, there were definitely still some modules I took that I wasn't all too invested in. Additionally, in the case of second year, while some of the modules lived up to expectation, there were also a few that squandered some potentially interesting topics.

 

My second year accommodation (24/09/2022)

 

In the first semester, the compulsory module was titled 'Early and Silent Cinema, 1895-1929', while the optional ones I chose were 'Film Noir: Exile Filmmakers and 1940s Hollywood', 'Television Studies: Key Debates', and 'Film Adaptation'. This was a rather hit and miss selection, with some disappointments, but some surprises too.

 

Let's begin with Early and Silent, often considered the least favourable module among students and perhaps the one I have the most complicated relationship with. Prior to starting, I had no experience with silent cinema in any form, and it was an area of the medium I actively had no interest in exploring. While classical Hollywood films may have struck me as somewhat archaic objects in the wider cinematic landscape, the same was true of silent cinema to an even greater extent, as their superficially primitive nature was something I found to be frustrating and tiring more so than fascinating. Despite this, I kept having to remind myself that cinema as I knew it probably wouldn't be what it is if it weren't for these films, as they pioneered many formal techniques that are often taken for granted nowadays. Because of this, I tried my hardest to appreciate what these films had to offer in spite of their age, but as the module progressed, it just became harder and harder to do so. I hated this module, and by extension grew resentful of silent cinema because of it, and unlike the previous modules where it felt like I was missing something in the material we were shown, here I felt more justified in my feelings as the sentiment was generally shared among all who took the module, thus I rarely left screenings feeling disheartened by my reactions and was instead more comfortable with my resentment (which I now realise was the wrong mindset to have had). Well, all that being said, would you believe me if I told you that now, in 2025, early silent cinema is actually one of my greatest developing areas of interest in cinema? I certainly wouldn't, but it's true! While I retained my negative feelings for a short while after finishing the module, about a year or so later I ended up growing quite fond of early silent films after stumbling across a neverending stream on YouTube, and it's an interest that at this point seems rather unstoppable. There are countless films in this area that I've subsequently watched and adored, such as Sherlock Jr. (1924), Metropolis (1927), and a bunch of Ernst Lubitsch films, namely The Doll (1919) and The Wildcat (1921). In fact, it's become a pastime of mine to just go on YouTube and watch some of the many silent shorts up on there, with some of my favourite recent discoveries being The Little Match Seller (1902), The Electric Hotel (1908), and Dreams of Toyland (1908). I've become so interested in watching these films and seeing how they were able to be expressive amid the absence of sound, admiring how they developed the foundations of film form as we know it, and marvelling at how they achieved whatever often practical effects are on display. There's so much to be in awe of while watching them, and I'm ever so glad that I now recognise that. So, the question that remains is, why did the module fail to open my eyes in this way? Well, on discussing it with some of my peers, it's become evident that the issue with the module lies less in the fact that silent cinema is an inherently boring topic and more in that what actually makes it interesting wasn't well communicated here. So many of the film choices were poor, and I can barely remember what weekly themes half of them belonged to, thus amounting to a really clunky and unengaging introduction to a topic that's already something of an uphill battle to get into for many people, myself at the time included. Despite this, though, one thing I can say in praise of this module is that I actually did enjoy one of the assignments for it, that being an extensive research project that required us to look through archival writings about a chosen star or filmmaker of the silent era and then provide a written account of such. After going out of my way to find someone on the less popular end of things (our lecturer advised avoiding such popular topics as Charlie Chaplin or Clara Bow if we sought points for originality), I landed on an actress named Betty Compson, whose filmography sadly consists of mostly lost works. Nevertheless, I was able to extract a really fascinating narrative surrounding her career in the 1920s after searching through countless trade journals and magazines of that decade, which was honestly quite a charming and insightful process even though it was demanding due to its scope. It ended up being partially worth it, as while my final piece was criticised for not having the most clear thesis, my level of research was praised, which was satisfying as such was the part of the process I was most proud of. During my research, I was able to watch one of Compson's few intact films, The Docks of New York (1928), and it became the first silent picture I fell in love with. On my first viewing, the appeal was mainly due to the novelty of finally seeing something featuring this star I'd grown quite attached to, but after rewatching it recently, it holds up as a stunning film in general. Overall, while this module was definitely a bit tough to get through in the moment, it is fun to look back on now that I've really taken to the content it concerns, so I'd say it was a significant stepping stone for my developing interest in film throughout my uni years, for better or worse.

 

On looking to the optional modules of this semester, Film Noir was something I chose as it was highly recommended by certain friends of mine in the years above me. I didn't have much of an opinion on noir beforehand, really only having a vague understanding of what the genre consisted of, and on finishing the module, I wouldn't say it completely won me over in any great way. That said, it was a very well organised module and covered practically all the essential features, such as its character tropes, formalism, issues of gender and sexuality, production contexts, international significance, and significance over time. As for the selection of films, I can't say it was a bunch that I was overly keen on, but I appreciate how each of them were ideal for the themes in question. For some highlights, Detour (1945) was easily my favourite, a film that I didn't properly appreciate until revisiting it for assignment purposes, and is now something I think about all the time due to its rich ideas and concise structure. There was also my next step through the wonderful Billy Wilder's filmography with Double Indemnity (1944), as well as unexpectedly my introduction to the equally wonderful Satoshi Kon through Perfect Blue (1997). The assignments here were a bit tough, the first one as alluded to being a short piece about Detour that I thought went well but wasn't so kindly marked on, and the second being one of the hardest essays I've ever had to write. We had some freedom in choosing our case studies, but I didn't land on anything concrete until about a week before the due date, that being two Fritz Lang noirs, The Woman in the Window (1944) and Scarlet Street (1945). I struggled to get this one written as I wasn't so passionate about the material, but it ended up being one of my best pieces. I think it's true that sometimes writing on something one is indifferent about can yield more successful work, as I do have a tendency to get carried away and miss the point when writing about personal favourites and such. This module also featured my next assessed presentation, incidentally once again in the final week of the module and this time on the theme of neo-noir. My friend and I did well working on this together, but we annoyingly had two more people join our group at the last minute, which meant we had more people than any other presenting group beforehand. They were happy to roll with what the two of us originally prepared, though they did frustratingly speak out of turn on a few occasions and leave me with less things to say than we'd planned. That being said, we got a satisfactory mark in the end, so it could've been worse. All things considered, a solid module for sure.

 

Next up, Television Studies, definitely the most outstanding module listed so far given that it quite literally concerns a different medium to the one in the title of the degree, and one that I myself am not entirely keen on. While there are plenty of shows I really enjoy, I'm definitely more of a film guy than I am a TV guy, as I find a lot of aspects about the long-form nature of the latter medium that make it difficult to engage with in the same way as the former. I've always seen it as a lesser form of storytelling in that sense, though I do also believe that, when done well, it can come close to matching the brilliance of cinema. However, what was nice about this module is that the general tone of it seemed to reflect the way I revered the subject matter. All the weekly events took place on Fridays, and the screenings were usually of somewhat laid back material compared to what we were being shown elsewhere, with one week being an episode of Seinfeld (1989-1998), another week being an episode of Sex Education (2019-2023), and even one week being the London 2012 Olympics opening ceremony. This made the module a fair bit easier to enjoy than some of the others, and this carried over into the assignments to some extent. The first was a written account of our personal viewing activity over the course of a week or so followed by a brief analysis, which wasn't too complicated for me as, at the time, the only TV shows I was watching were BoJack Horseman (2014-2020), the first season of Andor (2022-2025), and that year's edition of The Great British Bake Off. The second and final assigment wasn't anything too special either, and of the semester one modules was the only one that was over and done with before Christmas, which was somewhat welcome. I got the chance to write about one of my favourite shows, His Dark Materials (2019-2022), which at the time was just having its third and final season release, and it went just fine. Similar to noir, I wouldn't say my perception of TV as a medium was greatly been impacted by this module, but it still did the job well and, looking back now, was probably the most bearable of the modules during this semester.

 

Easily the worst of the bunch during the first semester of second year was Film Adaptation, which might just be the most disappointing module of my entire degree. I was really excited for this one, it was probably my most anticipated module of the first semester selection, but it was a let down in just about every sense. Adaptation is such an interesting topic, and the surrounding issues are something I felt were quite rich and worthy of unpacking at the time, especially after first year modules had introduced us to theories like auteurism and medium specificity, which I assumed would be of relevance here. How does authorship compare across different mediums? In what similar or contrasting ways can ideas be communicated between mediums? Are some better equipped than others for certain elements? These are just some of the questions that crossed my mind on briefly imagining what we'd be exploring, yet they ultimately proved to be more thorough than anything on this module was regarding the matter. Essentially, this module had no interest in examining actual issues of adaptation, as instead we just took a look at certain texts and, while they were technically adaptations, the questions raised around them were entirely concerned with what themes they concerned in themselves, not regarding their places as objects belonging to varying mediums. Additionally, there were other bizarre limitations about the module that made it even more reductive, one thing being that we were only looking at adaptations of books, and while such are no doubt the most common form of adaptations, it would've been nice to explore cinematic adaptations of other mediums such as theatre, video games, and more. Furthermore, each of the texts we looked at were so similar in their themes, all concerning various sociopolitical ideas such as masculinity and various forms of feminism, so much so that it ended up feeling like a prelude to a later module, which I'll get onto in a moment. On top of all this, it was so disorganised too; due to the nature of (supposedly) studying adaptation, for each film we were screened, we had to read the source material beforehand. This meant that we were only screened the relevant films every other week, allowing adequate time to read the various source materials between screenings. The result was only four screenings of actual importance, those being The Age of Innocence (1993), Bridget Jones's Diary (2001), Fight Club (1999), and some episodes of The Handmaid's Tale (2017-2025), all of which we were instructed to have read the respective books of beforehand, which I consistently did. To be fair, this was a fine enough selection, with Bridget Jones and Fight Club in particular both being films I really like, thus making it fairly enjoyable to familiarise myself with their original literary forms, though of course it would've been more satisfying if the module content allowed me to consider any of the interesting implications about that process. But, you might be wondering, what happened during the weeks with no relevant screenings? Well, our lecturer was clearly stretching for relevant material as they continued to put on screenings, but with things that were, at best, tangentially related to whatever material we were in the process of covering. This included a random episode of Gossip Girl (2007-2012) that partially revolved around The Age of Innocence, and Bridget Jones' Baby (2016), the third film in that series, because I suppose showing the second one, The Edge of Reason (2004), was a bit too much to ask. This perfunctory quality was apparent right from the start, as even on the first week, where the theme was merely introducing the topic of adaptation and the screening in question just had to be an example of an adaptation (of which there are obviously many), we were shown The Illusionist... AGAIN!? Of all the countless examples of adaptations, they not only chose a film based on an obscure short story of all things, but a film that we had already been shown the year before, and not even a particularly good one at that! What on earth was going on here? It's bad enough that this module already squanders such a fascinating topic, but failing the bare minimum of being well taught and organised just made things even worse. As for the assignments, I quickly realised I'd fare better if I gave up trying to take the chance to write about what I considered interesting on the topic of adaptation, and instead just wrote very insular pieces about what themes we'd covered in the context of texts that only happened to be adaptations. One of these was about Little Women (2019) in terms of different waves of feminism as well as postfeminism, and while I did manage to partially comment on issues of authorship and analyse specific features of the film alongside that of the original novel, I couldn't make such the sole focus without straying from what was required of the assignment, so it ended up being a perfectly fine piece but one I struggled to invest in. Goodness me, what an absolute catastrophe this module was, an enormous waste of potential to say the least, and one I've even encouraged new students to avoid choosing for their own good. I know some people that apparently enjoyed this module, and I can kind of understand why as I do realise there's nothing inherently bad about what it ended up covering, it just left a really bad taste in my mouth considering what I expected of it, expectations that I still believe were completely valid.

 

Part of my route to campus in second year (05/05/2023)

 

Following this rather mixed first semester, I nonetheless remained eager to keep making my way through things, and the second semester of second year ended up being rather solid, with three of the four modules either meeting or exceeding expectations, and only one letting the side down. This semester, the compulsory one was 'Global Cinemas', and the optional ones I chose were 'Film, Realism and Reality: representing the world, from revolution to the everyday', 'Women and Hollywood', and 'Animation: Technology, Culture and Industry'. Before continuing, however, I do have to mention that my second year saw a considerable amount of weeks where lecturers were on strike, thus we missed out on many lectures, screenings, and seminars. This was apparent in the first semester, but it got a lot worse by the second. In some cases, I was able to track down and watch the intended films of the week, but on other occasions, I was unsuccessful. Consequently, my outlook on some of these modules might be a little skewed, though I don't think that, in any of their cases, my feelings would be greatly different had there been no strikes working against them. Still, it's worth mentioning.

 

Let's get the only dodgy one out of the way first, which happens to be the one I had no choice but to do, that being Global. This was essentially an expansion of the European module from first year, taking the cultural contexts at hand even further by going into new international cinematic territories across other continents. On paper, this seemed like a great topic, with each week exploring a different national cinema, and it helped that, by this point, I was on my way to overcoming previous difficulties regarding engaging with foreign films and was excited to see cinematic output from countries I was yet to see anything from. However, what was frustrating about this module is that, while the themes and cultures in question were interesting enough, the films chosen to encapsulate them weren't the best, a lot of the time feeling as though the module prioritised unconventionality and obscurity over quality. Don't get me wrong, I do appreciate when lecturers take the focus away from obvious choices and shine a light on lesser known films, but I find it easier to respect that mentality when the eventual choices are truly worthwhile. This wasn't so much the case here, with some examples of underwhelming films screened here being Beans (2020), One Way or Another (1975), and Today (2012). While these mostly did fine in terms of showcasing the respective national cinemas and placing the given issues into perspective, I found myself more often than not admiring them from a distance rather than actually being engaged, which is never a nice feeling. This wasn't the case for all of them, with the one outstanding exception being the only considerably well-known choice of the bunch, Akira Kurosawa's Rashomon (1950), a terrific watch that served as my introduction to the acclaimed Japanese filmmaker. Otherwise, I can't say I was too enthusiastic about the choices here, even though I partially respect the rationale behind their inclusions. What saved this module from being completely bad was that the assignments proved to be a space to make up for what the screenings lacked, that is to say, we generally had the freedom to discuss any international films of interest to us. For example, the first was a research project in which I analysed the success of RRR (2022) in the USA, for which I had to do an unassessed presentation alongside the assessed written report, and that was enjoyable since I'm a fan of that film. While definitely not the worst module, in terms of how much it interested me, I have to admit that it did fall fairly short of what potential it had, though when compared to Adaptation it's not nearly quite as drastic.

 

Film Realism was a module that I wasn't especially keen to do on making my selection, but I went for it as the only other option, a module about contemporary British cinema, was something that some of my friends in the cohorts above me suggested I avoid. In the end, while I didn't hear many bad things about that module from those in my own cohort, I'm glad that I went for this one instead as it introduced me to an area I likely wouldn't have checked out otherwise, unlike the British module, which, from what I heard, generally covered quite familiar territory. Realism is quite a unique area of cinema, and while it is one that I once again struggled to properly engage with much of the time here, what was good about this module is that, unlike the Early and Silent module, it nonetheless did a good job of conveying what is of interest about it. 'Realism' is indeed quite a loaded term, and one that can be applied to cinema in numerous ways, which was successfully demonstrated by the array of films we watched, some being traditional narrative features, others being documentaries. While I often took issue with the fact that the films in question were generally quite slow and ponderous, I still found the overarching issue at hand very thought-provoking, and it's an aspect of cinema that I regularly think about to this day. In fact, I've now developed a different critical stance towards realism, as I've subsequently become interested in understanding cinema for its inherent artifice and enjoy observing and analysing how films negotiate with such, and to me it is simply a lot more interesting to watch something in which artifice is emphasised rather than downplayed, which isn't the case with realism. That doesn't mean it's a style devoid of value to me, I just find it to be a somewhat misguided project on considering what personally interests me about cinema. I'll talk a bit more about this with a certain topic down the line, but for now, this is where I stand on realism, and it's a stance I feel I had all the way back at the time of this module but was yet to properly rationalise on. When looking to the screening choices, easily the best of the bunch was Where Is the Friend's House? (1987), my first Abbas Kiarostami film, a director I sadly haven't explored much further since this screening but nonetheless remain very keen to. There's definitely something about his approach to realism that works around the issues I typically have with the style, as he finds ways of subtly creating meaning in the traditional constructed sense that give the impression of not being so, one notable example from this film being clever uses of lighting, carefully having scenes take place at certain times of day so that what appears as incidental lighting conditions have a striking effect, something I had fun observing and writing about for my first assignment on the module. There was also The Battle of Algiers (1966), a film I didn't instantly fall in love with but grew to appreciate after rewatching it for the final assignment, which was actually one of the most frustrating now that I think about it. This was probably the worst instance of the given prompts being restrictive, as I wanted to write about the radical qualities of Algiers but could only do so via a prompt that required me to discuss at least two films. I had so much to say about the clever structure and formalism of this film that easily could've taken up the entire required 2500 words, but I was forced to make room for analysis of another film on the module, which ended up being Boyz n the Hood (1991), and while that is a great film too, I had far less to say about it compared to Algiers. The essay was definitely quite uneven by the end, and my lectuerer absolutely registered such in the feedback I received, which at least largely praised the Algiers portion, which is what I was most proud of. Definitely not the strongest module, but hopefully you can tell by the nature of my discussion that it remains one of the most fascinating and even quite formative.

 

As for the other two modules this semester, they both stand tall as two of the absolute best of my entire degree, the first being Women and Hollywood. After the disaster that was Adaptation, the same lecturer returned with this one, and it proved to be a very satisfying redemption arc for them. As the title implies, this module was thoroughly invested in various issues regarding women in the film industry, and it was an excellently organised execution of the topic, introducing relevant film theories such as the male gaze and highlighting films and filmmakers from across Hollywood history in terms of where feminist movements were at the respective times. It's clear that our lecturer was very passionate about this area as they did a really good job of getting all the key ideas and issues across here, and it does make Adaptation seem all the more egregious as practically all the themes that module descended into exploring were raised once again here. Additionally, the selection of films screened was just phenomenal, a perfect mixture of iconic pieces I'd never seen before, such as Gentlemen Prefer Blondes (1953) and Nine to Five (1980), alongside plenty of hidden gems I'd never heard of, such as Imitation of Life (1959), Bound (1996), Dance, Girl, Dance (1940), and The Assistant (2019), the latter two of which I had a great time comparing in one of the assignments. It wasn't perfect, with a couple misfires like Ghostbusters (2016) and yet another Hitchcock bore in the form of Shadow of a Doubt (1943), but they still worked fine for the given topics, and they definitely couldn't detract from how strong the selection was elsewhere. As for the assignments, this was one of my strongest modules, with not only the one I alluded to being an enjoyable piece to put together, but the other being a very simple and very welcome first assignment, basically just involving writing about one of the screened films in relation to one of the theories we'd covered, with no further research required! When I think about modules that not only lived up to their full potential but were also a pleasure to personally experience, this is easily one of the first that comes to mind.

 

Another module that instantly comes to mind on that same topic would be perhaps my all-time favourite module of my time at uni, Animation. This module was important because, when choosing which film course to pursure at which university, one of the few existing areas of interest that I had in film was animation. Obviously I grew up with the likes of Disney and Pixar, but my teenage years, specifically around the time of the COVID lockdowns, saw me start to engage with less conventional animated works, such as the films of Studio Ghibli and Cartoon Saloon, which I now realise are very popular and established among film enthusiasts but at the time were out of my comfort zone. Animation was thus one of the few areas of film that I had a definite interest in exploring further, so I thought it would be nice if the university I went to study film at had a module on the topic. This then helped me eventually land on Southampton, as one of the other unis I was initially considering, University of Sussex, didn't offer an animation module at the time of my choosing, thus helping to narrow things down. In the end, it was not only worth it for my entire degree and overall uni experience both being things I'm mostly satisfied with, but also because the animation module that part of my decision hinged on turned out to be an absolute delight too! This was another exquisitely organised module, covering the different forms of animation, various national contexts, some broadly philosophical and ethical questions surrounding the medium, and even exploring its use outside of cinema such as in commercials and music videos. While I already knew a considerable amount of the material being taught, there was enough new insight into the topic that made the module feel like more than just a reaffirming of my prior knowledge. Furthermore, the screening selection was simply legendary, so much so that I didn't at all mind the 9am Monday morning slot that the lectures and screenings fell into. There were some absolute classics and all-time favourites of mine, such as The Lego Movie (2014) and Chicken Run (2000), the former of which my friend and I were reciting practically the entire script of throughout the screening, a couple others I'd seen before and grew to like more following the screenings, such as Coraline (2009) and Your Name. (2016), as well as some things I'd never heard of before that were fascinating, the most outstanding example being a series of Eastern European animated shorts, including The Hand (1965) and Dimensions of Dialogue (1983). When it comes to the assignments, I actually didn't do especially well with the three we were tasked with, but this was understandable as, despite being really into the topic, I did often get carried away while writing on it and relied a lot on assumptions I'd already made instead of properly engaging with theories and literature. Nevertheless, they were all still fine, and I look back on the experiences of writing them rather fondly as it didn't at all feel like work, I was actually happy to be getting on with them rather than opting to procrastinate, which I almost always did with the other modules. There was also quite a bit of freedom with what we could write about in these assignments, so I had a great time exploring more favourites of mine, including The Great Mouse Detective (1986) and The Breadwinner (2017), the latter being the subject of my very last second year assignment. Since doing this module, I have sort of slowed down in terms of pursuing my interest in animation, as there are other areas of cinema I'm less familiar with that I would like to prioritise engaging with, but I still have a ton of reverence for the medium and will always be happy to discover something new within, and this module was undoubtedly a marvellous encapsulation of what makes it so special.

 

Central Parks, Southampton (12/06/2023)

 

And with that, we've just about covered all things second year, and have also reached the halfway mark of my degree. This was definitely a far more dense and varied selection of modules compared to first year, but in ways that I'd say are mostly for the better. The modules here were generally a lot more memorable due to the more refined topics at hand, and while it was a bit demanding to have to juggle so many of them at the time, looking back now I realise what a neatly eclectic and exciting bunch it was. Some of it was disappointing (looking at you Adaptation) but others set the standard for just how expertly a more specialised module can and ought to operate. I may not have produced my finest work during this time, never quite reaching the heights I achieved in first year and being left somewhat academically burnt out by the end, but we got through it all eventually and encountered plenty of thoughtful themes and enjoyable films along the way.

 

Year Abroad (2023/24)

 

If you're a regular reader of this blog, you may know that I already wrote on the topic of my year abroad in a previous post. However, while that was focused on the broader factor of my experiences with cinema trips in the new country I was living in, today I'll go into a bit more detail about the academic side of this experience.

 

My year abroad accommodation (15/08/2023)

 

The year abroad was something I rather frivolously signed up for back when applying for university, simply because it sounded like it would be a fun thing to do. Well, the first two years whizzed by rather quickly and, before I knew it, I was in the midst of sorting the many logistics of this process, and then found myself living in a whole new country, that being Sweden, specifically in the city of Lund. At the time, beyond the basic exciting fact of spending extensive time in a new country, there were other features of the year abroad that I was looking forward to, the main one being a chance to have an academic change of scenery. As much as I enjoyed much of my second year, I can't deny that I was getting a little exhausted by film studies at Southampton and could feel myself slightly losing the motivation to continue. Thankfully, the year abroad presented itself as a chance to clear my head, and in more ways than one.

 

Obviously, I was living in a very different environment, and I could focus on enjoying the wider benefits of that fact given that, academically, I only had to pass the modules I took at Lund University in order to pass the year abroad, thus there wasn't as much pressure on that front. But, on top of that, the modules themselves functioned as a welcome change of pace too, as I was able to take ones that went outside of film studies, partially because Lund offered a limited amount of film classes, but also because they had modules in other fields specifically designed for those who hadn't studied such before, which they encouraged exchange students to try. Because of this, I got a taste of studying in other areas at a university level, with some highlights being a philosophy class that allowed me to dust off some of my A Level knowledge, and a class all about various influential writings in the Western world over time, including Plato, Darwin, and Marx. This was very enjoyable, and it made the learning material quite memorable than it may have otherwise been.

 

Lund University campus (29/09/2023)

 

As for the film modules I did take, what was interesting was just how similar they were to what I was used to at Southampton, with the lecture / screening / seminar / assignment format being almost identical. As such, I felt right at home despite being on different soil, and was able to enjoy what the classes had to offer as I would have done with those back home. The main one was all about Swedish cinema, perhaps the perfect class to have taken as a film student in Sweden, and it was well organised to address numerous varied eras of film within this unique context, starting with how early silent cinema was treated in the country, then moving onto the influential works of Ingmar Bergman for several weeks, and finally looking at more modern output with such filmmakers as Ruben Östlund and Lukas Moodysson. I wasn't overly enthusiastic about some of the films, the Bergman ones in particular being something I struggled with, so they're definitely in need of revisiting given how unconventional and ambiguous much of them are. There were some gems though, such as The Phantom Carriage (1921), which was just magical with its striking early exposure effects and definitely one of the films that helped me gradually see the appeal of silent cinema following the disappointing second year module, and Everlasting Moments (2008), a beautifully crafted and enchanting watch from more recent times. The assignments weren't too difficult as the module as a whole was designed with newcomers to film studies in mind, so I nailed practically all of them as a fairly experienced film student and got the chance to discuss almost all the films we were shown in some capacity across the three of them.

 

There were also elements of film studies in some of the non-film modules, which made approaching new subjects a little easier than it may have been otherwise. One module I took was all about Scandinavian culture in numerous manifestations, designed exclusively for exchange students. Among the areas covered were literature, music, and for a few weeks, cinema, which meant a couple screenings in the classes. The best of the few films shown here was a rather obscure film called Amateurs (2018), which could be categorised as a Swedish example of film realism, and it left me with lots to think about, eventually serving as one of three subjects in my final essay for this module. I also took two media studies modules, one being all about defining popular culture and the other revolving around Richard Wagner's concept of the 'Total Work of Art' or Gesamtkunstwerk. These were enjoyable because they touched on some ideas I'd come across in film studies at Southampton, but felt as though they situated them within a broader picture, thus being rewarding and useful in terms of how I now understand certain issues within my main field of study. When it came to the assignments, there was only one essay for each of these modules, and I wiggled my way into making them as close to the film essays I was used to as possible, especially with the Total Work of Art module, where in being tasked to write about Wagner's concept within a particular artistic manifestation, I discussed how it can be observed in the context of 2001: A Space Odyssey (1968), which was challenging to put together, but satisfactory by the end.

 

'Welcome to Lund' sign (29/04/2024)

 

It's a bit unfair for me to write about my year abroad here alongside my other years of university because I consider it a fundamentally distinct entity when looking back. As alluded to, the academic side was far from the main point of interest, as for me that was mostly in the form of exploring and travelling around the new country I was dropped into and experiencing its culture and lifestyle on a day-to-day basis. It's easily the most exciting and noteworthy of the four years, but I can't frame it alongside the others in good faith because the things that make it so are factors that my Southampton years wouldn't have a chance of matching. That said, there's still plenty of value to be said about my academic experiences in Sweden, be it how curious it was notice the similar practices to Southampton, or how nice it was to go out of my comfort zone and try other subjects for a change given the headspace I was in prior to setting off. Looking back now, I'm ever so glad I took a slight risk and went ahead with this extra stage of my university journey.

 

Final Year (2024/25)

 

After leaving Sweden and settling back into the UK in the summer of 2024, it was soon time to return to Southampton and complete my final year of university. At the time, I was sort of dreading my final year, as after riding a high off my exciting year away where the stress of study was eased and I was having fun living in a lovely new country with so much to explore, I can't say I was too chuffed about entering what would likely be the most academically challenging year of my life and back in the comparatively unremarkable city that is Southampton. Unlike the previous years, there were three regular modules per semester (all of which were optional), and alongside these, the compulsory ongoing project that was the dissertation, which lasted the entire year. At the same time, though, I had been able to get a much needed break from what gradually tired me out by the end of the first half of my degree, so there was a part of me feeling ready to go back to the familiar territory of film studies and hopefully be more prepared to take on what remained.

 

My final year accommodation (10/07/2024)

 

Well, my hopes almost seemed to instantly pay off, because the first semester of my final year was easily the best on the academic front, as I absolutely smashed almost every assignment that came my way, and while the modules they belonged to weren't the best bunch, they were still a neatly varied and refreshing selection.

 

The most standard module of the first semester (and probably the best) was 'Horror on Film', an in-depth look at various areas within one of the most popular genres, and one I am not all too keen on. I've never been a massive horror fan, but it felt right to take this module given how enduring the genre is and how many influential texts belong to it. The module definitely met expectations, addressing different national and industrial horror contexts (such as the Universal Monsters series, British Hammer horror films, and the Italian Giallo) as well as various movements and styles, and even raising some moral / ethical issues about such. The screening selection was mostly quite strong too, with a few that I'd already seen such as The Witch (2015) and Scream (1996), and many first-time viewings that went down well too, including Nosferatu (1922), Braindead (1992), and The Wicker Man (1973). The assignments here (and by extension most of final year) offered a lot of freedom, essentially allowing you to construct your own questions to answer and about whatever films you like, as long as it related to one of the weekly themes in some way. For the first, only 1500 words, I was able to implement some of the knowledge I'd acquired at Lund, as I discussed The Phantom Carriage in relation to the Gothic, specifically regarding its visual effects and narrative structure, as well as what impact such had within the film's national film context. This ended up being my highest-marked essay of all time, with none of the subsequent assignments being able to top it. For the second, a more substantial 3000 words, I analysed the very underrated Psycho II (1983) as an example of postmodern horror, and while not as high-scoring as the first assigment, it still managed to be another one of my very best pieces. The funniest part of the experience with this one was that, when conferring with my lecturer about whether my topic was suitable, he revealed that he'd never even seen Psycho II! Even if the end result hadn't been much good, I can only imagine I'd have had to at least get a couple points for originality! There was also a presentation here, and it would only be the first of many this year, and what was most annoying about all of them at this point is that none counted towards your final grades. It's already a bit frustrating to have to set time aside for something that isn't essential, but it was especially grating this year because of just how extreme the workload already was. I was tasked with doing the presentation for the week on European horror and the Italian Giallo, a topic I knew absolutely nothing about beforehand. But, after asking one of my more informed friends for some advice and suggestions, I produced a very in-depth presentation that was probably more than what was necessary. I say that because, well, it ended up occupying about 70% of the seminar, which could be a sign that I was enjoying the process of presenting what I'd put together despite my frustrations about doing so. So, all things considered, this was definitely a great module, and based on how the others I did at the same time as it were, was particularly most welcome for being so conventional.

 

Easily the most unusual module of perhaps my entire time at university was 'Video Games in Context', which took many of the ideas and practices we'd become accustomed to on the topic of cinema and applied them to a different medium, on top of also introducing new issues relevant to such. When it comes to video games, I'm about as uninformed as can be, as I barely play any and have never really revered the medium for its artistic value, which isn't to say I deny the possibility of the latter existing about video games, I just haven't felt it on a personal level. I played a lot of Minecraft (2011) when I was younger, but lost interest as I got older and as the game increasingly lost its charm with each new update making it excessively elaborate, and I also have a lot of nostalgia for Nintendo Wii games such as Wii Sports (2006) and Wii Party (2010), both of which I still go back to every now and then, but the fact remains that gaming has always mostly been a novelty above all else for me rather than anything more. This module didn't do an awful lot to change my mind on that front, but I definitely enjoyed the process of adapting my understanding of my preferred medium, cinema, into the context of another. The way the module was organised was quite refreshing and fun too, as instead of a screening every week, we alternated between screenings and 'gaming workshops', where we'd go to the university's digital lab and get the chance to play games on various video game consoles from over the years. Obviously, only two or so people could play at a time, so these workshops were mostly quite relaxed and, honestly, were mostly spent just chatting to others and, at most, doing other unrelated work. The gaming side was enjoyable when we got our turns, whether it was playing the very first edition of Mario Kart on an old Nintendo console, or eventually playing the Wii edition where I completely demolished the others I was playing alongside! As for the screenings, the films were all related to video games in some way, and they ranged from great with Wreck-It Ralph (2012), to okay with Tron (1982), and all the way to bad with Lara Croft: Tomb Raider (2001). As if the module wasn't already quite unorthodox, the same was true of the assignments, the first being a video essay that required us to record some gameplay footage with commentary about what we made of the experience of playing and how this connected to the theories and ideas we'd covered. It was initially labelled a 'Twitch Stream', but our lecturer swiftly moved away from that title as the connotations had us all a bit confused. Since I play barely any video games and didn't have a console at university, I focused on a nostalgic flash game called Dino Run (2008) and was able to forge connections between it and the relevant content just fine. Making the video itself was a bit tedious, mainly because I opted to record my audio from inside my tiny wardrobe to ensure good audio quality, but it got very hot in there and it didn't help that I constantly messed up my lines! But it all proved to be worth it as it ended up as another of my highest-marked assignments, with praise directed towards the quality of the presentation at hand. The second assignment was a very standard essay about a theme of our choice, and I discussed the Wii series (Sports, Fit, Party, etc.) in relation to the idea of physical space, something unique to the medium of video games compared to cinema. It proved to be quite challenging, and was the only essay this semester that didn't go too well, but that's really only because the standard this time around was much higher. In either of my second year semesters, for example, the essay score here would've been about average. Nevertheless, I'm still satisfied with what I wrote there as well as what I got out of the module at large, as it's definitely good to test your versatility every now and then.

 

The last module in the first semester was also a bit unusual, but definitely not as much as Video Games was. It was 'International Film Industry: Issues and Debates', and focused on situating films within the wider industry and picking up on what common factors and trends could be observed. This was a solid enough topic, as I am very interested in exploring elements of films beyond the texts themselves, such as box office figures, censorship issues, and behind the scenes stories, so I was keen enough to take a module regarding this sort of thing. The problem is that the very nature of looking at the wider industry is a bit at odds with how we film students had become used to approaching our studies, as when we were screened each film in relation to a given wider factor week after week, our initial inclination to unpack what the text itself had to offer needed to be put to one side so we could focus on the more relevant matters. As a result, I can't really say I remember too much about what we were looking into each week, as in almost every case I recall my feelings on the chosen films in isolation rather than what broader issues they were intended to represent. As for the films themselves, it was a rather excellent selection, starting off with the ever-reliable Jaws (1975) and in later weeks showcasing a mixture of great and/or iconic films I'd been meaning to see, such as Brief Encounter (1945) and The Host (2006), alongside some lesser-known yet equally interesting and enjoyable ones, such as Dancer in the Dark (2000) and Ten (2002). However, as I said, in almost all these cases the things that I primarily took away from the films was irrelevant for the content at hand, so it was difficult to properly invest in what was being communicated through the module and the screening choices to some extent. Where it became a bit easier to do so was with the assignments, as I got the chance to read up on the areas of interest to me in the context of films I was already familiar with and thus better suited to analyse from a broader perspective. For the first, I wrote a report regarding how the New Zealand government's film tax rebate impacted the production of Avatar: The Way of Water (2022), and for the second, I wrote a longer report concerning how online fan backlash affected the production of Sonic the Hedgehog (2020) and analysed the implications at hand. These both went very well, and it was nice to be writing about films within a distinct context compared to what most of my degree content was about, even if it was initially a bit jarring to get used to. So, I can safely say I found this module to be yet another successful one by the end.

 

Part of my local area in final year (14/12/2024)

 

After this amazing start to the final year of my studies, I felt a bit of pressure going into the second semester to keep up the good work and not run out of steam, as I was becoming quite used to the rather high grades and wanted to achieve as much more of that as I could while I was still able to. In the end, it definitely wasn't as strong and was mostly overshadowed by the dreaded dissertation (which I'll get onto shortly), but I feel like I still went out on a relatively high note and was mostly satisfied with what work I produced. When it comes to the modules themselves, they were a generally conventional assortment, especially compared to the first semester offerings, and I'd say I enjoyed all of them to some extent.

 

The first was 'American Cinema Since 1965', a rather logical follow-up to the classical Hollywood module all the way back in first year, covering the ever-changing industrial, cultural, and political factors that impacted the American film industry throughout the second half of the twentieth century and up to the present. In previous years, I'd heard that this module featured many iconic American films from within this time period, such as Chinatown (1974) and Blue Velvet (1986), in the same way that the classical Hollywood module focused on some of the most famous output of that era. This got me excited at first given the chance to make up for some of the many remaining gaps in my knowledge of this area of cinema, but having done the module, it turned out to be more about the perhaps lesser-known yet still significant works of this time, such as avant-garde pieces of the late 1960s, 1970s Blaxploitation films, and early independent cinema of the 1980s. Even when there was a chance to opt for something well known, our lecturer always managed to pick something slightly unconventional; one such week was all about the emerging blockbuster film industry, and the chosen film was Rambo: First Blood Part II (1985) of all films. I'd say the only easy choice in the screening list was on the very first week with Bonnie and Clyde (1967), which was understandable as it served to introduce us to the module and the key issues. Easily the most memorable of the screenings was Southland Tales (2006) on the topic of 'smart cinema', sadly not the Cannes-screened director's cut, but still an excellently audacious film to have chosen given just how closely it now finds itself to America in the present. It was on this module that we had our final ever lecture, screening, and seminar, with the topic being indie cinema in the streaming era and the film being Sofia Coppola's The Bling Ring (2013), maybe not the best film to have gone out with, but still fine I suppose; I think there was a collective bittersweet atmosphere about that final screening that overshadowed what was to be said about the film itself for many of us. The last ever seminar concerning such also featured my last ever presentation, which was quite a bizarre feeling at the time. So, while the screenings were admirable, what really let this module down were the assignments, which I sadly struggled with. Some of this was for external reasons that will make more sense in a bit, but it was also because they just weren't the best assignments. The first was a boring analysis of an article, which I really had to force myself to do and took forever despite only being 2000 words. I submitted it knowing it was perhaps the worst thing I'd ever written for uni, and while the feedback wasn't horrendous, I think my lecturer could tell that there was very little passion behind what I'd produced. The second and final assignment was a bit better, actually being focused on the films themselves but once again limited to prompts that didn't offer the most freedom. I ended up choosing one about utopianism in Hollywood genre cinema, and to make the required 3000 words go by a little easier, I utilised the given option to write about 'two or more' films by focusing on three case studies that each offered something unique to discuss, those being What's Up, Doc? (1972), The Untouchables (1987), and Toys (1992). It was a bit of a haphazard and scattershot essay but the feedback was fine and I got some praise for the areas I was most proud of. So, overall, I did like this module and I appreciate much of the intent behind it (in some ways it could be seen as a better version of what the Global Cinemas module was going for), but it definitely wasn't my strongest.

 

The next module was 'Music in Film and Television', dedicated to the numerous ways of unpacking a very essential aspect of cinema that, up to now, we had only covered very scarcely. I was looking forward to this module, as film music has always been something that I've been interested in and paid attention to while watching anything. There are countless films that I listen to the scores of regularly, and such comprises a considerable portion of my general music taste. But this module went beyond just film scores, also covering how existing music and songs are implemented into film and television, as well as the genre of musicals and how they operate in different ways. As for the screenings, similar to the industry module, I generally walked away from most thinking about factors outside whatever the theme of the week was, as it was a bit difficult to focus solely on music with each one. On top of that, I wouldn't say it was the best selection of films in themselves, a fact not helped by the early Monday morning slot that the lectures fell into. When it came to the assignments, they were some of the most unusual and challenging of my entire degree, and it became clear very quickly just how incapable I was when it came to talking about film music beyond the basic superficial level of whether it sounds nice or was fitting for a given scene, as I tend to do in my reviews on this blog. The first one was an analysis of film music in a scene of our choice, which required us to put together a visual element in the form of a table that featured a shot-by-shot breakdown of the chosen scene with a description of the audio and visual content at each stage. I chose a scene from Dinosaur (2000), which features one of my favourite scores of all time, and the specific sequence I focused on was quite rigid in terms of how the instrumentation cooperated with the visuals and editing, thus making the task a bit easier than it may have been otherwise. The second one was 3000 words and required a more thorough analysis without any kind of visual component, and it proved very difficult. I chose to focus on the use of music in Twin Peaks: The Return (2017), and while I felt like there was an awful lot to be said on that topic, I was really stretching to reach the required word count once I made a start. I did perfectly fine on both of these assignments, which I was glad about as I was initially worried that I may have done quite poorly with them, but the module then became one of the lowest scoring of my final year, with only American being below it, though once again it's worth remembering that the standard this year was much higher than it had been in my first and second years. This was a good module overall and I am glad to have done it, but it was definitely one of the more challenging of the bunch.

 

The last regular module of my university degree was 'Framing the Past: Stardom, History and Heritage in the Cinema', which explored the various ways in which films have presented / depicted history and shaped our ideas of the past through the medium. This was a fascinating module, where even though history was something that I wasn't fond of by the end of A Levels, this felt like the perfect lens for me to study it through, not only due to the context of cinema but also the accompanying issues and debates surrounding such. We essentially jumped around between different time periods and looked at films that are either constructed depictions or capture the real things to some extent. The breadth of history spanned all the way from Ancient Egypt and Rome right up to the 1980s, so it's safe to say a lot of ground was covered. As for the screenings, it was a mixed bag, but not for the reasons you may expect. I liked almost all of the films we watched, but it is true that most were rather safe and popular picks when it came to representing the eras and issues in question, and it became a bit frustrating when the lectures alluded to lesser-known works on the given topics but ultimately didn't show them to us. For example, when looking at Ancient Rome and the spectacle of arena battles, we watched Gladiator (2000), no doubt a great film and valid encapsulation of the theme, but I'm pretty sure most of us in the class had already seen it, unlike Ben-Hur (1925), which I've been interested in watching for ages and probably wasn't as widely-seen among the others. Another week, we focused on the Titanic and how it has been revered over time, and we watched, well, Titanic (1997). Sure, it's the most iconic film on the topic and easily one of my all-time favourites, but I similarly feel like mostly everyone has either seen it or knows of it, unlike the many other cinematic portrayals of the Titanic that have been made over time, which could have been more rewarding here. I watched a few in my own time, namely A Night to Remember (1958), a realist-style recreation of the ship's sinking that offered a distinct perspective on the matter. As much as I complain, the films mostly remained very good in spite of being somewhat uninspired picks, so attending these screenings week after week was generally a pleasure. There were also presentations on this module, and annoyingly each group had to do not one but two. For my group, both of them went relatively smoothly, but I can't emphasise enough how much of a nuisance these were, getting in the way of the more important work and not counting for much in themselves. Much like Music, the main assignments here were a bit unusual, especially the first one, which was not one written piece, but rather a series of three short pieces designed as blog posts that we shared with others on the course. Not only were we assessed for our writing and content, but also for how we interacted with other posts, specifically by leaving comments that furthered what discussions the original writer had initiated. I did enjoy this assignment, but I can't deny that getting used to a whole new interface and style of assessment in the final semester of my studies was a bit annoying to say the least. If we had this assignment in, say, our second year, I probably would've been all over it, but at this point in time, I just wanted all my assignments to be as simple as possible since most of my brain power at the time was going towards a certain other ongoing project. Nevertheless, we had the freedom to discuss whatever we wanted here so long as it related to ideas of framing the past, so I had fun choosing my own case studies and adding a neat personal touch at every turn. Whether it was discussing how various Carry On films depicted the past, which I arrived at after going through the series during my final year, or analysing the documentary Apollo 11 (2019) in terms of the implications about the archival footage of which it is comprised (you can find my review of this film from when I first saw it on this blog if you scroll down far enough!), or deconstructing the cohesive portrait of the past in Everlasting Moments, once again dusting off some Lund knowledge for one of my final year assignments. The second assignment, which went on to be my final ever assignment for university, was a more conventional essay for which we had to choose from one of many prompts, and there were thankfully a lot more available here than there were with the last American one. I ended up writing about the presentation of the Olympic games within the context of From Up on Poppy Hill (2011), partially because last summer I became quite addicted to the Olympics while the 2024 games were on, and so it was neat to explore part of the games' heritage on film. While not my best work by any means, it was an adequate way to finish my degree, the date of submission coincidentally being on my birthday! So, overall, this was another solid module that could definitely be improved but still had a lot to offer, and easily my best in my final semester.

 

University of Southampton Hartley Library (15/03/2025)

 

But, beneath all these modules, however, was one long ongoing project, the defining piece of academic work not just in my final year but my entire degree, the true final boss of it all, that of course being the dissertation, an 8000-word thesis dedicated to a topic within film studies entirely of our own choosing.

 

I was always conscious of the diss being at the end of it all, but gave it little to no thought right up until it was a necessity. I gathered some rough ideas throughout the summer of 2024 and beforehand, but never got much further than basic and broad topics. One such idea was the theme of nostalgia; I'd become quite struck by the presence of nostalgia in numerous manifestations within the contemporary cinematic landscape, and thought there was potential for a solid diss topic in that area. However, nostalgia is quite a popular buzz word these days and has thus been discussed at great length by many, leaving me in need of a more specific and original angle to approach the theme from if I wished to go ahead with it. Well, allow me to remind you of that screening of Singin' in the Rain all the way back in my first year - not only did I fall in love with that film, but it was a key turning point for my interest in musical cinema. Throughout 2020 and 2021, I really discovered my love for musicals, and it proved to be a good time for such a realisation as we were treated to many wonderful new film musicals around that time, such as In the Heights (2021), Encanto (2021), tick, tick... BOOM! (2021), and Steven Spielberg's West Side Story (2021). My screening of Singin' in the Rain, therefore, arrived at the perfect time in my life, serving as a grand catharsis for my developing interest and solidifying my intent to watch as many film musicals as possible. But, it wasn't just that, as what the film also did was get me interested in specifically exploring the world of classical Hollywood musicals; about a year and a half after the screening, I finally took action by buying myself a DVD box set of classical musicals, which I worked through during my second semester of second year. This included Meet Me in St. Louis (1944), Easter Parade (1948), Calamity Jane (1953), and High Society (1956), and they only made me fall in love more with this area of cinema, thus strengthening my desire to keep exploring it. Because of this, using my diss as a chance to familiarise myself more with all things musical related was something I considered, and through Meet Me in St. Louis in particular, I found a rather natural connection between the genre and nostalgia. At first, I thought nostalgia and musicals was a bit too niche of a topic, but not only was it was advised for one to be as precise as possible in choosing a theme, I also realised that, upon closer inspection, many film musicals I love have a somewhat nostalgic quality about them, and so I could sense a more suitable potential topic becoming increasingly refined. By the time final year got started and an imminent deadline was in place for our dissertation topic proposals to be submitted for approval, I went ahead with my theme of nostalgia in Hollywood musicals. More specifically, my diss was on the one hand about deconstructing what about film musical form is indicative of nostalgia in various manifestations, and on the other then analysed various film musical case studies from over time for how they can be understood in relation to this. I arrived at four case studies, with two classical examples, Meet Me in St. Louis and Calamity Jane, and two more modern examples, La La Land and The Greatest Showman (2017). As you may register, this is where I found myself discovering my fascination with film artifice and various ways it is negotiated with by filmmakers, in turn helping to articulate my somewhat mixed feelings towards film realism.

 

The diss process was very gradual and mostly something I turned to when I had no other imminent deadlines approaching. It began with a lot of research in October and November, after which I organised my ideas and selected the aforementioned case studies, and from there I then wrote a draft of my introduction and first chapter (which was essentially a summary of my research) in December. On resuming work in the second semester, I did even more research around February and early March, after which I then got started with writing my first full draft. I had a fair bit of other work at this time and perhaps didn't manage things as efficiently as I could have, so I ended up with about a week and a half in March to get my entire first draft written up, which sounds like it wasn't much time but actually wasn't too bad. With the majority of my research completed and my plan fully outlined, getting it all into words was fairly smooth, and before the Easter holidays began, my first draft was completed, albeit sitting at 1000 words over the 8000-word limit. There was a lot of ambiguity about exactly where everyone else in my cohort was up to in terms of diss work, as I feel like I constantly went back and forth between feeling behind everyone else and way ahead of them. For example, what partially incentivised me to hurry along with my first draft was the knowledge that others I'd been speaking to were making progress with theirs at the time, which made me feel like I was falling behind. But, once I'd completed my first draft, it seemed as though no one else I chatted to on the matter was quite at that stage yet, and so I felt a little more on top of things. After getting some positive feedback from my supervisor on my first draft, I spent most of the Easter holidays refining it, which included a little more research, this time about my specific case studies, and a lot of editing to ensure it was no more than 8000 words long. By the end of the break, I had a second full draft completed that was much closer to the required word count and generally in better shape, and from there it was practically finished. The deadline was on the 7th of May, and I spent most of the days leading up to it making small adjustments and double checking all my references and other technical aspects were correct. From there, I managed to submit the final thing a few days early.

 

Overall, I'm very satisfied with my dissertation, and am glad to say that I actually really enjoyed the process of producing it! It was definitely challenging and required a lot of thought and precision, but I had a good time engaging in an area I'm very passionate about on such a large scale, and it was very satisfying to see the project develop over time from its rough origins all the way to the polished final piece. I often found research for assignments quite a draining process, but here I was genuinely really into the things I was reading, which made the many long library sessions quite bearable. Because of how passionate I was about the project, I was willing to prioritise it over much of my other work throughout the year, especially during the final stretch. Over Easter, when it was time to start thinking about my final essays for the semester two modules, I generally put them to one side until the diss was looking good as I wanted to ensure that it was the best it could be, meanwhile I wasn't too fussed about doing extremely well on the regular modules by comparison, which is a large part of why those final essays weren't my best. Looking back now, though, I think it was worth taking those hits because I ended up doing really well on my diss, and I think it contributed significantly to determining my final classification. Sure, when I read it back now, there are things I would've done differently (and thankfully only ONE grammatical error I've noticed in the entire thing that slipped by me at the time!), but to say I'm happy with it would be an understatement. I even got a physical copy printed and bound, which is very exciting to own and hold!

 

Part of my route to campus in final year (02/05/2025)

 

And with that, we've practically covered all things final year! Of all my years of university, I'd say this one absolutely felt the most obligational. In my first two years, I was loving being a student, with the independence and freedom of the lifestyle in particular being very attractive and infectious. I was happy to remain a student for a long as possible, and was even intent on staying in Southampton once I'd finished my degree since I felt so content there. However, once I'd finished my year abroad, during which I gained a new level of independence and had so many amazing experiences, I'd completed the standard three years of student life that most people have for their entire degrees, and part of me kind of felt fulfilled and even ready to move on. As a result, having to go back to Southampton for one more year was something I just wanted to get over and done with more than anything, as I quickly became quite exhausted by not only the extreme amount of work but also the general student way of life. It didn't help that I was absorbed into the cohort of film students below my original one and thus felt very old and out of place in the university landscape. That being said, it would probably be my best year academically speaking, and I produced some of my best work throughout, so it seems like a suitable high note to have ended my university years with, and signifies a very satisfying amount of growth compared to where I began in Southampton.

 

Conclusion

 

So, there you have it. A complete rundown of just about everything my film degree at Southampton had to offer. Writing this has properly put into perspective what a journey it's been, with the beginnings in my A Level days as well as much of my first year feeling like a million years ago now. I really enjoyed my course overall, and I feel like it has had a positive impact on the way I understand film. I definitely feel more informed on the matter, I've discovered areas that are now some of my greatest passions, and I'm more curious to keep exploring and learn as much as I can. As I leave my university years behind me, there are definitely things I'm going to miss, but I'm also perfectly comfortable with calling it a day and moving on now. I don't currently have a clear plan as to what I want to do next nor any long-term future aspirations, so it's definitely a bit scary taking these next steps into the unknown after several years of comfortable and sequential student living. But, I'd say I'm willing to embrace that uncertainty and see where life may take me from here, and I can only hope that this degree I've worked hard to get will come in handy at some point.

 

If you'd like to know more about my thoughts on films I was screened at university and which ones I wrote about in my assignments, I have some lists regarding each on my Letterboxd page that may be of interest:

 

'Everything I've been screened for university' (ranked) 

 

'Everything I've been screened for university on my year abroad' (ranked) 

'Everything I've written about in university assignments'

 

'Everything featured in my dissertation filmography'