There comes a point in every father’s life when he asks the question, “when is it right to demonstrate to your son that you tacitly approve of unrealistic depictions of violence and death and overt womanising?” When you feel that time is nigh, the easiest way to show this is by watching a Bond movie.

I am, of course, being facetious. The Bond movies were an integral part of my growing up. My father loves them, I love them, it seems only right that I introduce my son to them which, to this point, I have not done. He is nine. Every time I previously thought of putting on a Bond movie, I considered the content and realised that I was a little uncomfortable with the relaxed attitude to death and murder, and the casual manner with which Bond treats women. Sure, we can see these things with a pinch of salt and an oh-it’s-of-it’s-time cavalier attitude, but to children taking everything at face value, it poses a dilemma: how is he going to process this, and how is my recommendation of it going to reflect on me?

Read More

Whether the weather is bad, the children are ill, or you just fancy staying in for once, here are my top choices for the forthcoming weekend.

E.T. The Extra Terrestrial
Saturday, 16 June, 3.45pm-6.00pm
ITV2

Classic Spielberg about a boy and a benevolent alien visitor with a penchant for Reese’s Pieces. Look out for a young Drew Barrymore, and a young Erika Eleniak.

Nanny McPhee
Saturday, 16 June, 6.00pm-8.00pm
ITV2

More than just a different spin on Mary Poppins, Nanny McPhee is a rather charming tale of naughty children who, through the careful discipline of the titular character, come to realise the errors of their ways. The sequel is almost better than this original, so definitely worth checking out.

Ladyhawke
Saturday, 16 June, 1.00pm-3.20pm
Film4

Richard Donner - who gave the world The Goonies, Superman, and The Omen (that last perhaps not for children…) - has fun with the fantasy world, in which Matthew Broderick stars alongside Michelle Pfeiffer (hello) and Rutger Hauer. It’s silly, and may have aged poorly, but it’s classic fantasy.

Last Action Hero
Sunday, 17 June, 1.30pm-3.50pm
Five

It may be fashionable to hate on this, but I love its silly charm. Schwarzenegger plays right into type, but the self-referential nature of the film gives it a lot of fun. It may be too clever-clever, but it never takes itself seriously.

Rain stops play. But it doesn’t stop films. My son loves films he knows - and don’t we all? The films we know and love are familiar, old friends, comforting. We know what will happen, but are still excited by it. Films unseen are unfamiliar, unknown, who can say what will happen? (Other than the inevitable appearance of the quote below.)

So, after nixing another showing of Spider-Man, Hulk, Indy, Star Wars, Harry Potter, I was adamant that we watch something the children hadn’t seen. A feature film, not just a short. I suggested National Treasure: it’s action-filled, fun, Indy-lite. My son is a history nut and an Indy fan, so it seemed obvious that this would be a good choice.

“No.”

Sigh.

I decided to take on the logical approach. “Once upon a time you only watched one film. Let’s say, My Neighbour Totoro (an early favourite). Then I suggested you watch Star Wars, and you said no. Then you watched it, and loved it. And then you only wanted to watch My Neighbour Totoro or Star Wars. I would suggest Indy, and you’d say no, only to discover you love it. Then you’d only watch Totoro, Star Wars, or Indy.”

I may have used a few more examples to ram the point home: films unseen are an adventure waiting to happen. The thrill of the unknown is the appeal.

Over-riding his grumpiness, I put on National Treasure. It’s not a brilliant film, I know. But then, neither is Power Rangers the Movie, and he seems to like that… After about ten minutes sulking, he started engaging with and laughing at the film. My daughter turned to me and said, “he’s enjoying it and he said he didn’t want to watch it”. “Shhhhh”, I replied. “Before he realises…”

By the end, he was loving it. As I knew he would do. It’s hard not to be smug, but I introduced him not only to something new that he realises he likes, but hopefully opened him to the idea that new does not always equal bad.

Putting this theory to the test, the next day I put on A Little Princess. His face turned sour at the thought of such a girly film. He ended up enjoying it more than my daughter. (It’s a charming little film, directed by Azkaban and Children of Men director Alfonso Cuaron. I hadn’t seen it before, but it’s a lovely tale of imagination and triumph of the will.)

Opening up children to new things, the unknown, is a big step. If they can approach films, or indeed anything in life, with an open mind, there is a whole world of possibility out there. Just because something is unknown doesn’t mean that it’s not going to be good or fun. And once it becomes known, it moves into that familiar, comforting territory that will one day become known as “childhood”. And if I can fill that childhood with these warm, charming, unforgettable films and experiences, then everybody wins.

The Red Balloon (1956)

On my “to see” pile for a long time, this French 34 minute live action short from 1956, directed by Albert Lamorisse (no, me either) is quite simply breathtakingly magical. Knowing it was French, and thus meant subtitles, had prevented me from putting it on before now. To all parents of children just learning to read: this film has about four lines of dialogue. They are well spaced out, and were no bother to either of my children. The rest is purely visual.

And what visuals there are. A young boy finds a balloon on his way to school, unties it, and takes it with him.  When he gets home at the end of the day, his mother throws it out of the window, but the balloon returns, and thus begins a wonderfully playful relationship with the boy. Blessed with a mind of its own, the balloon is anthropomorphized in a way that is redolent of other classic anthropomorphisms. Herbie in The Love Bug, or the magic carpet in Aladdin. Disney in particular does this well, but here there is a stripped back, raw beauty to the interplay between the balloon and the boy. The palette is nearly drained of colour, and so consequently the balloon is a bright ball of red that stands out as a circle of joy against the dour backing. 

The Red Balloon is about friendship, fantasy, and also of danger. It is a life lesson to children on the fleeting nature of existence, wrapped up in a 34 minute film about a balloon. That we come to care for this inanimate object in so short a time is indicative of the quality of film-making. I could watch this time and again and my children were entranced by the action, however minimal it may be. (Lots of walking, not a lot else.) A stand-out scene of great humour comes when the boy, holding the red balloon, meets a girl holding a blue balloon. The romantic to-and-fro between the two balloons is winningly endearing.

Dreamworks have climbed far since their early days as Pixar’s underdogs. OK, so they’re still Pixar’s underdogs, but their quality is coming close. Considering Pixar’s latest was the sub-par Cars 2 (still entertaining, in my book) this offering from Dreamworks is not only on a par with, but also better than some Pixar films now.

Hiccup is a Viking who does not act, look, behave, or feel like every other viking in the village. For a start, he appears to come from the Upper West Side of the Viking island, where everyone else comes from the Highlands. Shamed by his father, ridiculed by the other villagers, his handiwork in gadgets and gizmos goes unrewarded until he manages to snare and injure the prized Night Fury dragon. The dragons visit the village island frequently, stealing livestock and torching buildings. Killing dragons is a livelihood. But Hiccup finds a new way with his newfound friend he names Toothless (a misnomer if ever there was one).

The animation is filled with the usual messages - teamwork, daring to be different, success against the odds, overcoming fears, standing up for what you believe in, etc - but it does so with a flair, a style, and a wit that his hitherto been in short supply at Dreamworks. Pixar has a losing battle on its hands in that people expect excellence. Dreamworks, people expect adequacy, and when excellence is delivered - as it is here - it is doubly prized and double pleasurable.

So, my son is somewhat obsessed with Spider-Man.

When the second and third films came out, he was massively obsessed and now, with the new reboot release imminent, his obsession has returned. Initially he was sceptical. “He’s not the real Spider-Man”, he complained. But, after seeing a few trailers, and realising that he just loves Spider-Man whatever (and don’t we all?) he’s now properly excited.

So after watching the trilogy over the last few weeks (several times: no, it never gets boring…oh wait…) and declaring that the third one is his least favourite (that’s my boy) because it’s the scariest (oh, not because it’s the worst, son?) I decided to test his Spidey devotion.

So we watched The Amazing Spider-Man. The one from 1977. It’s on Youtube in all it’s glory here. I had only ever seen the two sequels as a lad, and it always irked me that I had never seen him actually become Spidey. In hindsight, it might have been better to leave it that way. A hasty, unseen bite, and sudden wall-climbing abilities do not a great superhero creation make. Lots of “hey, look, he’s definitely on a wall here” sequences were immediately foiled by my son saying, “he’s obviously on the floor”.

The crazy way Spidey runs in these TV movies is instantly recognisable, and something I remembered creating in my youth. Forget Andrew Garfield or Tobey Maguire, THIS was the Spidey I remembered. And good God, but I wish it wasn’t. My son seemed unfazed, watching it faithfully, querying why he had to make web-shooters, why Peter Parker had so much hair (70s lol). Meanwhile I was amazed that this was what passed for superhero action 40 years ago. Truly, looking at this, and the Incredible Hulk, and the Captain America TV movies, and the Batman TV series, it’s no wonder that when Tim Burton made Batman in 1989 he changed the game completely and utterly.

With the new Spidey about to reboot the myth, it was fun to look at what life was like for comic book heroes before the last cycle of films started. Spider-Man was always my favourite superhero growing up and, while the Maguire films were competent, I still felt there was something missing. Not quite as much as was missing from the ‘77 TV movie, mind, but still. I wonder if Marc Webb (such good director casting) can bring the hero to life the way I remember him in my mind, and not the way I saw him in blurry video on Youtube the other day.

Hedgehog in the Fog (Norshteyn, 1975)

So this week I decided to introduce my children to foreign language shorts with small amounts of subtitles. My daughter (nearly 7) is a fast reader, and my son (9) is a competent reader, but needs a kick up the bum sometimes, as most boys do. He loves film, ergo, reading subtitles might help. Anyway, it was a good excuse to try them with this 10 minute little marvel.

The story of a hedgehog, uh, in the fog (it’s nearly as obvious a title as this blog’s) is charmingly directed and animated by Yuriy Norshteyn. The hedgehog is on his way to meet bear, where they will eat raspberry jam and look at the stars. The innocence is palpable, so when the dog descends and hedgehog becomes lost, the terror is heightened. He sees dogs, owls, and horses, and they all seem far more unnerving than might otherwise be the case. Leaves falling are a horror.

The hedgehog at one point becomes resigned to his fate. He allows the river to take him where it will, unconcerned with his wellbeing. When he finally gets to bear, bear is frantic, talking extremely fast (the subtitles are similarly fast, proving a little problematic for the slower reader) but even not catching all his words, the intention and impact of his manner is not lessened.

Hedgehog in the Fog is only 11 minutes long, but crams a world of imagery into its slight running time. The layer collage animation style could be crude, but is charming. And the way it presents the world is transfixing. Hope, loss, humour, wonder, friendship, terror, resignation, relief. All these are present here and, for a short film to get across so much is a wonder to behold. For the young reader, this is an essential childhood film. Too early, and the child will be bored because they have to have the subtitles narrated.