For my second film in this series, I’ve chosen a very early short film by Jane Campion called “After Hours” (not to be confused with Martin Scorsese’s film “After Hours” which came out a year later).

Developed in partnership by Women’s Film Unit of Film Australia in 1984, “After Hours” tracks the investigation of a young woman’s sexual harassment charges against her manager.

Because it was a work-for-hire, Campion had felt she had less creative control than she would like to have had on this short and subsequently, she has come to have been highly dismissive of the project. She once told an interviewer: “I don’t like ‘After Hours’ a lot because I feel like the reasons for making it were impure. I felt a conflict between the project and my artistic conscience. [Because of funding] The film … had to be openly feminist since it spoke about the sexual abuse of women at work. I wasn’t comfortable because I don’t like films that say how one should or shouldn’t behave. I think that the world is more complicated than that. I prefer watching people, studying their behaviour without blaming them. I would have preferred to have put this film in a closet.”

While not as on-point or nearly as compelling as Campion’s later work, I think the film embodies more nuance and beauty than Campion gives it credit for. As film critic Ben Kooyman wrote concerning the film in “Senses Of Cinema” : “ After Hours conveys Campion’s patented sense of tactility – of fabrics, of objects, of the surface of water, and so on..” Laurie McInnes’s camera work is graceful and distinct (with additional cinematography by Campion herself).

And it’s much less didactic than I think Campion believes. Why exactly does Campion show another couple (a boss in a consensual relationship with his secretary) if not to introduce subtleties into this story? Why does the boss have such a sympathetic character qualification (he is a dog trainer and finds solace in animals) if he is to only play villain?

There are Easter Eggs of nuance, beauty and observation all over this incredibly human film.

Please enjoy Jane Campion’s most overlooked work – “After Hours”!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=8q9AynalytA

Is the ‘body’ a source for resistance? Or is it a tool used to control? Which ‘bodies’ matter most? Which matter least? How does society imbue certain ‘bodies’ with greater or lesser power relative to others? Can anything be done to disrupt these disparities?

To start this series off with a bang I’ve chosen “Skin” (1995), written by Sarah Kane and directed by Vincent O’Connell. This British short premiered at the London Film Festival and was later given its television debut on Channel 4. It stars the brilliant Ewen Bremmer (TRAINSPOTTING, JULIEN-DONKEY BOY) and Marcia Rose. In “Skin,” Bremmer, playing a violent skinhead, comes into contact with a black woman (Rose) who lives across the street.

In the 90s Sarah Kane came to be recognized as a brilliant, intense, but highly controversial playwright. She died tragically early, a victim of suicide at 28 – we can only wonder what else she would have produced given more time on this planet.

Kane created work known for being difficult to stage and “Skin” is no different. Cheers to director Vincent O’Connell for what he accomplished in this film.

“Skin,” made in the UK over 24 years ago, could not be more relevant to what’s happening in America today. I hesitate to talk about this film too in depth for fear of giving anything away, but if you were one of the folks who was not crazy about GREEN BOOK winning best film this year at the Oscars you’ll want to watch this one.

Fun Fact: During the making of this short film Marcia Rose and Ewen Bremner fell in love, had a baby together, and are still married to this day! (Although you might not want to think of that while you’re watching… )

Enjoy “Skin”!

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=G2ZjplLullc