The rise of the DSLR has changed the filmmaking world forever. I was on a boat in Greece and I counted 42 people in a Japanese tourist group who were, instead of using simple point and shoot cameras, snapping away on cameras capable of shooting broadcast ready 1080p. Digital filmmaking has never been more compact, affordable or simple to use.

Into the fold of student filmmaking steps the brand new Illyria Film Fund, created by Jessica Campbell and Alex Darby (with the generous support of Aidan Grounds), a new initiative that provides equipment and funding for Oxford Universitystudents. Darby’s intentions for the fund are clear: “Filmmaking is undergoing a global revolution. It has never been cheaper to make professional-quality films, and it has never been easier to distribute them. The Illyria Film Fund aims to bring this to Oxford.”

The fund provides camera, sound and lighting equipment for wannabe filmmakers, and, perhaps more excitingly, offers the chance to have the films screened at the Ultimate Picture Palace in Cowley- a rare boon in a world where shortfilms are often confined to YouTube,Vimeo and esoteric festivals that draw an ‘interesting’ class of patron. So, if you’re a writer or director who’s found that there’s a lack of serious support for aspiring filmmakers at Oxford then the Illyria Film Fund might be the place to go in search of cinematic sustenance.They can’t promise that your film will be any good but, as starting points go, this seems like the perfect place to check out the brave new world of lowcost digital filmmaking. For a list of equipment, information about the team and guidelines for pitching to the fund, check out their brand new website, www.llyriafilmfund.co.uk. 

Lord Grantham and Co. are back in town, and the start of the series finally wrapped up that will-they-won’t-they saga, with Matthew and Mary tying the knot.Thing is, that was kind of the point- now that the Earl’s daughter has married the heir the mansion stays in the family and everybody’s happy. Surely, no more programme? But never fear, his lordship has suddenly lost all his money, so they might all get turfed out after all. Meanwhile, Matthew’s about to unexpectedly inherit an equally huge fortune, something he’s making rather a habit of. But will he or won’t he use it to save Downton? Well we’ve got all series to find out.

Despite this looming disaster, it’s largely business as usual: there are random downstairs subplots and incredibly one-dimensional downstairs characters – evil Thomas continues being evil and new valet Alfred’s only notable attribute seems to be being tall. There’s still plenty of clunky, anachronistic dialogue: Sir Strallen casually greets Lady Edith, ‘how’s it going?’ and there are scores of implausible plot twists: an evil house guest slips Tom a drug that forces him to rant angrily about English repression – an odd thing to carry around in one’s dinner jacket.

But there are also some new features, my personal highlight being Fellowes’ forays into sexual references, resulting in some hideously awkward lines: Matthew: “I’m looking forward to all sorts of things”, Mary: “Don’t make me blush”. (Yes it seems Lady Mary has come over all demure lately – you’d think a woman who’s driven a Turkish diplomat to his death with her passionate throes would be a little harder to embarrass). Everyone is still insisting on telling us what year it is, but there’s the newly added feature of reiterating their nationality every five minutes, too: “I’m an American,and it’s 1920”. Yes the roaring twenties have arrived – well, maybe not quite roaring – “Can I tempt you to one of these exciting new cocktails grandmama?” “No, thank you, they look a little too exciting for me.” And, maybe this was just me, but was there a hint of sexual tension when Shirley serenaded old Maggie at the end there? Well, it is 1920.

There’s also been the touching story of Mrs Hughes’ possibly suffering from breast cancer, although this led to a rather rapid change of tone at the end of episode two, as the housekeeper came over all Beckettian: “One day I will die, and so will he, and you and every one of us under this roof.” Steady on, guys. We don’t come to Downton to reflect on the ultimate futility of all human endeavour in the face of mortality; we come for the yards of lace and beads, the evil footmen, the dodgy character development and Maggie Smith’s eyebrows. Parade’s End it ain’t – but a girl can only take so much sophisticated and thought-provoking Edwardian drama per season.

This summer, after a 50-year reign, Orson Welles’ CitizenKane was bumped off its‘Greatest Film of All Time’spot in Sight and Sound’scritics’ poll by Hitchcock’s Vertigo.Peter Bradshaw, the Guardian’s filmcritic, has his own take on the demotion:that it’s “symptomatic of adying interest in the old-fashioned newspaper proprietor, who until recently was still an important figure”.Print journalism is not as enchanting as it was: these are perilous times for the big newspapers, and Bradshaw can provide some insights as to where, if anywhere, film criticism is going, along with the great machine of journalism which funds and sustains it.

Bradshaw has had a smooth career. After completing a PhD in Renaissance Literature at Cambridge,he turned to journalism as the “traditional home for misfits and people who can’t really get a job anywhere else”, and moved from “all-purpose deputy” work at the Evening Standard to film critic at the Guardian after receiving a sudden phone call. Now well-established, he writes reviews almost daily, gets his “showbiz face on” for Guardian Film’s video podcasts, and has found time to write three novels, the latest of which is soon to be published.

Despite his experience of freelance writing (co-writing the sitcom Baddiel’s Syndrome in 2001) he was happy to give up the “insecurity” of it for something “more regimented”. But he wishes freelance writers like filmbloggers would make more of the freedom they have. “If they want towrite a 2,000 word screed on Antonioni, they can, or they can record video links. They can do all sorts of things. But I think the problem with bloggers is they’re sort of independent and sort of not; they’re dependent on the companies to let them into screenings, so they end up praising these new films because they need to get in. I think it’s partly that, and partly that blog writing isn’t from the same tradition of knock about debate and arguing, and not taking it personally.”

As for journalism, “increasingly, I think it’s more of a career for people who want to be star journalists. It used to be [the case that] star journalists were preening, superstar divas as opposed to the ordinary journalists writing the news stories. Now, all the news is now being ground out of the internet, and more and more they’re not using news reporters; what they’re using is entertainers.”However, the BBC has survived and prospered to an extraordinary degree, kept its licence fee, infuriated all the newspapers by going into the internet. Maybe broadcasting’s where it’s at.”

The digital age has affected how we watch films as well as how we write about them, but Bradshaw is suspicious of over-theorising on this front. He points out we’ve had film “on tap” for decades, thanks to television.“But now, there’s a culture studies industry that has to be fed in a way that there wasn’t in the ‘50s, ‘60s or ‘70s. Until about the ‘50s and ‘60s, cinemas showed movies continuously. There weren’t separate programmes where you can see a film at one o’clock, three o’clock, seven o’clock, it was just one film all day. You turned up halfway, you watched to the end, and then you watched the first bit. That’s where the phrase “this is where I came in” comes from. But there wasn’t the same kind of agonised cultural studies going ‘what does this mean?’ They’re eroding the very concept of narrative!”

Over the next few months, the films that Bradshaw’s going to see at ‘one o’clock,three o’clock, seven o’clock’ include Beasts of the Southern Wild (released October 19th), The Master (November 2nd) and Tarantino’s Django Unchained (January 18th). He will also be rewatching Michael Haneke’s Amour (November 6th), ‘a brilliant film but very agonising’. Perhaps comfortingly, he reflects “I still think to an extraordinary degree there is a solid consensus about what makes a film, I don’t get the sense that it’s breaking up. I think it’s quite extraordinary that we still believe that a film lasts from about an hour and half to two and a half hours… It’s frankly remarkable how little it’s changed.”

This film is fresh, it’s quick and it’s clever. You either get it or you don’t. By the end of the journey home you might have worked out what you thought of it but’s that’s unlikely. The thing is with Looper there are bits which are original and new and suspenseful and then in contrast there are other bits (most notably at the beginning of the movie) where it feels slow and poorly conceived. The set ups are a little complex but the pay offs are what makes this movie so interesting. 

So first the set up: we begin the movie in Kansas 2044 where Joe  a ‘Looper’ introduces us to his rather dubious profession which involves killing people at the request of his boss, Abe, played by Jeff Daniels who was sent from the future to supervise the hits. It becomes immediately apparent that the Loopers are not as untouchable as they first appear with the prospect of ‘closing the loop’ meaning a Looper has to kill their future self and thus the game is over. All this is presented coherently but in places it could be more believable. 

But once this is established the action begins with the arrival of a rather aggressive Bruce Willis. He plays the old version of Joe and once Joe realises his employers are ‘closing the loop’ on him the trouble begins with all guns blazing and (surprisingly in a film of this genre) many a moral quandary for our experienced assassins. ‘The Rainmaker’ is a character who wants to close the loop on everyone involved and it  soon becomes clear the crux of ‘Looper’ is who is ‘the Rainmaker’?  What follows is a battle between Joe and his future self over how to resolve the threat posed to the Loopers

.There are some surprises along the way but like all time-travel flicks there’s a level of complexity which isn’t always entertaining. There are some wasted characters such as ‘Susie’ who doesn’t seem to serve any real purpose and some aspects feel out of place in what is principally a sci-fi movie.

However, this film is most interesting because writers like Rian Johnson aren’t afraid to try something new, to switch between characters, to put you in the midst of the action then stop you in your tracks with a scene from a character’s memory. Joseph Gordon-Levitt (Inception, The Dark Knight Rises) shows leading man capabilities in yet another intelligent, box-office hit and Emily Blunt manages to put herself firmly back on the map after her slightly dull turn in ‘Salmon Fishing in the Yemen’. Not forgetting young actor Pierce Gagnon playing Cid (Sara’s son) who arguably makes a breakthrough performance alongside Hollywood’s current ‘ones to watch’.

For some this film will be a complex mess of action, unexplained time-travel and unusual direction. For others this film will be exciting, thought-provoking and fresh. It’s definitely a step in the direction of intelligent movie-making backed up by a strong cast. Overall potentially controversial but well worth a watch. 4 Stars

The title of David Halperin’s How to Be Gay is clearly intended to be controversial; it’s also more than a little misleading. Apparently chosen for clarity’s sake, I rather doubt Halperin didn’t see the reaction from conservatives and liberals coming. This is hardly ‘truth in advertising’; a more accurate title would have been Why You Should Be A Gay Man. And why, on that point, should homosexuals embrace ‘gay culture’? His answer is less than satisfying.

The historical perspective that Halperin provides on LGBT history is interesting and enlightening. The US 1948 Kinsey Report concluded that all homosexual and heterosexual men are male. Today this may sound obvious, but the report ran against the grain of contemporary thought on sexuality, when it was commonly believed that homosexuals belonged to genders discrete from heterosexuals. During WWII, many straight servicemen deemed it acceptable to sleep with gay men, on the account that they were closer to women than men in terms of gender: Kinsey knocked this on the head, and created much of the groundwork for the concept that Halperin rejects in his book.

The LGBT rights movement considers ‘gay’ to be part of one’s identity. I, like many, would argue that being gay means attraction to people of the same sex. You may have blue or brown eyes; black or blonde hair; be male or female. The cause is for human and civil rights, and thus focuses on equal right to marriage, military service, adoption, employment and the donation of blood.

However, Halperin argues that this plays into the dominant ‘heteronormative’ culture. ‘Gay’ shouldn’t be thought of as an aspect of identity, but as a distinct culture, complete with a distinct way of living. With more and more homosexuals turning towards the ‘heteronorm’, and gay communities declining, this distinct culture is under threat.

The value of ‘gay’ as a cultural form, he argues, is that it subverts dominant heteronormative institutions and values. His strength lies (as you would expect from an English professor) in his interpretation of ‘straight’ cultural artefacts, and the appropriation of them by gay culture. The Wizard of Oz, ‘I Will Survive’ and the actresses Joan Crawford and Bette Davis have nothing ostensibly to do with homosexuality, and yet are indelibly associated with gay men. They are appropriated because of the catharsis provided through supplying a uniquely gay perspective, i.e. a subversive and ironic one. This is why, he argues, Lady Gaga cannot possibly achieve gay immortality with her song ‘Born This Way’: the song explicitly addresses gay rights and therefore cannot be appropriated. By embracing gay culture, we critique values taken for granted in our Western society.

But it’s wrong to argue that gay men are the only ones subverting heteronormative values. As Halperin admits, heterosexuals are today deconstructing the dominance of marriage, monogamy, joint bank accounts, and other apparently corrosive ‘norms’. This isn’t even a recent development: Nietzsche and the Modernists challenged commonly accepted bourgeois Judeo-Christian norms in the late 19^th century. Free love wasn’t only practised by ‘gay culture’: how about the writings of Robert Owen? The Swedenborgians?

This book, despite at times valuable insights, is a sad attempt to have homosexual men live in a society where they have to reject ‘LGBT’ as an identity and instead embrace a way of life that is derived from ironic takes on ‘heteronormative’ media. It is also an attempt to apply the author’s personal experience to every generation of gay men alive today. Apparently, if you’re gay, and aren’t a neurotic, mother-obsessed, cynical, perpetually sarcastic, cultural snob, then there must be something wrong with you.

Thanks to a number of shoddy GCSE drama performances, I tend to be a little hesitant upon seeing the title A View from the Bridge. Done badly, this Tony Award winning play by Arthur Miller has the potential to be dull, with the odd overdramatic shouting match thrown in for good measure. But done well, the script allows for a performance that is built on the subtleties of real, human emotion. I am glad to say that this production should certainly be assigned to the latter category.

Set in Brooklyn, the narrative tells the story of longshoreman Eddie, who lives with his wife, Beatrice, and orphaned niece, Catherine. When two of Beatrice’s cousins, Marco and Rudolpho, illegally emigrate from Italy, they are welcomed by Eddie. However, a romance between Rudolpho and Catherine makes Eddie jealous, and sparks tension in the household and the community.

What I saw was an open rehearsal and so a work in progress – but boy, what progress it is making. In front of my eyes I watched moderately well-acted scenes transform into a believable reality. The directors have engaged with the characters and given each a story. In particular, the roles of Catherine and Beatrice, who are relativelyunderdeveloped in the text, aregiven a purpose. I also witnessed anon-going discourse between directorand actor about the characters’ motivations and how each scene should be played, producing remarkable results.

There are a few moments, those of particularly high emotion, which lose the sense of reality which hasbeen so carefully cultivated in other less ‘dramatic’ scenes, although I don’t doubt that these will bebrought up to scratch by show time. A particular mention should go to Barney White as Eddie. He is entirely convincing as the troubled man from Brooklyn docks and portrays perfectly the dichotomy of the character’s simultaneous hero and villain roles. Despite the preview taking place in a small room in St Peter’s College, complete with a rather incessant drilling sound, White’s performance remained entirely believable.

One of the main challenges this talented cast faces is accents. Identity and nationality are fundamental themes in the play, and so a convincing Brooklyn or Italian accent is key. Mostly they are good, with occasional slips. However, too many lines were lost due to the focus on accent, making some parts of the script incomprehensible. However, I am certain that this dedicated production team and talented group of actors will rise to the challenges and overcome them before first week.

Even in a city where famous musicians are frequent visitors, the Oxford Lieder Festival has managed to mark itself as an unmissable cultural event. For two weeks every October, singers from Dame Felicity Lott to Ian Partridge have been descending upon the dreaming spires, attracting enthusiastic audiences to intimate recitals.

Since its creation in 2002, the Festival has gone from strength to strength. “The festival didn’t have its roots in any master plan,” remembers Sholto Kynoch. “We put on some Schubert song recitals and someone had the idea of calling it the Lieder Festival, then it just spiralled from that.”

Since its inception, Sholto has played the role of the Festival’s artistic director. Not only does he liaise with artists, but can frequently be seen on the stage of the Holywell Music Room. He traces his love for art song back to the age of 16: “I heard a recording of Dietrich Fischer-Dieskau singing Schubert when I was about 16 and fell in love with it straight away.” It was a chance encounter with Opera North which sparked his passion for accompaniment, developed by his time as a student at Oxford (Sholto read Music at Worcester College).

Alongside the hallowed names of Sarah Connolly and Alice Coote to be seen at this year’s Festival, listeners can also tune into up-and-coming artists. The Young Artist Platform has turned out much talent, and last year’s winners will be featured in an evening recital this year. Sholto sees the awards given to these singers as a stepping stone to bigger things. “Since winning our award, they’ve all gone on to win prizes in other competitions and have been offered big roles in opera companies. They’re all doing extremely well. Many singers get swept up rather quickly in the musical world, but we’re making sure that they keep the art song angle in their career at the moment.”

The Festival has gradually expanded out of the concert hall and now encompasses all sorts of projects, but cites the workshops with primary school children as the most remarkable. “There are so many studies into the effect of music upon everybody, especially young people: the combination of words and music, the performance element and the knowledge that they’re being involved in such a big project has a big effect on them.” The Festival recently set up its own CD label, and has been recording the complete art songs of Hugo Wolf. “The last disc had 12 world premieres on it! We’ve got two concerts in this festival and four concerts next year still to record.”

Sholto attributes the success of the Festival to the size of Oxford. “Inevitably, not every resident of the city is interested or even knows about it, but you feel that there are people who are really excited while the festival is on.” Looking ahead, where does he see the festival progressing? “The Schubert festival [in 2014] is going to be a huge event! It’s certainly going to put us on the map in a level up from the one which we’re on at the minute. We’ll get attention from all over the world, not just from the UK. We have to consider the transition from a relatively informal gathering of committed people to a fully-fledged organisation. It’s exciting, but also very daunting! “

The Oxford Lieder Festival runs from 12th-27th October 2012.

Student Tickets at just £5 are available for every concert (on the door only, subject to availability). Students can also pick up a loyalty card and get every fourth concert free.

http://www.oxfordlieder.co.uk/

Rowan Atkinson’s done it, as has Hugh (Grant and Dancy). Beckinsale’s been there, Katherine Parkinson’s done that. Yes, as an academically focused university it’s fair to say we’ve done quite well on the producing famous actors front. I might even go so far as to say we’ve done incredibly well, perhaps even the best in the country – but I don’t want to sound big-headed. And it’s not just the people on stage we’ve reeled off at a furious rate; we’ve also tossed into the big wide world a number of notable guys and gals off-stage, too. Take Peter Brook or Alan Bennett for instance, or LMH progeny, Caryl Churchill.  But enough of the past, they’ve had more than their share on the student circuit. Now, Oxford Fresher, it’s your turn. Whether you’re a dab hand at directing – or you simply want to dabble in performing, whether you’d rather watch a piece of drama than be the damsel in distress, we’ve got your Stage needs covered.

The Clubs

O.U.D.S 

It stands for ‘Oxford University Dramatic Society,’ in case you’re wondering, and is the overarching drama society for the whole University, knitting together all the theatrical going-ons in Oxford. O.U.D.S differs to most universities in that it nourishes individual drama groups to produce their own plays, as well as putting on large-scale shows of its own-  keep a keen eye out for A View From the Bridge and Orphans. They’re going to be big, FYI.  O.U.D.S is the go-to place for funding, for information, for wardrobe and scripts. It’s even recently unveiled a brand new, shiny website just for you Freshers, where you can register and be placed on the mailing list. Exciting, huh.

T.A.F.F

We love our abbreviations, and here’s another one – ‘Tabs Are For Flying,’ existing solely as a stage, for, well, the back-stage crew. TAFF is a hub for all the aspiring theatre technicians of the University, offering support and training to lighting designers, sound checkers and production managers. It seeks to encourage a greater understanding of technical theatre and to practice a high degree of professionalism in a community often over-shadowed by those out of the shadows.

The Oxford Imps

If you’ve visited Oxford before, or even if you haven’t, chances are you already know about the Imps. These guys have been making Oxford a funnier (and in our opinion, better) place since their debut show in 2004 with their spluttering, side-clenching, improvised comedy. Performing weekly at the Wheatsheaf pub for a steal of £3.50, there really are no excuses not to see the Imps at least once during your Freshers year. But don’t stop there, if you have a funny bone that demands to be shared, the Oxford Imps are recruiting. Auditions are on the 10^th October at Wadham, 6.30PM. Go on, we’re not pulling your leg.

Oxford Revue

It’s home to Oxford’s funniest sketch comedy group. They have gags the rest of us mere mortals of mediocre humour can only dream of. We’re talking side-splitting, barely-breathing, toilet-inducing, hysteria-producing comedy at its best, and at its worst, at least a stifled chortle. The Oxford Revue have regular shows throughout the year, and like the Imps, will add some much needed comedic relief to the inevitable essay crisis. Keep an eye out for auditions, we’ve heard from our inside sources (their website) that they’re recruiting soon.

The Venues

Oxford plays host to an array of performance areas, including Balliol’s Michael Pilch Studio, the Old Fire Station, the North Wall Arts Centre and more than we can possibly write down. Here’s a sneak peak at four well-used student spaces you will inevitably visit.  

Oxford Playhouse

Ok, so there’re rumours it’s owned by St. Johns, but in this day and age, who isn’t.  The Playhouse is the place to perform here in Oxford; it’s the venue where O.U.D.S repeatedly sells out their performances, and where Maggie Smith made her first public appearance (no pressure). On its 600 seater main stage, the theatre offers six performance slots to Oxford University students per academic year, where they receive the assistance of Playhouse staff in realizing their production. Nice.

Burton Taylor Studio

Named after that couple, ‘the BT’ is the rebellious baby sibling of the older, more respected Playhouse. A place for those plays too experimental, those crews too inexperienced or those budgets too small for any other venue. Everyone who’s anyone in Oxford drama had their debut here – and as a result, is host to some pieces of drama that are truly world class, and to many that are decidedly not. Although tucked away in the low key loft of the playhouse, on the bright side, its fifty seats won’t look that empty if its only your parents who turn up to see the opening night of your new one man show.

The Moser Theatre

It’s another one of those elusive student spaces, where half the fun in watching the play is in finding the place to actually watch the play. But don’t worry, once you’ve found the Moser you’re unlikely to lose it again, although no guarantee. This jazzy space is located underground, giving it an intimate, cosy feel as you gaze down from tiered seating onto the actors’ sweaty faces.  So it might take a bit of your day to find, but when you do find it you get the satisfaction of feeling like an intrepid explorer.

 Keble O’ Reilly

The O’Reilly is still a baby in relative terms to other Oxford theatres, and is consequently in demand for companies wanting to experience that new baby smell. Or, perhaps more likely, to utilise the extensive lighting and sound equipment it boasts. Exhibiting a varied and enriching programme, this is a space you will be sure to visit during your stay here, and, unlike many older student performance spaces, has the versatility to be end-on, traverse and even in the round. Crikey O’Reilly.

Cuppers

An intercollegiate drama festival you say? Organised by O.U.D.S? Exactly. Drama Cuppers is the chance for anyone with even a suggestion of theatrical inkling to get involved and do their college proud. It’s judged in front of a panel of independent judges and has the prospect of winning prizes but more importantly, college glory.  Taking place annually in Michaelmas, Cuppers offers Freshers the opportunity to gather a company and produce a 30 minute show. Aside from being a genuinely fun experience, the competition also acts as the starting point and pedestal to prove you have what it takes to be in University-wide productions.  

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5958%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5959%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5960%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5961%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5962%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5963%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5965%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5966%%[/mm-hide-text]

[mm-hide-text]%%IMG_ORIGINAL%%5967%%[/mm-hide-text]

How did you get into the industry?
I always wanted to be a photographer. I used to work in a portrait studio but it bored me so I just fell intothis and I love it now!

So would you recommend the job?
I would, a lot of people look down on it but they forget the celebs love the publicity – without it they wouldn’t have any promotion and they would be forgotten. But I would say it’s a hard industry to get into.

Is it very competitive?
I’m one of only three girls in the pap industry so it took a while to get the others to take me seriously at first.

Only three girls?
It’s very male-dominated! Now, they treat me like one of them though – everyone looks out for each other.

Sounds like a nice atmosphere to work in?
Well, you wait hours for celebrities to come out and the area can be filled with fans and paps so patience and position is key. When the celebrity comes out everyone’s on their own, it’s dog eat dog! There’s a lot of pushing and shoving so it’s a struggle to get a good shot, especially if they’re A-list or you know it will sell well.

How do you make a living from the photos?
I send them straight to my agency who do the selling for me. They take 40% but if it is a non-exclusive job it’s a race to send them to your agency as the first ones on the desk usually get picked.

What camera do you use?
I use a Nikon d700 with a 24-70mm lens for close up short and flash shots and a 70-200mm lens for when they’re far away but use longer lenses when I want to be discreet and you don’t want them to see you. What are the celebrities’ reaction to being photographed? Any enemies?
Not really! The TOWIE people text me if they want pictures – they’ll say “I’m going to this place today, come and take pictures!” But Ewan McGregor told me to leave him alone once even
though we were on long lens – not in his space at all.

What did he say?
He shouted “why are you taking my picture?”, and we said “but Ewan, you’re famous!” Then he drove off in a huff.

Despite run-ins with Ewan and other A-listers, Jaimie continues to enjoy her work in London, Essex and abroad.