Gilbey on Film: the London Film Festival

Our film critic chooses five titles to look out for next month.

Public booking for the London Film Festival (which runs from 13 - 28 October) opens next Monday. Most of the big gala screenings will have been snapped up by BFI members, who will have been booking since 15 September, but that's ok because they're all about the hoopla anyway. I'm not pretending for a second that I am not as excited as anyone to see eye-catching marquee titles such as Mark Romanek's Never Let Me Go adapted by Alex Garland from Kazuo Ishiguro's subtly devastating novel, Darren Aronofsky's psychological thriller Black Swan, which received ecstatic reviews at the Venice Film Festival, or Danny Boyle's 127 Hours, about the mountain climber Aron Ralston (played by James Franco), who had to do something very nasty indeed to save his own life. The trick with the latter film will be to keep from counting the number of walk-outs and pass-outs during the grisly bits.

But these are the headline-grabbers that attract valuable attention for the LFF; they already have distributors and release dates in place. The real treasures are buried deeper in the programme and are, as ever, a matter of pot luck. I'm slightly perturbed by the return this year to the bad old days of padding out the festival with titles that are mere minutes away from being released. When you've been a student slashing your weekly food budget so you can afford LFF tickets, it's rather galling to then find that the films you've booked to see at inflated cost are opening within a few days of being screened at the festival. Lisa Cholodenko's The Kids Are All Right is well worth seeing, but it's crazy that it is released just two days after its last festival showing. Perhaps in future the LFF brochure could, where possible, list release dates alongside the enticing blurbs for each title, to avoid near-overlaps such as Africa United (opening two days after its final LFF slot), The Arbor (four days), Olivier Assayas's Carlos "the Jackal" film, Carlos (six days) and Mike Leigh's Another Year (two weeks).

For the Surprise Film, my money this year is on either Rowan Joffe's Brighton Rock, which shifts the action of Graham Greene's novel to the 1960s, or Sofia Coppola's Somewhere, another hotel-based study of an actor's loneliness (like her reputation-making Lost in Translation), which won the Golden Lion at Venice earlier this month. Then again, the festival might buck the trend of giving the Surprise Film platform to an English-language title, and go instead for Francois Ozon's Potiche, a reputedly breezy farce starring Catherine Deneuve and Gerard Depardieu, which was widely declared a crowd-pleaser at Venice.

In the mean time, here are five titles that I will be seeking out. And that's as near as I'm willing to get to any guarantee of quality:

Treacle Jr - The third film from The Low Down's Jamie Thraves is the story of a man who walks out on his family, and is befriended by a misfit and his girlfriend. The excellent Aiden Gillen stars.

Meek's Cutoff - Kelly Reichardt has proved herself an insightful and elliptical filmmaker with Old Joy and Wendy and Lucy; this wagon-train drama, set in 1845 Oregon, is rumoured to be her finest yet.

A Screaming Man - From Mahamat-Salah Haroun, director of Abouna and Daratt, a tale of father/son tensions in present-day Chad.

Aurora - Five years ago, Cristi Puiu came to international attention with his grim, funny and affecting fable-cum-satire, The Death of Mr Lazarescu. His new film is a tense character study in which -- like fellow art-house new-wavers Nuri Bilge Ceylan (Climates) and Rafi Pitts (The Hunter) -- the director is also his own leading man.

Self Made - Gillian Wearing is the latest British artist to turn to cinema. Early reports about her debut -- the result of a newspaper advert asking "If you were to play a part in a film, would you be yourself or a fictional character?" -- are overwhelmingly positive.

Ryan Gilbey is the New Statesman's film critic. He is also the author of It Don't Worry Me (Faber), about 1970s US cinema, and a study of Groundhog Day in the "Modern Classics" series (BFI Publishing). He was named reviewer of the year in the 2007 Press Gazette awards.

Davide Restivo at Wikimedia Commons
Show Hide image

Scientists have finally said it: alcohol causes cancer

Enough of "linked" and "attributable": a new paper concludes that alcohol directly causes seven types of cancer.

I don't blame you if you switch off completely at the words "causes cancer". If you pay attention to certain publications, everything from sunbeds, to fish, to not getting enough sun, can all cause cancer. But this time, it's worth listening.

The journal Addiction has published a paper that makes a simple, yet startling, claim: 

"Evidence can support the judgement that alcohol causes cancer of the oropharynx [part of the throat], larynx, oesophagus, liver, colon, rectum and [female] breast"

So what's especially significant about this? 

First, scientists, unlike journalists, are very wary of the word "causes". It's hard to ever prove that one action directly led to another, rather than that both happened to occur within the same scenario. And yet Jennie Connor, author of the paper and professor in the Preventive and Social Medicine department at the University of Otago, New Zealand, has taken the leap.

Second, alcohol not only causes cancer of one kind – the evidence supports the claim that it causes cancer at seven different sites in our bodies. There was weaker evidence that it may also cause skin, prostate and pancreatic cancer, while the link between mouth cancers and alcohol consumption was the strongest. 

What did we know about alcohol and cancer before?

Many, many studies have "linked" cancer to alcohol, or argued that some cases may be "attributable" to alcohol consumption. 

This paper loooks back over a decade's worth of research into alcohol and cancer, and Connor concludes that all this evidence, taken together, proves that alcohol "increases the incidence of [cancer] in the population".

However, as Connor notes in her paper, "alcohol’s causal role is perceived to be more complex than tobacco's", partly because we still don't know exactly how alcohol causes cancer at these sites. Yet she argues that the evidence alone is enough to prove the cause, even if we don't know exactly how the "biologial mechanisms" work. 

Does this mean that drinking = cancer, then?

No. A causal link doesn't mean one thing always leads to the other. Also, cancer in these seven sites was shown to have what's called a "dose-response" relationship, which means the more you drink, the more you increase your chances of cancer.

On the bright side, scientists have also found that if you stop drinking altogether, you can reduce your chances back down again.

Are moderate drinkers off the hook?

Nope. Rather devastatingly, Connor notes that moderate drinkers bear a "considerable" portion of the cancer risk, and that targeting only heavy drinkers with alcohol risk reduction campaigns would have "limited" impact. 

What does this mean for public health? 

This is the tricky bit. In the paper, Connor points out that, given what we know about lung cancer and tobacco, the general advice is simply not to smoke. Now, a strong link proven over years of research may suggest the same about drinking, an activity society views as a bit risky but generally harmless.

Yet in 2012, it's estimated that alcohol-attributable cancers killed half a million people, which made up 5.8 per cent of cancer deaths worldwide. As we better understand the links between the two, it's possible that this proportion may turn out to be a lot higher. 

As she was doing the research, Connor commented:

"We've grown up with thinking cancer is very mysterious, we don't know what causes it and it's frightening, so to think that something as ordinary as drinking is associated with cancer I think is quite difficult."

What do we do now?

Drink less. The one semi-silver lining in the study is that the quantity of alcohol you consume has a real bearing on your risk of developing these cancers. 

On a wider scale, it looks like we need to recalibrate society's perspective on drinking. Drug campaigners have long pointed out that alcohol, while legal, is one of the most toxic and harmful drugs available  an argument that this study will bolster.

In January, England's chief medical officer Sally Davies introduced some of the strictest guidelines on alcohol consumption in the world, and later shocked a parliamentary hearing by saying that drinking could cause breast cancer.

"I would like people to take their choice knowing the issues," she told the hearing, "And do as I do when I reach for my glass of wine and think... do I want to raise my risk of breast cancer?"

Now, it's beginning to look like she was ahead of the curve. 

Barbara Speed is a technology and digital culture writer at the New Statesman and a staff writer at CityMetric.