Displaying items by tag: Peter Malone's film Reviews

THE FEAR OF 13

UK, 2015, 96 minutes, Colour.

Nick Yarris.

Directed by David Sington.

For most audiences, this is a compelling documentary. However, audiences who have come across it and prefer fast action films, have found it very boring. But, boring it is not.

We are informed at the beginning that this is a film about a one time young petty criminal, who was charged with rape and murder, his previous prison sentences added to, finally finishing on death row. After 20 years on death row, we are informed that he made a petition that he should be executed. However, he was not executed – and, his plea of innocence was vindicated with the introduction of DNA samples, checking, detection, finding the true of offenders. But, even this took a long time in the latter part of the 20 years of the 20.

This 96 minute film is mainly close-ups of the subject, Nick Yarris, speaking to camera. He is in his 40s, somewhat gaunt, bald, very direct to camera. In fact, his narrating of his story is so articulate and persuasive it seemed necessary to do some checking, surely this expert telling of a life was a script and spoken by a professional actor. But, no, this is the actual Nick Yarris.

His story is compelling as is his manner of telling the story, pacing, earnestness, some self-condemnation, admitting his petty criminal history from the age of 15, stealing and selling cars to a dealer to disguise and re-sell them, the introduction to drugs, being ousted from home, on the streets, arrest and prison. There is also the vivid story of his being transferred, going to the restroom at a service station, a kind of comedy of sequences and events which led to his escape, stealing a car, going to Florida, hiding… But, he is discovered sleeping in his car, arresting policeman seeing his gun protruding from a cover, conflict, his outwitting them, his getting his father to phone the FBI, his arrest and subsequent trial, the police changing their story. He has some relish in recounting the trial and the jury seeing through the full stories by the police.

However, far more serious was the accusation that he had raped and stabbed to death a young mother. The jury took very dim views of this and he was sentenced to prison, to life, to death row.

A great deal of his narrative concerns what it was like to be sentenced to prison, the violence of some of the wardens, solitary, meals and disputes, everyone punished because of the action of one prisoner, and eventual attack and rape. But, there is the other side of his time, beginning to learn, the use of words, studying, reading, becoming quite an accomplished wordsmith. And, as with so many stories, there is a woman who takes an interest in the prisoner, meets him, helps him with his pleas, romance and marriage but, after so many years of trying to help, her not being able to cope.

And, all the while, as he tells his narrative, spins his story, we are wondering where it will lead to – eventually to discoveries with DNA samples, the long time that it took (unconscionable when you think back on it) to do the investigations and to get the results, and, at the end, the prison wardens unhappy with his release.

One of the reasons that this is a British documentary is that after his release he moved to England, married, has a daughter, tells his story. And the director, David Sington, is also British with many nominations and awards for his documentaries.

HEART Of STONE

US, 2023, 122 minutes, Colour.

Gal Gadot, Jamie Dornan, Alia Bhatt, Matthias Schweighoffer, Sophie Okenado, Jing Lisu, Paul Reddy, Enzo Cilenti, Archie Madekwe, Glenn Close, BD Wong, Mark Ivanir.

Directed by Tom Harper.

It would seem that the villain of this film - and a review can’t reveal the twist and revelation, that would be quite a spoiler - does have a heart of stone, motivated by revenge, allegedly motivated by doing good in the world, but unscrupulous in achieving his aims, no compunction about the many dead in consequence of his actions.

But, the title is something of a play on words. Heart actually refers to an extraordinarily developed AI system, seemingly in an elaborate capsule, safely in the balloon in the stratosphere, but able to provide all kinds of information, vast information charts appearing at the sweep of a hand, offering probabilities of success and failure for various aspects of the mission. The group looking after this is called Charter, former members of such organisations as MI6, having their own control, seeking world peace and order, and having names from the various cards in the deck as the codenames.

And, as regards Stone – the leading action star is Rachel Stone, played by Wonder Woman herself, Gal Gadot, having to do some of the stunts which Wonder Woman might have hesitated about. She is supreme at derring-do.

At first, her action on the snowy mountain slopes brings to mind some of James Bond’s action stunts. But, we soon realise that she is on quite a mission impossible and that Rachel Stone is the female equivalent of Ethan Hunt (though, admittedly, Tom Cruise does do his own stunts.).

And that is probably the main thing to say in a review – this is the beginning of a new franchise where women are key to the action, to the saving of the world. In charge of Charter is Nomad, played by Sophie Okenado. And, initially in the background is Keya, an IT expert, especially in hacking, who is drawn into the plot against Charter but soon realises she has been mightily deceived and joins in the final heroics with Rachel.

In the initial action are quite a number of MI6 agents, led by Jamie Dornan with his Irish accent. And at Charter headquarters there is the leading expert, Jack (of Hearts), a genial Matthias Schweigerhoffer. A number of character actors play key agents in Charter, including a prominent guest star who will surprise audiences if they have not heard already who it is!

With action, often spectacular, in the Alps, moderately so in London and Lisbon, but dramatically in the desert in Senegal and, finally, in Iceland.

So, full of energy, full of female action, and high hopes that world peace and order could be achieved. But…, No…

1.      The title? The AI, the heart? And Rachel Stone?

2.      Action adventure, in the James Bond vein, the female version of Mission Impossible?

3.      Action, stunt work, CGI, feats of impossible daring, fights, the heart and the technology, the role of MI6, Charter, world peace, order? The world of espionage?

4.      The location photography, the Alps, Lisbon, London, the desert in Senegal, Iceland? The cable car, the slopes, downhill skiing? The head of Charter in London, the technology? The shadows in Lisbon? The desert, the capture of the Heart, being picked up in the desert, the confrontation? Iceland, the University, technology, the locations? The musical score?

5.      The introduction to the characters, the team, the target, the coordinated surveillance, in the vehicle, in the club, communications, opposition, getting the target into the cable car, the couple and surveillance, Parker, with the target in the cable car and confrontation, fight, the cyanide pill? Rachel, seeming inadequate, the range of the stunt work, controlled by Jack and his vast resources? Downhill, the crashes, the deaths, the later revelation about Parker and his killing the target?

6.      The surprise in twist in Parker emerging as the villain, the action in Chechnya, MI6, supplying of arms, the deaths, Parker surviving, revenge? The revelation that he had killed the target in the cable car?

7.      London, the headquarters of Charter, Jack and his work, Nomad and her being in charge, the other members of the staff and their talents? Rachel, the dangers, giving an account of herself, Lisbon, the dangers, the revelation about Parker? The clash with Charter in Chechnya, the deaths, his survival, revenge?

8.      The glimpse of other members of Charter, guest roles for BD Wong, Glenn Close, BD Wong in Iceland, the attack, trapped? The other members killed?

9.      Parker, his character, revenge, killing the target, capturing the heart, the balloon in the air, his being aided by Ker, her talents, her parents, motivations, confronting Rachel? Rachel, her talents, in the balloon, the fights, the plane and take off with Parker and Kayla, her leaving and hanging on, cut off, the freefall descent, saving Ker?

10.  In the desert, believing Ker, the savagery of Parker, the control, in London, cutting off the air, the 50 minutes, tactics, the group prepared to die?

11.  The difficulties in Senegal, the blonde operative, shooting and chases, Rachel diving into the water, saved, the plane, en route to Iceland? Parker and Keya going to Iceland, the University, setting up the trap, closing down the air for Charter?

12.  The dangers, Rachel on her bike, the pursuit, using her wits, the truck, getting to the University? The contact with Nomad, a device? The confrontation was Parker, Keya and her eluding Parker, confronting him, saved by Rachel, the indication of the steam pipes, the gun, Keya slipping the gun to Rachel during the fight, Parker’s death? The resolving of the problems?

13.  The humour in the episode with Charter and its AI failing, ringing Rachel on the landline! And her ringing Nomad?

14.  Four weeks later, the re-establishment of Charter, Keya and her being given a card? Sequels?

THE HIDING PLACE

US, 2023, 143 minutes, Colour.

Nan Gurley, John Schuck, Carrie Tillis.

Directed by Laura Matula.

The first thing to say is that this is a very worthy drama. It is the story of Carrie ten Boom, her sister, Betsy, her father and extended family, who saved 800 Jews during World War II, hiding them in their house in Harlem, Holland. It would be seen as a complementary story to The Diary of Anne Frank. Corrie ten Boom wrote the story of the hiding of the Jews as well as the internment of Betsy and herself in Ravensbruck concentration camp. There was a faith-based version of the story in the 1975 film of the same name, starring Julie Harris as Corrie.

The second thing to say is that this is a filmed version of a theatrical performance. On the one hand, it is valuable to have a version of a theatre event. On the other hand, the audience response to a filmed play is different from that for the cinematic treatment of a drama. The staging is very much stagebound. It is over to the inventiveness of the director and camera crew, and editors, to find the right angles, the close-ups, movement, for a cinematic response. The performances can be very much stagebound as well, theatrical, dialogue sometimes rather rhetorical, stylised.

Having said that, it is to the credit of Rabbit Room Theatre to have staged The Hiding Place, written by A.S.Peterson based on the book. And, to their credit, that they have filmed a performance in Nashville.

The theatrical effect is immediately evident as members of the cast come on stage, suitcases, searching, indication of what is to come. Throughout the play, the older Corrie ten Boom speaks to the audience, is interrogated by a Nazi official, but with some scenes of flashbacks, to her watchmaker father and his shop, to her sister, Betsy, and the love in the family.

However, the main action is the beginning of the invasion of Holland, Jewish refugees, the Dutch underground sheltering the Jews, finding food cards to sustain them, eventually coming to the ten Boom shop, being hidden, being fed, able to be moved on – with, as has been noted, 800 Jews saved from being taken to the concentration camps. The ten Booms were Dutch Calvinists, so a strict interpretation of God’s will, of Christian love, and it being tested by extremes, the challenges of forgiveness. This is particularly the case when an arrogant young German comes to work in the shop, smugly superior, eventually joining the army, patrolling in Harlem, seen at Ravensbruck – and, at the end, the focus for Corrie and forgiveness.

Nan Gurley is particularly forceful in the role of Corrie, not a simple saintly character, but generous, fearful, angry, challenged by Christian charity demands of forgiveness.

There is some tension in the hiding sequences, even more tension when the family is arrested, taken prisoner, then to the concentration camp, the father dying, Betsy, eventually dying, Corrie and the women in the camp – and her surprising eventual release, attributed to a clerical error. The war ends. Corrie returns home, meets the underground members who have survived, wants a memorial to what has happened, begins her travels around the world and her writing to continue the mission of remembrance, the sufferings and death in the Holocaust and the consequences for the world.

1.     The story of the ten Boom family, World War II, Holland in Harlem, the Nazi invasion, Jewish refugees, hiding the refugees? A story complementary to that of the Diary of Anne Frank?

2.     Corrie and her books, her campaign after the war? The Hiding Place, its impact after the war, the film version of 1975, a faith-based film? This version?

3.     The adaptation for the stage, the writer incorporating the key themes of the book, the flashbacks to the girls’ childhood and their relationship with their father, the situation of the war, the hiding of the Jews, the arrest, the concentration camp life, Betsy’s death, Corrie’s release?

4.     A filmed version of the theatrical performance, the role of the camera, close-ups, framing, scenes, the stage? Performances, theatrical, rhetorical, humane? The musical score?

5.     Audience response to filmed plays, as different from cinema responses? To staging and confinement to the stage, particular focus points of the camera, close-ups et cetera? The spoken dialogue?

6.     The opening, the cast coming onto the stage with their suitcases, indication of themes? The focus on Corrie, her age, her reminiscences, the scenes of her childhood, the devoted father, sister and brother, the shop and the watches? The focus on the train travel, lifting the heavy case, images used later?

7.     The framework of Corrie, the Nazi officer, the interrogation, the flashbacks to the various stages of the war, her inhuman honesty, the underground and resistance, having to lie to the German authorities?

8.     1940, the Nazi invasion, Otto coming from Germany to work in the shop, young, arrogant and superior, despising the family? The war breaking out, his enlisting, his arrogance in the Army, towards the family, the later encounter in the concentration camp?

9.     The situation in the family, the brother, his social concerns and work, Betsy more fragile, in the shop, Corrie with strength, helping her father? The father, personality, the Dutch Calvinist tradition, Christian ethics?

10.  The invasion, difficulties, food and rationing cards? The underground and the connections, David, his links, network, Mr Pickwick?

11.  The Jewish refugees coming to the door, the response of the family, the increasing numbers, hiding the Jews, the transition for many to hide and then move on, the issue of the food tickets, Corrie going to the man in charge, persuading him, the many tickets, feeding the refugees? The building of the hiding place?

12.  The Germans, Otto, intruding into the house, the search – and the irony of Betsy in the kitchen and the couple hiding under the table, the joke about under the table and the Germans not looking?

13.  800 Jews passing through the house?

14.  The betrayal, the arrest, taken to the concentration camp, the death of their father, Betsy on Corrie going to Ravensbruck, the huts with the women, the work, Betsy’s declining health, her death and the solemnity? Corrie, being questioned about her life in the camp, then let go, the women going to the gas chambers, Corrie and the clerical error?

15.  Her return home, the encounter with Mr Pickwick, reflecting on the war, the effort? Corrie wanting a Memorial? The beginning of her travels, speaking, writing?

ALCARRAS

Spain, 2022, 120 minutes, Colour.

Jordi Pujot Dolcet, Anna Otin, Xenia Roset, Albert Bosch, Ainet Jounou.

Directed by Carla Simon.

Alcarras is a small town in Catalonia. It is a centre for agriculture, especially for stone fruit. This is a portrait of life in the town, in the orchards, families, the encroachment on the land by government, developers, and the setting up of vast solar panels.

The audience spends two hours mainly with a family, father and mother, the older son working in the orchard, the next daughter adolescent and self-conscious, and then a vigorous younger daughter who loves playing with her twin cousins and other children. The cast of the film is entirely non-professional (except for a sister of the writer-director, who plays one of the aunts). In fact, the performances seem very accomplished, the whole cast playing themselves with seeming professional aplomb.

We spend a lot of time with these characters, some audiences complaining that the story is repetitious, not always involving. Other audiences, including the jury at the Berlin film Festival 2023, was so involved that they awarded the film the top prize, the Golden Bear. For many audiences, especially those who enjoy documentaries about unfamiliar countries, they will be happy to spend these two hours in Catalonia, empathising with the characters (sometimes irritated by them), sharing the joys and the difficulties, the hard work, the picking of the fruit (and employing, when they can, some foreign fruit pickers from Africa…), family life at home, the annual festival in the town with song and dance. On the other hand, for audiences who like dramatic momentum, they will be perhaps wanting more.

The father is something of a tough patriarch. His wife is strong, gentle, supportive. The son is loyal but there is an underlying restlessness. The daughter is moody. The youngest girl quite vivacious and demanding. There are the twin cousins, the various in-laws, and the elderly aunts. Which means that the various generations of Catalonian life are well represented.

And the solar panels, being delivered, being laid out, the father of the family hostile, his relative an entrepreneur. And while there are scenes of joy in the village in celebration, there are also some powerful demonstration scenes against the companies, the picking of the peaches, transporting them to the city, shouts in protest, the pouring of the peaches on the road and driving over them to make the point. The other point is, of course, that with concern about climate change, the need for sun and wind for power, it means such developments as extensive solar panels to produce and channel energy. But, it is very disturbing at the end to see the machinery driving through the orchards, ploughing up the ground, destroying the trees.

The film offers an interesting opportunity to see and reflect on traditional families and the way they live and cope in the 21^st-century but also to see the transitions in agricultural life, change for possible good, but some heartbreak in destruction.

1.     The title, the town, Catalonia, agricultural, small town life, orchards and crops, modern encroachments?

2.     The cast, non-professionals, the persuasive performances? Convincing?

3.     The photography, beauty, the vistas of the town, the vistas of the fields and crops, the surroundings? Home life? Outings, village life, the celebration? The work in the fields, the harvesting? The protest? The cranes and the destruction of the orchards? The musical score?

4.     The focus on the family, the father, age, relationship with his wife, the work on the orchards, the collaboration of the family, the different generations, the older patriarch and his life, the aunts, the same generation as the father, and the next generation, the teenagers and their reactions, work, moods, and the younger children and their play?

5.     The orchards, the peaches, the workers, collaboration, the picking of the fruit, collecting? The farm and the machinery? The foreign workers, the marketplace? The father and his son working with his father?

6.     Home life, old style, yet modern, the television, the music? The daughter, her age, the touch of rebellion, moods, practising her dancing – and ultimately refusing to join in the dense? The son, his age, friends, working with his father, prospects for the future? The mother, active, concerned, the household, support?

7.     The old man, the past, his work, life, the generations, tired, sleeping? His role in the house? Going to the inn, playing cards with friends? Fragility?

8.     The variety of aunts, the generations, their talk, remembering the past, work? The visitors from Barcelona?

9.     Iris, forthright, with the twins, the other children, the range of games, make-believe and pretence, guns and sieges, the nature of play? The absence of the twins, the return? The mother and her concern, family alienations?

10.  The change, the installation of the solar panels, the land being taken over, intervention of the government, the policy of energy production over crops? The father, his resentment, confrontations?

11.  The choir practice, the celebration, everybody joining in the festivities, songs, performances? The Moody daughter and her refusing to join in? The son, his drinking, the accident and his father’s reaction?

12.  The collecting of the peaches, the spilling, gathering, going to the protest, the farmers all joining, the demonstration, the placards, the authorities, the spilling of the peaches, driving over the?

13.  The machinery coming in, digging up the fields, destroying the trees – for the solar panels?

14.  The traditions of the past, the 20^th century, developments in the 21^st-century, and the threats to traditional agriculture and livelihoods?

OPPENHEIMER

US, 2023, 180 minutes, Colour.

Cillian Murphy, Matt Damon, Robert Downey Jr, Emily Blunt, Florence Pugh, Jason Clarke, Kenneth Branagh, Tom Conti, Alden Ehrenreich, Dane de Haan, Tony Goldwyn, Make on Blair, James D'Arcy, David Krumholz, Matthias Schwieghoffer, Michael Angaarano, Dylan Arnold, Matthew Modine, David Dastmalchian, Josh Peck, Benny Safdie, Gustaf Skarsgaard, James Urbaniak, Christopher Denham, Rami Malek, Olivia Thirlby, Casey Affleck, Harrison Gilbertson, James Remar.

Directed by Christopher Nolan.

Oppenheimer confirms once again what a talented filmmaker Christopher Nolan is. And, while he has collaborated with his brother on previous screenplays, this is his solo work.

J.Robert Oppenheimer was a controversial character in his heyday, especially his years, 1942 to 1945, as head of the Manhattan Project, the building of the first atomic bomb, the testing of Los Alamos, and the decision to drop the bomb on Hiroshima and, then, on Nagasaki, 1945. As expected, these years are at the centre of this biography/portrait of Oppenheimer.

However, there is a great deal of material in this film before the Manhattan Project and a great deal afterwards. While the film does take a traditional approach to biography, tracing Oppenheimer’s early years and career, sequences are introduced in the first part of the film, into interrogations by members of a select committee, criticisms of Oppenheimer and his alleged communist connections. These sequences are filmed in black and white, as are sequences for a Senate hearing for politician, Lewis Straws, and issues of the development of nuclear weapons.

Cillian Murphy, who has shown talent in a variety of differing roles, brings Oppenheimer to life, resembling him in the various photos of his early years, unruly hair, smoking, then chain-smoking, gaunt. His parents migrated to the US from Germany, Jewish. Oppenheimer did not immediately appear as the genius he was to become, but went to Europe for studies, clashing with a professor in England, moving to Germany, meeting Niels Bohr, and some of the Germans who were to work on atomic developments for the Nazis. In the late 30s, he returned to the US and to Berkely, meetings with Albert Einstein.

At the opening of the film, the words, fusion and fission appear on screen. Most audiences will not be familiar with the mathematics and physics dramatised here, so many blackboards filled with formulae, but, by and large, the screenplay gives enough information for audiences to appreciate the science behind fission and fusion, the discoveries of the 30s, and their applications, especially for weapons in World War II, apprehension that the Germans would make the bomb, decisions concerning the war in the Pacific, the conflict with Japan.

Matt Damon appears as General Groves, responsible for the team to make the atomic bomb, interviewing Oppenheimer to lead the project, Oppenheimer not being the immediately likely head. Then there is the assembling of the range of scientists, experts in their field, some prima donna behaviour at times, moving into the New Mexico desert, familiar to Oppenheimer with his brother, bringing the families. And a whole town is built in the desert. We see the work and studies of the scientists, their life together, the technology as the bomb is built.

On the personal side, there is Oppenheimer’s meeting with Jean Tatlock (Florence Pugh), an edgy relationship, portrayed quite frankly, her communist associations, her mental state and influence on Oppenheimer. There is also Oppenheimer’s wife, Kitty, a biologist (Emily Blunt) coming to live of Los Alamos, their children, her forthright attitudes. There are scientist friends, as well is Edward Teller (Benny Safdie) who is committed to the hydrogen bomb. The scenes of 1945 are quite powerful, apprehensiveness at the testing of the bomb, finding safety limits to observe it, the lifting of the bomb to the high tower, the moments to countdown, the explosion in the fast fireball, the explosion pervading the sky and the atmosphere.

Then there are the issues of choosing a Japanese city for the dropping of the bomb. There is some footage of destruction in Japan but the film relies on the impact, visually, in sound, seen in the test at Los Alamos. The immediate repercussions are acclaim for Oppenheimer, the applause of his co-workers, featuring on the cover of magazines and papers, a visit to President Truman who dismisses Oppenheimer’s moral and emotional concerns as a “Cry-baby”.

The last section of the film focuses on the investigations, the hostility towards Oppenheimer, the withdrawal of his security clearance, the implications of his communist leanings and affiliations, the select committee interrogating him, with Jason Clarke especially effective as the chief interrogator. Oppenheimer is questioned, so is General Groves, Kitty, and various officials and scientists, some sympathetic to Oppenheimer, others not.

Finally, there is a Senate hearings concerning Lewis Strauss, initially favourable to Oppenheimer, to Einstein (Tom Conti), but growing hawkish after the dropping of the atomic bomb, eager to develop the hydrogen bomb, not against nuclear proliferation. He is played by Robert Downey Jr in one of his best performances, powerful, edgy, ambitious, hostile to Oppenheimer. And, as mentioned, the Senate hearing sequences are all filmed in black and white.

Nolan has drawn on a very large cast of strong character actors.

The film suggests ambiguity in Oppenheimer’s attitudes and stances, father of the atomic bomb, highly involved, but questions in the aftermath, against nuclear proliferation, questions of moral responsibility.

For audiences interested in a more documentary presentation of Oppenheimer himself, his work, the development of the bomb, the dropping of the bomb and its consequences, there is the documentary To End All War: Oppenheimer & The Atomic Bomb, an NBC production released in the same month as Oppenheimer, with Christopher Nolan himself as one of the interviewees. It could serve as a kind of review/discussion source for audiences to appreciate Oppenheimer better.

1.     The impact of the film? The personality of J.Robert Oppenheim are, science background, the Manhattan Project, the testing of the atomic bomb, Hiroshima, the aftermath, interactions with anti-Communist investigators?

2.     The work of the director, writing, directing, the large cast, the scope of the project, the impact for the 21^st-century audience?

3.     The structure of the film, the introduction to Oppenheimer, audience awareness of him and the Manhattan Project, the atomic bomb and the consequences, the nuclear era? The background of his studies in Europe? The scenes of the investigation, interrogations, black-and-white photography, their being intercut with his earlier life? The transition to the Manhattan Project? The detail? The test and the consequences? The aftermath, Pres Truman, official interrogations, the consequences for Oppenheimer?

4.     The strength of Cillian Murphy’s presence and performance, resembling the photos of Oppenheimer, and the cigarette? The age range, younger, studying, in Europe, antagonism towards the professor, the injected apple, the encounter with Niels Bohr? With the German scientists? The range of his education? Theoretical rather than applied? The influence of Einstein?

5.     Oppenheimer’s personal life, relationships, Jean Tadlock, Communist affiliations, the 1930s, the relationship with her, her behaviour, erratic, the meetings and discussions, the impact of the nude sequences? His meeting Kitty, marriage, children, the relationship, her strength of character and determination, attitude towards Jean? Life at Los Alamos, the family, her sense of betrayal? A sitting in on the interrogations, her urging Oppenheimer to be aggressive, the interviews and her challenge to the interrogators? Oppenheimer, women, Jean and the further meetings, her death? Kitty, the children, afterlife?

6.     The European education, Oppenheimer as young, experimenting, going to meetings, asking questions, the antagonism and the attempted poisoning, the further education, the influences? His return to the United States?

7.     Gen Groves, promotion, commission, Los Alamos, approaching Oppenheimer, the discussions, Oppenheimer weighing it up? Accepting? His work with Groves, collaboration, antagonism, clashing personalities, yet working together? The setting up of the town, Oppenheimer and the requirements, the logistics, the desert, Oppenheimer and the connection with his brother, New Mexico, his love for New Mexico, his brother under suspicion, Communist connections? The development of the town, the military, the scientists, the families, life in the town?

8.     Physics theories, Einstein and relativity, other theoretical scientists, fission and fusion, the scientists gathering, moral stances and ethics, and atomic bomb, the Germans and their progress, the issue of Russian intelligence? The variety of personalities, collaboration, clashes, Edward Teller and his contribution, Isadore Rabi and the moral questions, the possible consequences and aftermath, yet the issue of the war, Nazi aggression, the Japanese? The progress of the developments, the bowls with the marbles indicating treatment of uranium? The audience following the physics, the development of the bomb?

9.     1944-1945, the strategies of the war, German surrender, the Japanese in the war in the Pacific, American involvement, the decision about the bomb, the discussions about the city’s, Kyoto excluded, decision for Hiroshima and Nagasaki? Oppenheimer and his participation and later interrogations?

10.  The buildup to the testing of the bomb, whether it was ready, whether it would succeed? Frank Oppenheimer and he is skills in positioning the observers, the countdown, the tension, the blast itself, the special effects to communicate the blast to the audience? The fireball, fire, wind, the observers, the dangers, the effect? And the transition then to information about the attacks on Hiroshima and Nagasaki?

11.  The final hour of the film, colour and black-and-white, prepared in the earlier part of the film, the special committee, prejudice against Oppenheimer, the personality of Roger Robb, his questions, manner, insinuations, concealing sources, aggressive? Gordon Gray residing, his stances? The member of the board and his interventions, his descent? The details of the questioning, the various personalities, General Groves, Isadore Rabi, Nichols, Kitty Oppenheimer…? The building up of the picture, the framing of Oppenheimer?

12.  Post-war, the Soviet Union, the beginnings of the Cold War, the anti-communists atmosphere of the US, house un-American activities, the coming of Sen McCarthy, suspicions, linking guilt, persecutions? The perspective of communism in the 1930s, social unrest, the status of Stalin?

13.  Lewis straws, the importance of his presence in terms of American defence? His relationship with Oppenheimer, initial collaboration, during the war, the sequence of watching Oppenheimer and Einstein talking (and the later flashback of what their subject was)? Straws, his young assistant, the interviews, the Senate hearing, straws and his ambitions, the war, after the war, his attitudes towards weapons, nuclear proliferation, the background of explaining the H bomb, Teller and his attitudes, American Arsenal – and the danger of nuclear proliferation?

14.  The personality of straws, Robert Downey Jr’s performance, political, self-seeking, his assistant, his assistant becoming disillusioned, the information, given to the senators, the buildup to the vote, his not being appointed? The focus of the film on the bomb explosions, and the explosions between the conflict between Oppenheimer and straws?

15.  Oppenheimer, questions about the making of the bomb, his moral stances, regrets or not, his self blaming, his being against nuclear proliferation, his subsequent career, the issue of his security clearance, the 1960s, the scene was Pres Truman dismissing him as soft, the mention of Kennedy voting against straws, and the finale with the medal, presented by Lyndon Johnson?

16.  The overall impact of the film in terms of war, weapons, nuclear war, consequences? Moral issues? Relevance in the 2020s?

SINATRA BEING FRANK

US, 2015, 81 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Simon Napier-Bell.

Rock manager for many artists, Simon Napier-Bell, writer, speaker and documentary filmmaker, made this very interesting and informative documentary about Frank Sinatra for the centenary of his birth, 2015.

In 80 minutes, the director has furnished the essential biography of Sinatra and has created a portrait of Sinatra as a person, as a singer, as an actor, as a 20^th-century celebrity.

The initial emphasis is on Sinatra and his singing abilities which were acknowledged over the decades in the 20^th-century and are still acknowledged in the 21^st-century. There is his Hoboken, New Jersey origin, his family, Italian background, his father has not supportive of his ambitions to be a singer. He moved to New York in the mid 30s, with the singing group, recognised, small in stature (he does, in media interviews, explain the difficulties of his birthing and his grandmother reviving him but his continuing to be small), but seen initially with a strong ego (stronger throughout the years) in giving information, interviews. He is seen by Harry James, leader of his orchestra who promotes him. And this leads to work with bandleader Tommy Dorsey in the early 1940s, Sinatra saying he observed Dorsey’s skill in breath control and planning the trombone as a way of understanding his own singing breath control. And then came the recordings.

The film then moves on to Sinatra as an actor, is always keen awareness of the times, knowing that personalities needed broader recognition and that this came through the movies. After a few films, many with guest appearances, Louis B Mayer giving him jobs at MGM, especially Anchors Away and Tell the Clouds Roll By.

And, throughout the film career, the recordings, and his initiatives in working with arrangers like Nelson Riddle, and his creation of album collections, somewhat new at the time, but continuing throughout his career, millions of sales, millions of fans, many awards.

The film also offers something of his relationships, his early marriage to childhood friend, Nancy Barbato, and the birth of his children. Then there is the attraction to Ava Gardner and their being married, exhilarating for some years, but Ava Gardner noting that they were too alike for it to last. Then there is the puzzle of his attraction to Mia Farrow in the 1960s – and the indication that she set her cap at him and exercise some control. This did not last. In later life, he met Barbara, the wife of the Zeppo Marx and married her, she understanding him and supporting him as he grew older.

There is the famous slump around 1950, sacked by Louis B Mayer for slighting him, difficulties with recording companies, small film roles, and his agitating for a role in From Here to Eternity, Ava Gardner canvassing head of Columbia, Harry Cohen’s wife, the film noting that in his Oscar acceptance speech, Sinatra did not mention Ava Gardner. The mid-1950s were important with such films as The Man with the Golden Arm, Guys and Dolls. Unfortunately, for film fans, the line of films, starring roles does not continue, especially with the number of detective stories he made during the 1960s.

Then there is the question of the Mafia connections, Sinatra in interviews explaining the Italian family background, his meeting with various Mafia chiefs, taking this for granted. The other area of Sinatra’s life that is not treated in the film is the 1960s Rat Pack, his friends, the performances, their films together.

Rather, the theme of the film is how Sinatra adapted to every decade, from the early Bobbysoxers fandom, to popular songs of the 1950s, adapting to the different rhythms of the 1960s, and even more adapting during the 1970s, culminating in New York, New York, and this documentary saying that the lyric, “if you can make it there, you can make it anywhere” does sum up Sinatra’s career.

During the 1980s and into the 90s, he did make some albums, not always successful, and also many appearances, fans always loyal, even the younger generations. Sinatra had the nickname The Voice, knew how to control his voice, had great sense of timing with lyrics, Sinatra as something of a singing icon of the 20^th century.

TO END ALL WAR: OPPENHEIMER & THE ATOMIC BOMB

US, 2023, 87 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Christopher Cassel

This Documentary, made by NBC television, was released at the same time as Christopher Nolan’s epic Oppenheimer. As might be expected, they are complementary. And, response to the two films indicates that there is an audience who prefers documentary rather than dramatisation while the majority of audiences prefer for the dramatisation.

Needless to say, both films have their values in looking at the character of J.Robert Oppenheimer and his presiding over the Manhattan Project. Those who watch the documentary first may well be interested to look at how it has been dramatised with the skills of Christopher Nolan. On the other hand, as with this reviewer, Oppenheimer was seen first and this documentary serves as something the equivalent of a discussion after the film, raising different points of view, raising a great deal of factual material, discussion of the issues, about World War II, the building of the bomb, German desire to build the bomb, the moral issues, the role of President Truman and the war with Japan, this documentary showing sequences of Hiroshima and Nagasaki with some of the survivors.

In Oppenheimer, there is a pursuit of the scientist by the anti-Communist movements post-World War II, fostered by the fact that Oppenheimer spoke out about the limits of nuclear weapons. And, while both films feature his crises and dilemmas, there is always the question of how he saw the creation of the bomb, the dropping of the bomb and the consequences, moral issues.

While the film has value in itself, a comparatively brief running time, just under half the running time of Oppenheimer, it can better be appreciated by watching it in connection with Christopher Nolan’s film. It can be noted that Christopher Nolan himself appears half a dozen times throughout the documentary making comments about Oppenheimer himself, the Manhattan Project and Oppenheimer’s own conscience and consciousness concerning the bomb.

A pilgrimage to Lourdes – you might enjoy The Miracle Club.

This Irish film is screening at the moment, an entertainment for most audiences – but a special for Catholic audiences.

This is an Irish tale set in 1967 Dublin. As the title indicates, miracles, there is more than a Catholic tone to this drama with touches of comedy. And, it will play more extensively around the world because of the star power of its cast, Maggie Smith, in her late 80s, Lily, a Dublin housewife (a long way from Downton Abbey), Kathy Bates and Laura Linney.

Looking back to 1967, in the Catholic Church, this was the immediate aftermath of the Second Vatican Council at the beginning of many changes in the church, and the dialogue with what were called “the signs of the times”. However, there was a long Catholic tradition in Ireland, cheerful in many ways, but rather harsh in others. At the opening of the film, the local parish puts on a talent show to raise money for a charity, down at the parish hall, and the two older ladies dressing up, along with a young mother, Dolly who is sad that her young boy, Daniel, has not yet spoken, Eileen singing He‘s So Fine and Lily and Dolly as the backup singers (who would have thought they would have seen Maggie Smith as a backup singer!). The prize is two tickets to Lourdes. (And the second prize is a cut of bacon.)

So, the introduction of the theme of Lourdes, the stories of miracles and cures, the screenplay telling us there have only been 62 verified cures since 1858. Eileen recalls the film of The Song of Bernadette (1943), Based on the book by Jewish Author, Franz Werfel, an extraordinary Impact about Lourdes in Its time. This all has the support of a quite genial parish priest, Father Dermot Byrne,( Mark O’Halloran). But, there is a sadness in the town, the death of an elderly woman, her estranged daughter, returning to the town after 40 years for her funeral. There is a sad story here, a reminder of much Catholic harshness, the unmarried pregnant girl, the severity of judgements, the effect on the young father, silence and alienation for decades, and sad secrets for the older women.

With some manoeuvring, everyone sets out for Lourdes, the bus, the ferry, the mountains of the Pyrenees, the vista of the basilica and the shrine of Lourdes.

And here is the challenge for the audiences. The believers have no difficulties (perhaps not quite right because some of the pilgrims voice a number of difficulties, the brunt of scepticism, high expectations of miracles, disappointments…).The pilgrims go through the rituals, the visit to the grotto, stories of Bernadette and the apparitions, devotion to Mary, statues, and the important process of immersing oneself in the waters, coming from the spring that Bernadette herself dug in the soil and which has flowed ever since. It is in the baths that there are expectations of miracles and consequent disappointments. (Surprisingly, the ever-popular hymn is not included.)

Towards the end, there is a lot of talk about forgiveness and reconciliation and, as we are anticipating, and probably hoping, the past angers surface, upsets, misunderstandings, the scars of hurt. And, as is so often said, as well as the statistics indicating, healings from illness are not the norm at all of miracles in Lourdes. Rather, it is the effect of making the pilgrimage, reflections on life and relationships, the possibilities of reconciliation and new directions in life. Dolly and the whole group also hope for a miracle when Daniel, will begin to speak. It is a tribute to the writers and the director how this is handled with reticent delicacy.

In only 90 minutes, we immerse ourselves in the Ireland of the Catholic past, go on pilgrimage to Lourdes, and experience a bit of challenge to where our own lives might need some healing and reconciliation.

SPIN ME ROUND

Alison Brie, Alessandro Nivola, Molly Shannon, Lil Rel Howery, Ben Sinclair, Zach Woods, Tim Heidecher, Debby Ryan, Aubrey Plaza, Fred Armisen, Ego Nowdim, Ayden Mayeri.

Directed by Jeff Baena.

Spin Me Around is what happens to the central character, Amber, played by Alison Brie. But it is also what happens to the audience itself.

It all starts rather nicely at a diner in Bakersfield, California, where Amber has been working as a manager for some years, working with Paul (Lil Rel Howery). Suddenly she wins a competition, several managers in the US invited to Italy, to the headquarters of the company running the diners. Naturally, she is excited, never having been outside the US before, arriving in Italy with some of the other managers and being taken past a mansion but then being put in a second-rate hotel, her view from her room the garbage bins!

Seven of the managers are women, fairly glamorous, except for Debs, played in caricature style by Molly Shannon. The other two are men. They are to participate in a course on cooking. And so it goes, but…

Amber is spun around when she encounters the chief of the company, Nick, Alessandra Nivola on his yacht, questioning her, making approaches, but leaving her in the hands of his manager played by Aubrey Plaza. We gradually realise, as does Amber, that the whole trip is a set up, affluent Italians with a kind of Dolce Vita lifestyle, especially changing sexual partners, for the American women to become part of this. The irony is that the two men who caused some problems had been thought of as women because of their names, Fran and Dana.

Some black comedy, but some moral issues for Amber, the attraction of being picked out and then discovering that some of the other girls, the experience of the unmasking, her decision to return home, even resisting a visit from Nick, making a very strong Me Too#choice, and standing up for herself.

The film was written and directed by Jeff Baena along with Alison Brie. Baena is married to Aubrey Plaza and his work with her in other films as he has with Alison Brie and Molly Shannon.

Not what we were expecting – but another perspective on contemporary society and moral choices.

1.     The title? The media of the title, Amber?

2.     The US, Bakersfield, California, the town, the restaurant? The contrast with Italy, the range of cities visited, names on screen, Pisa, Lucca, Pistoia…? The Italian countryside and drives, the mansions, the drab hotel, restaurants…? The musical score?

3.     The atmosphere of the Italian fairytale, Amber, her very ordinary life, the gift of the trip, travelling outside the US? The conversation with her friend, possibilities for romance? And nine years, her boyfriend taking her money, the collapse of her planned restaurant? Careful?

4.     The competition, the commercial with Nick, Italian style, cheap prices, his charm on the screen? The competition, the winners, going to Italy, the course, all-expenses-paid?

5.     Pisa, the airport, Craig and his meeting the group? The initial introductions? Amber, charm? Jen, Susie, American styles? Molly Shannon as Debs, losing her luggage, talking in the car, her behaviour, eccentric, married, on the lookout for something more, borrowing Amber’s clothes, her behaviour with the group, more and more eccentric? The two men? Their names? Driving past the mansion, but going to the hotel, the window looking out on the bins?

6.     Craig, leadership, the course, the chef coming in for two days, Fran and his wanting to show off his skills? Nick’s arrival, kissing the women, Amber on the lips, the men, Dana and his adulation? The presence of Cat, in the background, observing, Nick’s assistant?

7.     The poor programming of the course, the cooking demonstrations, showing Life is Beautiful, the inattention of the girls during the sessions? Craig and his behaviour?

8.     Cat, friendly with Amber, taking her out, the cover of the migraine, Craig colluding, on the yacht, with Nick, his probing questions, earnest responses, the romance and her response? Cat picking her up, the return? The later contriving to meet with Nick?

9.     The other women, unwell, time off? The two girls with the drugs?

10.  The invitation to the party, Taking Amber for the expensive dress fitting? Wearing it to the party, Rick, his wife, his son and his wife and her jealous tantrum? Nick, his charm, dancing? But Amber and her suspicions? Fleeing with cat, cat and her amorous advances, cheating the restaurant owner with the food?

11.  The invitation to the party, the tawdry atmosphere, Craig as MC, Nick and his presence, the presumption that Amber was willing to be part of this? Her leaving?

12.  Going suspicions, Debs and her behaviour, Dana joining with Amber to discover what was happening, the background of the wild pigs, the attack, his seemingly dead? Debs’ reaction?

13.  The expose of the party? The pigs and the attack, the police, the arrest in interrogations? Dana not dead?

14.  The shift in the film from the holiday, to the romance, to suspicions, to exploitation, black comedy, sexuality, expose?

15.  The group going home? Amber back to normal?

16.  Nick and his visit, the allure, the invitations, Amber and her stances, her decent stand against Nick? The American woman, asserting herself, the attempted seduction, the issues of sexual harassment, #MeToo, Amber and self-worth and integrity?

THE NEW BOY

Australia, 2023, 116 minutes, Colour.

Cate Blanchet, Aswan Reid, Deborah Mailman, Wayne Blair, Shane Brady, Tyrique Brady.

Directed by Warwick Thornton.

An intriguing film, colonial attitudes, First Nations people, religion and faith. As a realistic representation of Australian history, not so much. Writer-director, Warwick Thornton (Samson and Delilah, Sweet Country) references his own boyhood experience with the monks at Western Australia’s, New Norcia, the architecture of the convent, the agricultural background, winter, olives… As a probing of the impact of missionaries (especially Catholics and nuns), quite an allegory to be explored – the lives of the indigenous people, especially focusing on the new boy of the title (about 11 years old, never named though the orphan boys initially called him Darkie, a wonderful screen presence by Aswan Reid). No explanation of his origins except the opening where he throttles a policeman, is taken into custody, in a bag, dumped at the convent at night. There are two indigenous characters at the convent, Sister Mum, the benign cook, and George, the taciturn handyman, (played by veterans Deborah Mailman and Wayne Blair).

Ordinary audiences may be bewildered and/or put off by the focus on Jesus, prayer, piety and devotion and, above all, the large new crucifix, the excited arrival, elevated in the chapel and the nails hammered in. (The final long-held image of the film is the crucifix). But, for religious audiences, there is a fascination with how the new boy responds to the crucifix, identifying with Jesus, embracing, literally, the figure of Jesus, taking him down from the cross, tender towards him, removing the nails, the boy identifying with Jesus, even to wounded hands, becoming what we might call a Christ figure. Which highlights the challenge of the church and the Mission to the indigenous people and their embrace of Jesus in Christian practice and the meeting of Dreaming and lore and the Gospels.

This is embodied in Sister Eileen (and a worldwide audience wanting to see a Cate Blanchett film). Promotion refers to her as a “”renegade nun”. Not really, quite misleading. She is definitely eccentric, deeply committed in her way, sometimes mentally disturbed, sometimes drinking, devoutly prayerful, the crucifix. She exercises power over the small group of under-12 orphan boys, (with a World War II setting) but combines orders and discipline with kindness. And the boys respond. As does the new boy though he is often bewildered (sleeping under the bed, mystified by spoons for porridge, not speaking except a few of his own words, but, ultimately, his word is a repeated Amen. And, mysteriously, he has the power to create fire in his hand, a kind of numinous link. There is no priest, Sister Eileen taking over from Dom Peter, interpreting rules, performing baptisms, stole and chasuble, even the new boy, cleaning and dressing up, but the loss of his power of fire. She has set up her own church but relies on her piety. Cate Blanchet as usual, a tour de force presence. So, a 21^st-century perspective by a top filmmaker, provocative on colonial issues, on missionary issues, the consequences, but relying on traditions and art of Catholicism to evoke deeper social and spiritual responses.

1.     The title, the introduction to the boy, his age, attacking the policeman, throttling him? Taken into custody, in the bag, dumped at the convent door, aboriginal boy?

2.     The setting, Western Australia, the director’s own story at New Norcia, the background of the monks at New Norcia, schools, the sisters? The convent, the accommodation, the rooms, dining room, kitchen? The farm, olives, the wheat, the machinery? The field fires and putting them out? The authentic atmosphere? The Nick Cave-Warren Ellis score?

3.     The World War II setting, the West Australian countryside, the train, the passengers, the soldiers, talk about the war? The King’s final speech and peace?

4.     The credibility of the plot? The nuns, the death of Dom Peter, the isolation, the covering the death, running the school themselves? Possibilities of discovery? Sister Eileen writing the letters in Dom Peter’s name? To the state protector? Feigning the argument with Dom Peter to deliver the crucifix? The two sisters, isolated? The running of the school, personal lives, relationship with the boys? The acceptance of the new boy, his place in the school, then making exceptions for him?

5.     The story of the boy, age, his own language, rarely speaking, the mystery of the convent, the bed, sleeping under the bed? The mysterious fire in his hand? Indication of powers, traditional lore? The food, awkwardness with the spoon? Relationship with the other boys? Matthew punching him, the boys cheering, the new boy knocking down Matthew? The bond between them? The interactions with Sister Eileen? The happy interactions with Sister Mum? Interactions with George, George’s suspicions? In the chapel, the prayer, the arrival of the crucifix, the boy and his reaction to the crucifix, the nails, climbing the crucifix, hanging on to Jesus, the relationship with Jesus, taking out the nails, taking Jesus away, tending to him with the jam, injuring his own hands? Sister Eileen’s reaction? Jobs, the games, putting out the fires, the olives, the wheat? His riding on the wagon? Gradually adapting? Saying amen? Sister Eileen baptising him? Washing him, combing his hair, clothes? The game, the roller up the hill, George urging him to go? His future? And the loss of the fire in his hand?

6.     The portrait of Sister Eileen, her piety, prayer, the habit, the chapel, baptising Johnny, wearing the stole, baptism the priestly thing, farewelling Johnny? Johnny and his walking away with a suitcase? Her drinking? Her relationship with Sister Mum? Power, discipline, Michael is the head boy, the caning? Her reaction? The work, out in the fields? Her response to the new boy, caring for him, empathy, making him special, her reaction to him with the crucifix, putting the crucifix back, George hammering in the nails, her decision to baptise the boy? Wearing stole and chasuble? The change in the boy, the game, his leaving? Her future? The deception about Dom Peter, pretending that he was present, his death, signing the documents, for the police, the letters to the protector, the argument about the delivery of the crucifix? Her future?

7.     Sister Mum, kindly, cooking, her photo with the children, her vocation, with the boys, happy, prayer?

8.     George, aboriginal background, working for the sisters, handyman, the olive crop, the wheat, putting up the crucifix? Finally urging the new boy to run?

9.     The boys, their age, orphans, entrusted to the nuns, the background of the war, Johnny, 13, leaving, to work on the farm, the baptism, his suitcase and walking away? Michael in charge, bossy, the caning, the injuries during the fire, in the wheelchair? Matthew, big, the fight with the new boy, the reconciliation? The role of the other boys, in the chapel, the clothes, the work, the meals? Their reaction to the new boy?

10.  The background of the police, attitudes towards aboriginals, the rest of the boy, delivery at night? The threat of the police?

11.  The film as an allegory of colonial attitudes, missionary attitudes, the indigenous people? The effect?

12.  The spirituality themes, the focus on Jesus, the crucifix, the nuns prayer, the boys prayer, the new boy and his response to Jesus? Faith and spiritual themes?