Displaying items by tag: Peter Malone's Movie Reviews

GREEN BORDER/ ZIELONA GRANICA

Poland, 2023, 152 minutes, Black-and-white.

Jalal Altawill, Maja Ostaszewska, Behi Djanati Atai, Tomasz Wlokok.

Directed by Agnieszka Holland.

Here is a sombre and demanding film – demands which should be made on world audiences, considering the events dramatised here, from October 2021 to the epilogue, February 22, 2022, the day of the Russian invasion of Ukraine.

For a moment, before the opening credits, there is an aerial shot of green trees – but, then, 150 minutes of sombre black and white, images and issues in stark black and white. This film was co-written and directed by veteran Polish director, Agnieszka Holland, who has been making films for almost 50 years, in her native Poland in communist times, and moving into Western Europe and many films and contributions to television series in the United States. Agnieszka Holland clearly identifies with the issues raised here.

For almost 40 harrowing minutes, we initially share some hopes with a Syrian family, refugees for Sweden, flown into Belarus, but becoming political and military pawns on the Belarus/Polish border, maltreated by border police on each side, and tipped, literally, over the border and back, a reminder that brutal and inhumane guards were not limited to the Polish concentration  camps of World War II. We get to know the family well, parents, two children and a baby, an old grandfather, devout Muslim, a teacher. On the plane they meet a refugee from Afghanistan, an older woman, Leila, who joins them in their quest, victim of people smugglers, in their most unrelieved sufferings, a strong character with whom we can identify, especially in her subsequent fate.

The action then switches to the border guards, the political imperatives on both sides, government authorities not wanting the refugees, guards with a sense of duty but also the callously carefree attitude towards life, including their own. However, one guard, wife pregnant, witnesses what happens – and his conscience is stirred.

Then there is a chapter on the activists, earnest and committed men and women living near the border who are aware of what is going on, being forbidden to go into an “exclusive zone”, trying to rescue the refugees   or to secretly bring them some kind of comfort and healing. There is a focus on a psychiatrist who is moved by the situation, volunteers to help, finds herself as the target of the border guards.

While there is some hope, some humanity in key characters, the film is a reminder that in the 2020s, savage wars are still fought around the world, invasions, civil wars, starvation, the desperate need for peace.

And, as mentioned, the film ends at the Ukraine/Poland border, and the information that Poland had received 2 million refugees from Ukraine – and the sad reminder that the hostility towards refugees from Asia and Africa is still sometimes virulent.

1. A significant film about Europe in the early 2020s?
2. The title, the opening aerial shot, the green, then black-and-white, the sometimes starkness of the black and white? And the musical score?
3. The director, her Polish background, history, the history of Poland and Belarus, the communist era, post-communism, 21^st century, political alignments, refugees from Asia and Africa, harsh stances and behaviour? And the epilogue of the invasion of Ukraine by Russia?
4. The chapters, the focus on the family first, the contrast with the border guards, the further contrast with the activists, the focus on Julia and the connection of the stories?
5. The plane ride, the refugees from Syria, the boy, Leila and her glasses, his picking them up, changing seats, the window, in the cloud, his father, the grandfather translating? The mother and the baby, the little girl? The background, refugees, the plan, through Belarus to Sweden, the financial arrangements? The establishing of the characters and audience response?
6. Arrival in Belarus, the connection, the van, Leila coming with them, driving to the border, the oppressive driver, the demand for money, the previous payment, and being offloaded? The harsh experience in Belarus, the guards, operation, food and water, phones, batteries dying, trying to communicate? The response of each of the characters, the mother feeding the baby, lacking milk, the father and his desperation, the children and their needs? The old grandfather? Leila with them, her plea about Afghanistan? Their being tipped over into the Polish border, the barbed wire? The experience of the Polish guards, the repetition of the oppression, and then back into Belarus?
7. The guards, the politics, attitudes of the government, Europe and refugees, harsh Polish stances, Belarus exploitation and the European Union? The treatment, the camaraderie, the carelessness, the exclusive zone? Day and night? The guards together, drinking, talking? The focus on Jan, his pregnant wife, the lecture and the instructions of the commander, callous, concern about his wife, the visit, the scan? His wife at the supermarket and the scorn for the refugees? At home? The bond between husband and wife? Jan, that the challenge to his consciousness, conscience, later the van, letting it through? And his returning home?
8. The activists, the leader, her sister, the men and women, living near the border, their concern about the refugees, the exclusive zone, the vehicles, interactions, the pinning of the locations, and to help, medication, food, the Syrian family? Leila, crossing the border, with the little boy, their trek, the call to them, in the night, in the quicksand, the boy dying, Leila rescued, the hospital, her talking to the camera, begging forgiveness? Her later treatment, hospital, the documentation, plea for refuge?
9. Julia, at home, therapy by Zoom, her husband dead from Covid, the encounter with the activists, her being moved, letting them come to her house, erratic sister, the leader, the man, the young couple, going out on expeditions, eluding the police, the driving, going to the zone, encountering the suffering people, the Moroccan man, his phone call, the soup, their leaving him, the rules, survival? Julia’s return, his absence? The decision always to go to those in need, young African men, her helping them, her arrest, the treatment in prison, her lawyer, coming out, the activists moving out, the erratic sister staying? The graffiti on the car, her asking her friend to lend her car, the discussion and her refusal? The driver with the towaway, the concealing of the refugees, the going to the house of Julia’s client, speaking French, the cheerful young men, the family meal, listening to music and singing? Signs of hope?
10. The situation in 2021, the narrative, the docudrama, the harrowing emotions, compassion, desperation?
11. The epilogue, the railway station, the 2 million refugees in Ukraine, Jan at the station, Polish compassion, yet the final information about the prejudice against the African and Asian refugees, and the conflict remaining on the Belarus Polish border?

THE HARDER THEY FALL

US, 2021, 139 minutes, Colour.

Jonathan Majors, Idris Elba, Regina King, LaKeith Stanfield, Zazie Beeta, Delroy Lindo, Dion Cole, Michael Beach, R.J. Cyler, Edi Gatghegi, DeWanda Wise, Damon Wayans Jr, Danielle Deadwyler,

Directed by Jeymes Samuel.

The strong Western, using the various conventions of the American West, outlaws, violence, rivalries and politics. What makes it more significance is that it is a film which focuses on African-American characters in the West, very few white characters to be seen. And, as been written Jeymes Samuel, a British writer, producer, director, but also a songwriter and musician. And music featuring significantly throughout this film.

There is a very strong opening, in version of a home, parents and their child, the death of the parents, the leader of the troop, the carving the boy’s forehead – and moving 20 years forward.

The star of the film is Jonathan Majors as the boy growing up, leader of his own group, involved in robberies, but also a journey of vengeance, and his relationships with various members of his group.

The other central character of the film is Idris Elba as the gunfighter who carved the boy, was freed from prison, involved in money dealings, taking over a town, ousting the Mayor, and his followers. And, at the end, quite a revelation about the relationship of the two men.

There is a very strong cast indeed, a range of key actors, African-Americans. There are significant male actors like Delroy Lindo, LaKeith Stanfield, Damon Wayans Jr. But, it is even stronger, the African-American women, Regina King, Danielle Deadwyler, Zazie Beetz.

With seeing as a western, is a picture of the characters in the white American West, playing on the conventions, heroes and villains, and ambiguities of characters and behaviour.

1. The title, in the context of the West?
2. The settings, the western locations, action?
3. The cast, African-American cast? Africans Americans in the 19^th century West?
4. Nat Love story, as a child, parents, the attack, their deaths, the carving on his forehead, the passing of 20 years, his new life, associates, killing Cortez? The robbery? The news about Rufus block? Nat and his relationship with Mary Field?
5. The portrait of the supporting characters, in themselves, their Association with Nat Love, with Rufus Buck? Loyalties, betrayals, shootouts?
6. Rufus Buck, at the opening, 20 years later, prison, pardon, the stolen money, his relationship with Trudy Smith, Cherokee Bill, the escape from the train? Killing the corrupt guards?
7. Redwood City, wily escape, the mayor, buck whipping him? Escape and the money?
8. Marshall Reeves, the arrest, capturing Love, the issues of revenge? The relationship with Cuffee? Mary, the proposal, the refusal? The buying of the saloon?
9. The action, the to-ing and fro-ing, between Nat story, Rufus Buck’s story, the deals, the love for Cuffee?
10. The wagon, the friends and betrayals, the money, the shootouts? Tesco’s death?
11. The confrontation between the women, their fighting?
12. Rufus Buck, with Love, the revelation about their father, his abuse, their being half-brothers, the shooting of the revenge? That killing Buck?
13. The end, Marshall Reeves, in control, Cuffee in support? The grave? The death of Buck, the freedom for Nat Love?

THE CAINE MUTINY COURT MARTIAL

US, 2023, 108 minutes, Colour.

Kiefer Sutherland, Jason Clarke, Jake Lacey, Monica Raymund, Lewis Pullman, Jay Duplass, Tom Riley, Lance Reddick, François Baptiste, Gabe Kessler.

Directed by William Friedkin.

In 1954, audiences worldwide were very impressed by Edward Dmytryk’s film adaptation of Herman Wouk’s celebrated novel, The Caine Mutiny. With a very strong cast including José Ferrer, Van Johnson, Fred MacMurray, the attention was on Humphrey Bogart as Captain Queeg, not the usual kind of character that he played. He was the captain of the ship, his subordinates accused of mutiny against him, the revelation of his character, his fixations, his nervousness…

In 1988, Robert Altman made a television version of the play based on the novel, The Caine Mutiny Court-Martial.

2023 saw a new version of the play, filmed for television, and, in fact, the last film by celebrated director William Friedkin (The Exorcist, Oscar for The French Connection). He directed the film in his late 70s.

Time and location for this story has been updated to the 2020s, specific dates, a situation of mines in the Persian Gulf. And there is all the contemporary technology to draw on. And, another change, the prosecutor has been changed from male to female, now played by Monica Raymund.

There is a very interesting male cast, Jason Clarke at his best as the defender, Jake Lacey in a much more serious role than usual as the officer accused of mutiny, Lewis Pullman as the sinister presence.

The film is dedicated to veteran actor, Lance Reddick, who appears as the presiding judge, a strong role, his last film role.

Where this version differs is that Captain Queeg is not presented initially so strongly neurotic as in the other versions. Here he is played by Kiefer Sutherland, defending himself, speaking forthrightly, the touch of the trembling hands. However, he is later called as a witness for the defence, the defence badgering him, and all his neuroses revealed – especially in the context of the testimony of eccentric behaviour explained by the main witnesses for the defence.

While Captain Queeg is condemned, the defence lawyer gives a speech honouring his service to the country over so many decades, the lawyer drinking, going to a celebratory party, and denouncing the sailor, the novelist, who, insinuating, brought on the fall of Queeg. And the film stops.

It is over to the audience, to relive their experience of the trial, the various testimonies, contradictions, denials, personal motivations, integrity… and make their own assessments and judgments.

1. The long popularity of the novel and the film? The stage play the court-martial, Robert Altman’s version? William Friedkin’s version? The updating to the 2020s and contemporary technology?
2. The film based on a play, the emphasis on dialogue, interactions? The audience imagining the episodes talked about? The end, leaving the courtroom, in the street? At the party? The musical score?
3. The episode, the relieving of Captain Queeg of his office, the situation with the mines, Maryk taking responsibility? The episode seen as mutiny?
4. The introduction to Maryk, age and experience, discussions with Barney Greenwald, his appointment a few days before, accepting him as defence?
5. The proceedings of the court, the presiding judge, his focus of attention, decisions about objections, his interrogating the witnesses, the decision about reprimanding Greenwald or not? The other members of the bench attentive?
6. Greenwald, his background, his tactics, his interviewing the range of witnesses, turning Queeg into the equivalent of the accused, little interrogation of him, awaiting his return? The eliciting of information, description of the episodes about Queeg? The cumulative effect?
7. Challee, the prosecutor, a woman in this version, the attitudes, his determination, the questioning of witnesses, the defensive Queeg, her objections, not always sustained? The cumulative effect, her final speech and criticisms of Greenwald?
8. Queeg, his presence, the impact, issues of his mental stability, his answers to questions, his explanation of the situation? Maryk listening to him, looking at him?
9. Keith, his friendship with Maryk, his explanation of the range of stories about Queeg? Greenwald drawing him out? The contrast with Keefer, the novelist, advising Maryk, friendship with Maryk, the decision to go to the higher authorities, backing out?
10. The young sailor, 20 years old, awkward, not familiar with court proceedings, his testimony?
11. The witnesses for mental health, the psychologist, the defensive Queeg and his abilities? The intricacies of the cross examination? The doctor, limited experience in his work, of the Navy, his defensiveness?
12. Maryk and his testimony, the prosecutor hostile, indicating his limitations of education and comprehension? Greenwald, drawing out the stories, Queeg’s strange behaviour, the stories, the key, the searching of the personnel naked, his testing out all the keys, the bucket of keys? The story of the banning of films? The banning of water because of one man having a shower? The persecution of the men? Maryk and keeping his log, quoting from it, Keefer’s advice?
13. Queeg going on the stand, booking, the denials, issues of memory, his nervousness, twiddling his thumbs, the balls in his pocket, Greenwald and his further interrogations, the tangle of the stories, the cheese, the strawberries, his further entangling himself, his beginning to rant, self-justification, his condemnation of the men, their lack of discipline, order, his extremism, shirt hanging out…? Greenwald getting him to read out his positive testimony about Maryk?
14. The final effect of Queeg testimony? The prosecutor and her business? Greenwald and his final comments? Talking with Maryk, saying he had murdered Queeg? Doing his duty as a defence lawyer?
15. Discussions of mental health, sanity and insanity, signs and symptoms, control, paranoia, self-esteem, self-justification? Perfectionism?
16. The aftermath, the issue of the party, whether Greenwald would go or not, his drinking, arrival, his harsh words, the confrontation with Keefer, exposing him as the power behind the throne, Keefer wanting to get Queeg, writing the novel, the money? And throwing the drink and his face?
17. The finale, the sudden stop, leaving the audience to assess what they had seen, the defensive Queeg and his long service, yet his failure in command? The role of Maryk, respect and disrespect? Experience? And the malice of Keefer?

THE HEIST BEFORE CHRISTMAS

UK/Northern Ireland, 2023, 80 mintues, Colour.

Timothy Spall, James Nesbitt, Bamber Todd, Laura Donnelly, Joshua McLees.

Directed by Edward Hall.

Here is a slight and different Christmas film from Northern Ireland. And, it is not necessarily a charming Christmas story.

It opens with a bank robbery by a robber disguised as Santa Claus (James Nesbitt). The focus is on the town, especially young boy, Mikey (Bamber Todd) defying the headmaster, all kinds of mischief, all kinds of bitterness, at home with his single mother and his younger brother, she hard at work to make ends meet.

Mikey realises what has happened, goes in pursuit of the false Santa, discovers an old Santa  lyng in the snow, mistaking him for the robber, this Santa being Charlie, a kind old man who imagines himself as Santa Claus and lives in local institution. And is played by Timothy Spall in Norwegian-accented English.

And so, the film moves along, what will Mikey do, can he possibly change, be sympathetic? What about Charlie and his being out there in the snow? And what about the robber, and his tactics to avoid capture?

So, more than a touch of the offbeat, not exactly the nice family Christmas film expected.

1. The title, Christmas entertainment? Different?
2. From Northern Ireland, the town, homes, shops, banks, the countryside? Carols and the score?
3. The edge in Mikey’s behaviour and the possibility of his changing. Different Christmas film? The bank robbery? The bank robber, disguised as centre? Charlie and his dementia and thinking he was centre? The atmosphere in the town, Christmas celebrations, he and his family?
4. The picture of the town, homes, shops, offices, the bank, the streets and celebrations, the countryside, the forest, the snow? The car chases and other vehicles? The musical score, Joy to the world?
5. The focus on Mikey, his age, his attitudes, causing mischief at school, the reaction of the headmaster, his surliness, defiance, seeing the bank robber and the pursuit, his curiosity, pursuit? At home, his attitude towards his mother, to his brother? Audience response to him?
6. The exasperated mother, at home, with the children, Mikey and his attitudes, her eventually slapping him, her upset afterwards? With Joshua, his age, difficulties, the hopes for Christmas, the bike? The poor situation? The mother at work, the boss, her being late, his attitude, her friend? With the customers, the raffle tickets? Joshua wanting the bite? Her changing the bucket of tickets? Not winning the bike, going into the office, discovering the truth, confronting the owner?
7. The robber, disguised as centre, the chase to the town, his escape, in the forest? Mikey and his pursuit? Discovering Charlie, the Norwegian accent, talking as if he were centre, dressed as centre, Rudolph’s return…? Mikey returning with the soup, the bank robber, the confrontations, the gun?
8. The adventures in the forest, Mikey wanting the money, escaping with Joshua, the continued pursuit? The vehicles? Mikey’s promise? The bag, the money? The slapstick comedy, all the accidents, the fights?
9. Back into town, the identity of Charlie, the police, the officer and his laughing at his own jokes, the more sympathetic police officer? Shooting centre? Hospital?
10. The pursuits, the climbing, the mother attacking the robber, her fall, the mayhem? Hospital?
11. The target audience for this kind of Christmas film? Children? Family? Adults?

THE DEAD DON'T HURT

US, 2024, 129 minutes, Colour.

Vicki Krieps, Viggo Mortensen, Solly McLeod, Garrett Delahunt,.W. Earl Brown, Danny Huston, Shane Graham, Rafel Plana, Atlas Green, Ray McKinnon.

Directed by Viggo Mortensen.

Now veteran actor, Viggo Mortensen, became a household name when he appeared in the Lord of the Rings trilogy as Aragorn. Mortensen is not only an actor, he is a writer, musician, composer, and has brought all these talents to directing The Dead Don’t Hurt.

In fact, the setting is in the West during the American Civil War. However, the action takes place on the Nevada border and the war itself seems distant. Which means that the film is set in the West, its saloon, gamblers, sheriff, shootouts, but the story is told in such a way that it could take place at any time.

The film opens, significantly because of his title, with a death. There is also a violent shootout in the streets, a court case, a lynching execution. But we have to pay attention because the film moves both forward and with flashbacks, important for the audience to gauge which is which to appreciate the characters and the dramatic development. Sometimes this is something of a challenge.

But, in the flashbacks, we are introduced to Olson, Scandinavian background, arriving in a port, eager to make his way in America. But, the audience has also had a long introduction to a young girl, Vivienne, French background, her father executed by the British, a forthright young girl with an imagination (including a Knight in armour coming to visit her, a scene with which the film opens and will recur). Olson and Vivienne hit it off immediately, some comeuppance to an arrogant young suitor in the town, and they travel to the Nevada border, setting up house, Olson a capable builder, working for some of the money men, profits from gambling, in the local town.

Vivienne is played by Vicki Krieps, the core of the drama and our emotional response.

Audiences need to keep checking on the timespan. After a while, there is a visit and plea from a recruiting agent for serving in the war, Olson, despite Vivienne’s protests, volunteering to go, absent for many years, some letters getting through, some not.

At the dramatic centre of the film is Vivienne’s coping during Olson’s absence, the working in the local bar, hired by the moneyed man, but aggravated by his irresponsible sociopathic son. There are dire consequences for everyone concerned and, gradually, the storytelling arrives back at the violence in the streets, and at the death and dying scene we first saw.

As expected, ultimately, this is also an avenging Western.

The film is intriguing, playing with the audience’s appreciation of characters and story, the interplay and tension between the past and the present – and, with the death, the irony of the title and its implication that The Living Do Hurt.

1. The title? Evocative? The opening, Vivienne and her death, the flashbacks, her life and death?
2. A variation on Western themes? The era of the Civil War? The Nevada border? Migrants, experiences of war, our, mining, gambling, our in the West?
3. The location photography, the beauty, the desert, rivers, ports? The musical score?
4. Setting of mood with the opening, the Knight in armour, in Vivienne’s dream, his reappearing during the film, echoes of Joan of Arc, his appearing, reassuring, at her death? Focus on Vivienne’s face, Olsen and his grief?
5. The violent episode in the town, at Weston Jeffries, cold, calculating, arrogant, the shootings, the death of Billy? The response of the Mayor, going to the grave, Olsen burying his wife, Vincent present, the story of the violence in the town?
6. Court case, the victim for the killings, the religious righteousness of he judge, the woman in the court defiant, guilty verdict, the hanging? Olsen observing and leaving?
7. Olsen and Vincent leaving, riding through the countryside?
8. Audiences adjusting to the time sequence, the bulk of the film being flashback, the story of Vivienne, French, her parents, the war, her father hanged? In the Port, the relationship with the wealthy man, his treatment of her in the restaurant, her defiance, her attraction to Olsen, talking, going off with him, taking him to the house, the art gallery? Forming a bond?
9. Olsen in the town, his background, war? Travelling with Vivienne, the land, setting up, his building talent, working on the other barns? Vivienne upset at first, the flowers and trees, their life together? Her going to work in the bar, the older Jeffries and his power, the discussions with the mayor, the financial deals, the gambling, the adjacent houses, prostitution? The manager of the bar, some integrity? Weston Jeffries in the bar, his arrogance? The violent episode with Weston Jeffries and the piano player, the song, the brutality, commanding him to play? Vivienne and later support of the pianist, his family, the daughter, learning French?
10. Olsen, the Civil War, the recruiter in the bar, his deciding to join the Army, Vivienne and her upset, his leaving? Away for so many years, the letters, some received, some not?
11. Vivienne, managing, the house, her independence, at the bar? Weston Jeffries following her, her cat in cutting, the violent rape, the aftermath, in the bar?
12. Her pregnancy, giving birth, the child, the years passing, the bond between mother and son? Life in the town? Olsen and his eventual return, the important sequence revealing the child, Vivienne quietly spoken, Olsen and his response, leaving, in the river, swimming? His anger at Jeffries?
13. The boy, his manner, with Olsen, the acceptance, the building and Olsen showing his son how to hammer? The possible good life?
14. The request for Olsen to become sheriff, the discussion with the Mayor, his office? Billy and his delivering the letters, his becoming the assistant? But the audience knowing from the beginning what was to happen?
15. Vivienne, illness, syphilis, from Weston Jeffries, the dangers, her death and her vision? The burial?
16. Olsen and Vincent, riding, the encounter with Weston Jeffries, the guns, the confrontation, Olsen throwing the knife, overcoming him?
17. The story continuing, Olsen and Vincent arriving at the ocean, contemplating the ocean? Sadness, regrets, hopes?

SHAKESPEARE BEHIND BARS

US, 2005, 93 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Hank Rogerson.

This is a documentary well worth seeing. It focuses on prisoners, education, a contribution to rehabilitation, a variation on restorative justice.

In the website of the program, giving the background to this prison work:

Founded in 1995, Shakespeare Behind Bars is one of the longest running, continuously operating, art, theatre, Shakespeare, and original writing prison programs in the US.

Shakespeare Behind Bars currently serves 200 incarcerated adults and juveniles in in twelve SBB programs in three Kentucky adult prisons – Luther Luckett Correctional Complex, Northpoint Training Center, & Southeast State Correctional Complex (virtual program); five Kentucky juvenile detention centers – Breathitt County Juvenile Detention Center Alternative School; Fayette Regional Juvenile Detention Center, Frenchburg Youth Home; Jackson County Youth Center; Warren County Regional Juvenile Detention Center; one Illinois juvenile detention center – Illinois Youth Center – Chicago; two virtual program for returned citizens – Shax BEYOND Bars and Shax BEYOND Bars Writer’s Circle; and one touring returned citizen memoire program – Othello’s Tribunal.

Additionally, Philomath Films and Shakespeare Behind Bars are filming a second documentary – Shakespeare BEYOND Bars.

Since 1995, Shakespeare Behind Bars has offered theatrical encounters with personal and social issues to incarcerated, post-incarcerated, and at-risk communities, allowing them to develop life skills that will ensure their successful integration into society. The youth and adults we serve experience a powerful personal transformation as a result, building life skills, emotional intelligence and coping strategies essential to successfully re-integrate into society.

In this film, the prisoners are auditioning for, training for, rehearsing, performing Shakespeare’s The Tempest. They have a performing space, a director coming from outside who has experience in working with prisoners, a talent for drama, for training in rehearsing, for affirming the performances.

In the meantime, and throughout the film, there are quite a number of scenes of the prison, its environment, the landscapes outside, the buildings inside, the vast spaces.

Quite a number of the prisoners are interested in performance, learn their lines, are coached in recitation, a strong emphasis on individual words and their meaning as well as the rhythms, extensive scenes from The Tempest.

And, the prisoners themselves. Most present themselves initially as friendly. The Dir is able to draw from them their own stories, the crimes, their sentences, possibilities for parole or not. And there are their regrets. So many of the crimes are physical violence against women. In performing and in giving interviews, there are some opportunities for the prisoners to acknowledge the truth about themselves and the consequences of their actions.

The audience gets to know some of the performers very well as well as commentary by the director.

The film offers an opportunity for the wider audience to understand something of this kind of prison rehabilitation and education, an opportunity to listen to the stories of the prisoners, to appreciate the impact of the long sentences and the desire for parole, and all in the context Shakespeare’s characters, his final play, and the social issues that the play brings up, the character of Prospero, Miranda, the rivalries, the politics, Caliban, Ariel and the touch of the supernatural.

CODE OF THE FREAKS

US, 2020, 68 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Salome Chasnoff.

This is a documentary well worth seeing raising quite a number of questions. As the title indicates, it is a focus on the portrayals of, broadly speaking, disabled persons in feature films over the decades.

It takes its opening from the 1935 Todd Browning film, Freaks, with some lengthy clips from the film, making visual impact on the documentary’s audience. In fact, throughout the film, though brief running time, there is an abundance of clips from a wide variety of feature films, but especially from English-language films. Fortunately, the title of each film appears in the top left-hand corner so that audiences can identify the films, and identify whether they have seen the films or not.

Significantly, there are a number of experts speaking to camera. There is also a wide variety, more women than men commenting, many of the commentators disabled; especially strong is a dwarf woman who engages the audience to listen to her points of view, with touches of humour. There is also the British actor, Matt Fraser (who appeared in such series as The Sister Boniface Mysteries). There are quite a number of other commentators, especially film critics, strong points of view vigorously put forward.

Some of the issues raised for audience consideration include performances by actors as physically and mentally disabled, strong attention given to Daniel Day Lewis in My Left Foot, Dustin Hoffman in Rain Man, Eddie Redmayne as Stephen Hawkings. (And, at the end, there is a collage of Oscar awards to actors portraying the disabled, with extensive than we might have anticipated.)

One of the issues raised is the disabled, sexuality, visual portrayals, reticence, challenging the audiences to think of disabled and their humanity, even with limitations from their disabilities.

Also considered at some length is the issue of cure, hope for cure, and how realistic this is/ and not.

And another consideration is that of the inspiration afforded by the struggle of the disabled, the contribution by their carers and mentors, a focus on such films as The Miracle Worker and the story of Helen Keller.

Audiences will not agree with every statement put forward by the commentators which, as has been mentioned, they put forward with great vigour and intensity.

The film would have been highly enhanced had there been interviews with dwarf actor, Warwick Davis, and, most especially, an actor who has achieved extraordinarily over two decades in all kinds of roles, a discussion with Peter Dinklage.

KILL

India, 2023, 105 minutes, Colour.

Lakshaya, Raghav Juyal.

Directed by Nikhil Nagesh Bhat.

A 2020s Indian action thriller which was very successful at the box office and the rights sold for an American remake.

Audiences interested in Indian Cinema but not having an extensive background, perhaps limited to Bollywood style dramas, romances and musicals, the more serious dramas Bangor watch and I, this is an example of the popularity of aggressive action dramas, fighting heroics, violence, some brutality, an increasing intensity moving towards going over the top. And, it has an accessible 105 minutes running time rather than the more lengthy running times of Indian films.

Basically, this is the story of a train journey, a wedding party on the train, the background of the hero and his attraction to a woman who has been pressed into a forced and arranged marriage. He is military trained, as a military friend on the train.

The screenplay also focuses on a young man, scouting for the train, in contact with his father, looking patriarchal but a fierce leader as it turns out, violent, who has a huge team of bandits who eventually attack and board the train.

There are scenes of the robbing of the passengers. There is the closing of each carriage of the train, especially the trapping of the bridal party. The motivation of the bandits his fears, the leader is often angry with his moody and aggressive son, the son actually killing the bride halfway through the film, and the tension then building up, the hero out to avenge the death, to rescue the bright sister, no holds barred.

The fights are deliberately choreographed, given the confines of the compartments and corridors on the train, but with some action on the roof, and one held out from the carriage. And the weapons are physical, knives and sharp equipment rather than guns.

The cumulative effect of the experience is quite bloody, calculated for eager fans. With the audience can identify with the hero, especially working with his friend who is often wounded and becomes the target of the bandits, the villain is completely unlikable (even to his father eventually).

Indian action filmmaking.

MEMORY

US, 2024, 103 minutes, Colour.

Jessica Chastain, Peter Sarsgaard, Merritt Weaver, Brooke Timber, Josh Charles, Jessica Harper.

Directed by Michel Franco.

Memory is a powerful human gift, the past to be re-lived. Some great happiness, some regrets and sadness. But, memories are elusive. They come. They go. They fade. And they can become entangled.

Here is a strong human drama where memory and loss of memory play an important role. We are first introduced to Sylvia, the always reliable Jessica Chastain, some extreme close-ups of members of an AA group giving their testimony, and praising Sylvia for 13 years of being clean, sober.

Sylvia is a single mother, her teenage daughter, living at home, and Sylvia working at a centre for the disabled. She has a bond with her younger sister. But she has a loathing and hatred for her mother. One night, she is rather unwillingly present at a high school reunion and a man comes and sits next to her, saying nothing. She leaves. He follows. He camps outside her house for the night.

In fact, he is Saul, Peter Starsky and winning best actor award for this performance and the 2024 Venice film Festival. He suffers from incipient dementia which is gradually taking over.

While the film shows us the growing rapport between Sylvia and Saul, not always easy, we discover more about their memories and his loss of memory. Saul is cared for by his strict and protective brother, Isaac (Josh Charles), who realises that Saul can depend on Sylvia and employs her as Saul’s carer. A positive part of the good bonding with Saul is Sylvia’s daughter and her support of him, a friendship.

But, Sylvia had remembered something about Saul, an assault in high school days, which proves to be a false memory, timing not correct. We see Sylvia going back into her memories, especially of her relationship with her father, and the animosity towards her mother (Jessica Harper) who is wanting to bond with her granddaughter  still clashing with Sylvia.

There is some intensity in this exploration of memories, of false memories, often covering memories, and characters who are unwilling to remember or suppress memories.

But, in exploring human nature, Mexican writer-director, Michel Franco, offers and option for hope, for good relationships, and for some healing of memories even if, for Saul, they continue to recede.

1. The title, not appearing until the end? The role of memory, loss of memory, opening up of memories, false memories?
2. New York settings, neighbourhoods, streets, homes, interiors, meeting places, shelters, subway stations? The musical score? The repetition of A Whiter Shade of Pale? Its significance for Saul? Listening to it over and over? The final credits?
3. The introduction setting the tone, the extreme close-ups of the members of the AA group, their testimonies, the revelations, problems?
4. The focus on Sylvia, 13 years, the sponsor, the congratulations? Sylvia at work, the shelter, the various characters, chatting, serving the food? Her home life, her daughter, Anna, at the meeting, supporting her mother? Their going to school together? Scenes at home? Sylvia, absent husband and father, her hatred of her mother, the reasons? Protective of her daughter?
5. Olivia, younger sister, memories of the past, support, tensions between them, Olivia’s family, the visit, the children asking very direct questions, the reaction of their father, issues of addiction, of sexual abuse, his closing the conversation? Olivia support of Sylvia at work?
6. The college reunion, the celebrations, Sylvia deciding to leave, Saul sitting next to her, his following her, the streets, subway, the train, outside her house, in the rain? Her coming out in the morning, his identity, the phone calls, being collected?
7. Saul, age, personality, dementia, under the care of Isaac, Isaac’s daughter, the decision to ask Sylvia to care for him? Her agreeing? The offer of the money?
8. The film exploring the growing relationship between Saul and Sylvia, at his home, the care, the conversations, the walk in the park, her accusing him of abuse, the later information about dates and her false accusation, her wrong memories? Taking his identity card, returning it, his being abandoned?
9. The details of the friendship, the talking, the reality of the dementia, his taking notes, the outings, the restaurant and his remembering the food but not the staff, his brother blocking his credit card? At home with Anna, playing the games? The bonding?
10. Isaac, his disapproval, angers, stopping the credit card? Firing Sylvia, the new Guardian?
11. Saul and his defiance, his going home with Sylvia, their meeting at the shelter, going outside, the bench, the kissing? Staying at home in Anna’s room, his collapsing in the bathroom, the sexual encounters? The consequences?
12. Sylvia’s mother, living in Florida, her social charity work, wealth, coming to New York, the encounter with Anna, talking, with Olivia and the family? Sylvia arriving, confronting her mother, expressing her hatred? The tangling of the memories, Sylvia and the relationship with her father, in the room watching television, Olivia reticent, the accusations against their mother, her knowing what was happening?
13. The effect of the meeting with her mother on Sylvia, Olivia coming to see her, the untangling of the past memories, their father?
14. Anna visiting the house, the new Guardian, taking Saul in the train, bringing home, the reuniting with Sylvia? A future?
15. The exploration of sexual abuse and the consequences, memories, hidden and overt, erroneous? Consequences? Parental control and loss of control? Issues of addiction? The final visit to the AA meeting and the declaration of the prayer? Mental illness and conditions? Support, empathy, a future?

THE MERRY GENTLEMEN

US, 2024, 87 minutes, Colour.

Britt Robertson, Chad Michael Murray, Marla Sokolof, Marc Anthony Samuel, Colt Prattes, Hector David Jr, Maxwell Caulfield, Michael Gross, Beth Broderick.

Directed by Peter Sullivan.

Another Christmas film, the putting on a show, the show must go on.

However, the show the goes on is a male dancing revue in a small American town (God bless you, Merry Gentleman!). And, for Christmas reassurance, while the innuendo is obviously there as well as the shirtless male dancers, this is very much a PG version of Magic Mike or the Chippendales.

The initial focus is on Ashley (Britt Robertson) very happy in fulfilling her childhood dreams as part of the chorus as the Jingle Belles on Broadway. She slips, is to be replaced, returns home to her parents and their small club which used to be famous in the past but is r now in trouble,unning at a loss.

The situations are obviously contrived but audiences will probably go along with all of this. She encounters Luke, Chad Michael Murray, big and strong, doing repairs, their sparking badly off each other (initially, of course). And then there is the businesswoman who threatens them with closure until they pay $30,000. Ashley’s sister, Marie (Marla Sokolof who co-wrote the screenplay), a restaurant, her partner – and, eventually, another worker and a local taxi driver will join the troupe.

A few hiccups in the preparation but the men respond extraordinarily quickly to the choreography, the gyrations, the removal of shirts (and nothing more than shirts).

Needless to say but saying it, Ashley and Luke hit it off, the act is a success, there is a moment of injury but the local old man, played by Maxwell Caulfield (remembering Grease 2) who sits at the club doing crosswords, is able to join in and the show goes on, more and more customers, more and more income, the financial adviser joining in the exuberance, money paid.

But there is one hitch, the phone call for Ashley to come back to Broadway because the ingenue cannot deal with the pressure, Ashley’s packing to go, her father urging her on, her life’s ambitions, Luke and the others upset, his being unable to perform well – the plane delayed, Ashley returning and… We know the rest.