Displaying items by tag: Peter Malone's Movie Reviews

CHRISTMAS AT MILLER'S POINT

US, 2024, 104 minutes, Colour.

Matilda Fleming, Maria Dizzia, Ben Shankman, Francesca Scorsese, Michael Cera, Greg Turkington, Sawyer Spielberg.

Directed by Tyler Taormina.

Very American. Very, very American. Christmas Eve at a Long Island town, winter, snow, American Christmas traditions.

This is very much a film for American audiences, audiences from other countries and cultures observing, not necessarily identifying. In fact, many American audiences have not responded well to the film, uninteresting, boring… (And, if this is the case for some Americans, it is probably true for non-American audiences.)

This is the response to the film as a fiction. Had it been presented as a documentary, the approach of the audience might have been much different, observing, comparing, checking out American characters, communications, manners. There would have been a reason for looking at the film. It should be said that a number of reviewers commented very favourably on the film. Bloggers did not.

The film certainly sets the atmosphere of Christmas Eve on Long Island and the town. The focus is on the extended family gathering for celebration, the meetings, delineation of characters, conversations, some themes taken up and then lost in the crowd. There are the different generations as well. There are discussions, drinks, the elaborate meal in conversations, the beginnings of a discussion about aged care for the grandmother but then other conversations supersede. The adults are generally at home, sometimes venturing out into the evening of the snow.

The very young generation stays with the family. The teenage, younger teenagers, go out into the town, meet up with locals, conversations, some teenage daring, and then some pairing up in the cars.

While this is presented as typical Americana, films in other parts of the US, in different cultures, Hispanic or African-American, the states in the South…, There would be a lot of differences.

Throughout the film there are two policeman, generally silent, looking like caricatures, sitting in their police car, observing, played by Michael Cera (who produced the film) and Greg Turkington, seemingly from another film. And, unexpectedly, there is the conversation about mutual attraction, the implications for their relationship. Definitely for another film!

So, for non-American audiences, something of a curiosity item.

A GOOD MAN

France/Belgium, 2020, 107 minutes, Colour.

Noemie Merlant, Soko, Vincent Dedienne, Anne Loiret.

Directed by Marie-Castille Mention-Schaar.

For audiences seeing the film without any pre-knowledge there will be some surprises, even shocks, challenges. The title itself has some ambiguities.

The audience is introduced to Ben, working with a partner, visiting the sick, helping in the hospital. He is young, seen diving and swimming, athletic and energetic. He has been in partnership with his girlfriend, Aude, for six years, moving from the city of Aix to a small island off the coast. An ordinary enough scenario.

In an extended flashback, the audience is introduced to Aude, a dancer, encountering a sullen young woman at the dance, Sarah. Sarah declares she is not lesbian. The two women bond. And then the realisation that Ben is transgender, in the process of transition. This is a tour de force performance from Noemie Merlant, Portrait of a Lady on Fire, Tar, sullen and depressed Sarah, for obsessed as Ben.

The key issue of the film is the desire on the part of Ben and Aude to have a family. Aude is unable to have children, there have been several attempts and miscarriages. The decision for Ben, still capable of conception, is to carry and give birth to the child. Visits to gynaecologists, legal issues, a document declaring Ben as male and the mother/parent of the child. And the sadness for Aude, legally she has to adopt the child. At first, she is very happy, a pleasing scene where she shops for toys for the baby. But, discussions with a fellow dancer, feeling sidelined, she leaves.

There are significant scenes throughout the film on the issue of a man and pregnancy, discussions with his brother, alienation from his mother, Ben in hospital after an accident, she visits and there is some kind of communication. Then there is the disbelieving clash with the co-worker who feels betrayed in learning who Ben really is.

There is a birth scene, very moving in its way, and Ben holding the new born child,.

There is an understated ending, a long take of a large group of parents and children playing on a Park hillside and, gradually, Ben and Aude and the baby walking past the camera, leaving audiences to put together the issues and the emotions.

Many favourable reviews of the film but quite strident attack on a transgender site. The screenplay does not explain a lot of detail – relying very much on audience response to the characters, the situations, and testing out their own understandings and emotions.

1. The title? The levels of meaning as regards Ben, his life, career, relationships?
2. The French island setting, the small town, homes, visiting the sick, doctor’s rooms, hospital? The scenes in Aix and the parties? The outdoors, the coast, the beach? The musical score?
3. The transgender theme, not introduced immediately, establishing Ben as a man, at work, with Aude? Audience realisation, adapting to this understanding? The response throughout the film, those appreciating Ben, his close workmate and his feeling that he was lied to, bewildered? Ben’s mother and her memories of Sarah growing up? This film in the light of 21^st-century in 2020s discussions of transitioning, acceptance, political condemnations?
4. Ben, athletic, swimming, visiting the old man and his tender care, the conversations with the woman and her ill husband? This work at the hospital, working with his colleague, the bonds? Ben and his relationship with Aude, six years, the partnership, the love, each with a great desire to have a child?
5. The flashback to the dance, Aude, by herself, a dancer, watching her boyfriend, meeting with Sarah, sullen, reticent, declaring she is not a lesbian, the kiss, the return to the apartment?
6. The return to the present, the audience looking more closely at Ben, male presentation, fitness, beard, moustache, voice…? Starting the transition process, testosterone? His not telling people, the reasons? The consequences?
7. The discussions with his brother, his brother’s family, his brother supporting him? The discussions about his mother, scenes between them?
8. The episode of the attack on Aude, her running, the fight, the accident, Ben in hospital, his mother’s visit, her paying the bills? Her explaining the difficult relationship as Sarah grew up, not responding to her mother, no breastfeeding, alone? Her mother’s bewilderment, wanting her daughter to confide in?
9. The decision about the baby, Ben still having the uterus and ability to conceive? The visits to the doctors, the process? The beginning of the pregnancy, development? The issue of the legality, the reception of the document from the judge, his male identity, yet his being able to be listed as mother of the child? The effect on Aude, the legal requirement for her to adopt the baby?
10. The talk with his coworker, more than surprised, the reaction, feeling lied to, hurt, leaving? But his later relenting, helping in transporting them to the hospital?
11. The effect on Aude the scene of buying the baby clothes and sharing with the shop assistant? Sometimes edge with Ben? Her beginning to feel sidelined? The discussion with the dancer, her past, the possibilities, her deciding to go away?
12. Ben, alone, the development of the pregnancy, walking? The doctor’s advice, a connection with a midwife? Hospital, the birth sequences, the baby emerging, holding the baby, his mother’s presence, cutting the cord? Ben and his happiness?
13. The final sequence, the long glimpse of the group of children playing, the joy, families, and Ben and Aude finally emerging with the baby, walking past the camera, leaving it to the audience to appreciate?

AFTERMATH

US, 2024, 97 minutes, Colour.

Dylan Sprouse, Mason Gooding, Dichen Lachmann, Daniel Rios Jr, Megan Stott, Will  Lyman.

Directed by Patrick Lussier.

One of the many action-popcorn thrillers to sit back and watch on streaming services. It has a Christmas setting – which may remind audiences of thrillers set at Christmas, especially Die Hard. Aftermath is in this vein.

The setting is Boston, the Tobin Bridge, just before Christmas. A former Army man, dismissed from the Army for not obeying orders because of compassion for an Afghan woman oppressed by her husband who shoots her, is driving across the bridge with his younger sister, precocious and forward, wanting to drive the car and his allowing her. He is obviously protective of her – memories of the woman in Afghanistan.

Suddenly, an explosion, the central part of the bridge destroyed and falling into the River, some cars, and cars parked on both sides of the gap.

The audience has also been introduced to a tough female prisoner, Doc, being transported in the van across the bridge – and audiences will guess that the explosion is to get to her. The reason, she has been part of an elite squad of former soldiers, employed by the government for jobs outside regulations, she having given information to the authorities.

The film establishes the group who are out to capture Doc alive, a bargaining point with the authorities. And they want the Pentagon to publish a document on the issues.

What follows is as expected, the young man emerges from his car, putting his military training into action, more than might have been expected. His sister gets out of the car and gets caught up in a lot of the action, finally being offered a safe haven by a driver with his baby. A whole lot of cat and mouse chases and shootouts on the bridge as the audience begins to see the person in charge, his team, the action to track down and get rid of the military man. And, eventually, Doc is drawn into this kind of action.

The team is led by a fierce young former officer, played by Mason Gooding. The screenplay requires him to be young, to be ruthless, determined, but also later revealing that he has a brain tumour. Which explains his action and desperation – but, number of commentators have questioned the casting and the performance (as does this review).

A lot of heroics, a lot of sniping, a lot of shootouts, a special segment where it is revealed that the whole bridge has been set up with explosives and the young Army man, with the help of a sympathetic Vietnam veteran, is able to go under the bridge to defuse the explosives. Which may not matter because in the leader’s van are even more explosives threatening the bridge.

On the periphery are the police, trying to get intelligence of what is happening, who is behind the disaster, trying to make contact.

Not the greatest of action adventures like this but watchable when an audience is in an undemanding mood.

PRIVATE DESERT

Brazil, 2021, 121 minutes, Colour.

Antonio Saboia, Pedro Fasanaro, Thomas Aquino.

Directed by Ali Muritiba.

A film from Brazil which challenges issues of masculinity, male identity, transitions. It has received more than 60 nominations and awards.

The first part of the film focuses on the policeman, under suspension because of a violent incident in which he injured a rookie, media headlines and videos, officials preparing him for a trial and suggesting psychological assessment. In the meantime, he lives at home, looking after his aged father with great care. Yet some help from his student sister.

However, he keeps trying to ring Sarah, with whom he had a relationship in the past. She does not answer. He decides then to travel a thousand kilometres north to find her, putting up notices and photos in the street, eventually meeting her contact.

The second part of the film focuses on Sarah, the audience discovering that Sarah is really Robson, a young man, working hard on a building site, gay, cross-dressing. Robson is persuaded to come to a club as Sarah and encounter Daniel that rushes away. Robson has had difficulties with his parents, but is cared for by his grandmother at home, a religious woman, church meetings, and referral to a pastor who had had similar experiences to Robson in his past.

While the film shows Daniel and his obsession with his relationship with Sarah, there is the drama of his eventual discovery of the truth and his reaction. Which, of course, is the Daniel challenge of the film. Robson’s future is also the other challenge of the film.

The screenplay highlights the difficulties but also offers some kind of resolution.

1. Whose desert? Daniels? Robson’s?
2. Nominations and awards for the film, more than 60? Acclaim in Brazil?
3. The structure of the film: the first half focusing on Daniel, the long opening sequence of him raining, voice-over, life at home, his father, his sister, care? The crisis at work? His contact with Sarah, the phone calls? His driving to find her? The second half of the film, the focus on Robson, his identity, at home, the religious background, the interactions with Daniel?
4. Daniel’s world, the scenes at home, his care for his father, the detail, feeding, washing, driving? His sister, her studies, her care for her father, her attitudes, relationships? Daniel asking for work, his friend at the police? The incident, the injury to the rookie, the interviews with the police chief, the court case, suggestion of psychiatric investigation? Daniel, his age, the past and memories of Sarah?
5. His decision to leave, the long drive, arriving in the town, asking people, the printout of the photos, distributing them? The phone call from Fernando? The meeting, the discussion, the ferry, Robson sitting on the boat near Daniel? The wordplay and interactions with Fernando? The meeting at the club, Robson as Sarah, escaping? The effect on Daniel?
6. The revelation of Sarah, Robson, the background story, his sexual identity, living with his grandmother, the discussions on the beach with Fernando, Fernando as a friend, gay, the salon, going to the church, the preacher, his being referred to the Minister with a similar past? At work, the tough work, construction sites?
7. The effect of the previous encounter with Daniel, his coming to Daniel, the dress and the wig, the kissing, Daniel discovering the truth? The effect on Daniel, the shock? The effect on Robson? Daniel demanding the dress back? Robson disrobing? Daniel leaving?
8. The further complications, the threat to revealing the truth about Robson? The support of his grandmother? The decision to leave, going to the bus station, the tickets? Daniel arriving, Fernando telling him where he was? The encounter, the passion? Robson leaving on the bus? Daniel and his future?
9. The Brazilian setting, universal themes, sexual identity, transitions? Brazilian male culture and dealing with the issues of this film?

CAPTAIN AMERICA: BRAVE NEW WORLD

US, 2025, 118 minutes, Colour.

Anthony Mackie, Harrison Ford, Danny Ramirez, Shira Haas, Carl Lumbley, Tim Blake Nelson, Giancarlo Esposito, Xosha Roquemore.

Directed by Julius Onah.

Chris Evans was the original Captain America, Steve Rogers, appearing in Captain America, The First Avenger in 2011, giving his back story. He then appeared in America, Winter Soldier and Civil War and a number of Avengers and Spiderman films. Anthony Mackie appeared as his associate, The Falcon, and now has the mantle of Captain America. (And Mackie appeared in the series, The Falcon  and the Winter Soldier.)

The world has been experiencing some disasters but, suddenly, an island has appeared in the Indian Ocean, a source of a new element which will help rebuild the world. Needless to say, desired by political leaders, desired by criminal powerbrokers. And an initial episode to get us into the frame of mind with Sam Wilson, now Captain America, with his apprentice, The Falcon, a brash young enthusiast played by Danny Ramirez, fly to Mexico to confront a villain, Sideliner, Giancarlo Esposito, and a buyer for the new element. When are in the picture, Capt America and The Falcon in their distinctive costume, their wings and flying, and the importance of the or defending, all attacking, shield.

Enter from the wings, newly elected American Pres, Theodore Ross, played by Harrison Ford now in his 80s and entering into the spirit of the Marvel Universe with some enthusiasm. He has had a bad reputation in the past, alienated from his daughter, but now insists that he is change. He is negotiating an international treaty, especially with the Japanese Prime Minister, the safe use of the new element.

Then some mayhem, an attempt on his life at the White House, shooters, including a close friend of Sam Wilson now released from jail are taken back. And the revelation of the villainous mastermind, Samuel Sterns, appearing as something of a mutant, played with sinister relish by Tim Blake Nelson. In fact, in prison, he has been experimenting with all kinds of drugs, feeding them to the President, working on mind control for assassins, ambitious to be in power of the element.

In a way, so far more a less expected – and this has disappointed some of the Marvel fans. However, there is a huge set piece towards the end, the Pres himself victim of his medication, transforming into a large Redcap Hulk, wrecking all kinds of destruction including demolishing of half the White House. (And, since the film was released after the re-election of Donald Trump, there is the temptation to look at all the mayhem scenes are some kind of allegory, the Pres morphing into a red raging monster-figure, attacking everyone, demolishing everything, even the destruction of the White House!).

The quiet finale, peace and some prosperity restored, millions in prison. However, marvel fans should not race for the exit during the credits because there is a substantial sequence right at the end. The future?

1. The Marvel Universe, Steve Rogers as Captain America, Anthony Mackie as the Falcon, participation in The Avengers movies? The television series featuring The Falcon? Sam Wilson as Captain America?
2. The interconnections in the Marvel Universe, the connection with The Hulk?
3. The role of Captain America, as initiated by Steve Rogers? The distinctive uniform, the wings and flying, the significance of the shield? The Falcon as apprentice, costume and shield, wings, learning?
4. The global situation for the film, post-apocalyptic situations, the United States, hostilities, the emergence of the island in the Indian Ocean, new element, powers wanting possession of it? The working for a treaty for participation in its use?
5. The establishing of Anthony Mackie as Captain America, presence, personality, African-American hero? Seeing him in action, flight, the operation in Mexico? Hostility towards President Ross? Being summoned, the discussions with the president, his change of situation, working towards the agreement and a treaty? His previous antagonism towards the president?
6. The operation in Mexico, Sidewinder and his presence, the buyer, absence, the conflict? The character of Sidewinder and his presence, deals? The return from Mexico?
7. The character of the president, the election, in the wings, the discussions, his address to the people, the acclaim, Together? The first hundred days, the discussions with the Japanese Prime Minister? The discussions with Sam Wilson, his assistant and her presence, Ruth and her security? Sam Wilson investigating her? Joaqui Torres and his computer skills and investigations?
8. The character of Isaiah Bradley, his past, imprisonment, skills, meeting The Falcon, the brashness of the young man, Bradley and his strength? His antagonism towards the president? Sam Wilson and rehabilitating him, the invitation to the White House, dressing up, the security, the ceremony, the president, the shooters, Bradley and his role, overcome, imprisoned?
9. The consequences, Sam Wilson and investigations, the prison, the laboratory, the information, the profiles, the medication, the character of Samuel Sterns?
10. Sterns, his appearance, mutations, imprisonment, his experiments, the president and his dependence on him for medication, his control of the president, his power, wanting the element? His experiments, mind control?
11. The president, the visit to Japan, the Japanese Prime Minister wary? The failure of the mission?
12. The return to Washington, the press conference, everybody gathered, the replaying of the tape, the president and his deal with Sterns? Sterns and his control, the transformation of the president into The Red Hulk? The mayhem into action? The confrontations?
13. The return of the president to himself, imprisonment, his accepting responsibility, the visit of Sam? His alienation from his daughter, her visit?
14. Sidewinder and his defeat? Captain America and his future, The Falcon?
15. The significance of the post-credits sequence, Sterns in prison, the challenge to Captain America, the future?

COP SECRET

Denmark, 2021, 98 minutes, Colour.

Aufun Blondal, Egill Einarsson, Sverrir pir Sverrisson.

Directed by Hannes por Halldorsson.

Back in the day, on the big screen and on the television screen, there was plenty of police action, with titles like The Super Cops or Starsky and Hutch. Over time, especially with special effects, the action became more and more beyond-realistic, often sensationalist, often over-the-top, and often humorous. Just think Will Smith and Martin Lawrence in the Bad Boys movies, more and more outlandish as they went on!

With Denmark’s Cop Secret, this is a film to sit back and enjoy rather than ponder deep analysis (although some critics did not relax and criticised the film for a lack of depth!).

One advantage of the film is the Reykyavik setting, especially during the opening credits, aerial views of the city, the more contemporary city, high-rise buildings, streets and avenues, malls… Then, explosions, attempted bank robberies, the villain on the bike, and no-holds-barred car chase. The comic tone is set because our hero, Bussi, is nonchalantly reckless while his partner, is continually apprehensive, afraid, complaining, threatening, quoting the law… Tone is set.

So, Cop Secret is an idiosyncratic sendup of the police genre. There are stock characters to be expected, the tough female boss and her continued demands and complaints, phone calls with the Prime Minister and his complaints about the police behaviour, the very careful officer in the office and at the finale, the interactions between the police officers…

But, the focus is on Bussi, confident in being reckless, not a great respect for details of the law, not minding being called out by the boss, subject to continual complaint by his apprehensive partner. He goes home, a girlfriend but there is a tension between them. He has an Asian neighbour, friendly, who has a little daughter, Bussi showing her the gun and promising to show her how to use it when her father is not looking. (Which does happen at the end of the film!)

But, in the pursuit, Bussi ventures into the next police district, a rivalry with the top detective there, Hordur, smooth, a former model, immaculately dressed, a top shooter, all smiles and agreeable. With the increased number of explosions and attempts on banks, and the spectacular pursuits, the two reluctantly agreed to become partners. But, this works.

In the meantime, the audience is introduced to the criminal group, led by another former model who is planning to steal Denmark’s gold bullion store. A whole lot of thugs in attendance and a smart female criminal who is captured, interrogated, escapes. And, at the end of the week, in the main sports arena, there is the women’s football championship match between Denmark and England. Audiences will anticipate the setup.

But the title! The comment about these police partners is that they are often described as bromance. The secret here and the attraction is a gay one and the film enjoys the development of this relationship, Bussi eventually to come to terms and accept himself, Hordur no inhibitions whatsoever. But, the chief criminal does get photos of the two to hold over them as blackmail. (Interestingly, with a French director, François Weber, the 1981, Partners, with John hurt and Ryan O’Neal, took up the gay partner theme.)

Lots of chases, lots of shootouts, lots of killings of villains, shooting techniques including shooting the person to be rescued in the shoulder and thus distracting the villains. Lots of dangers, almost impossible escapes, and some final humour with Hordur’s Down Syndrome brother who spends his time with computer games – learning how to shoot just at the right moment!

Depending on your mood, sometimes laugh out loud, but often smiles at the sendup and the spoof. (Some reviewers noted that there are many and frequent jokes about Iceland and Reykjavík which may escape the international audience).

THE KING OF MY CASTLE/  LE LABERN

France, 2024, 98 minutes, Colour.

Audran Cattn, Kad Merad, Clovis Cornillac, Isabelle Carre, Jade Pedri, Marc Riso.

Directed by Alexandre Charlot and Franck Magnier.

Googling reveals that the French title, Le Labern, mean domestic and valet, but can extend to flunky or stooge. In fact, the central character here will have to become “the valet of the piddle”.

This film is a French remake of the very successful Russian film, Son of a Rich. It has been pointed out that the French screenplay follows the Russian film in great detail. (And, in Russia, there was a sequel.)

The film starts in the world of affluence and big business, a CEO urged by his board to resign. There are criticisms of his son, spoilt, extravagant, a bevy of friend hangers on, ready to invade hotels in takeover at any time. The son takes no notice of his father.

Then the screenplay moves into the world of the imagination, the director, writers and some of the cast, previously involved in such satiric comedy is as Welcome to the Sticks, Welcome to the South, and some of the Asterix films.

Clovis Cornillac, certainly one of those associated with these films, plays a self-important film director who is employed by the father, no financial difficulties at all, to set up a location set as the 18^th century, the Castle, costumes and decor, actors and locals fulfilling the roles, in contact with the director, improvising the episodes of the drama as required.

The son, Louis, is drugged, left in this setting, waking, thinking he has time travelled. There are many amusing sequences, Louis finding himself as a labern, carrying his bucket, attending an aristocrat in his toilet, living in a barn, old clothes, transformed into a labern. The aim of the exercise, of course, is to make him come to terms with himself, face reality, transform.

We know that it is going to be challenge, quite a range of episodes on the way, falling in love, having to stand in for an aristocrat and endure a public beating, a feigned Viking attack and the challenge to rescue the young lady with whom he has fallen in love…

There is also the story of the ambitious film director, the anxious father, his friend who is also involved in the filmmaking.

What If…?

1. Based on a Russian film? Son of a Rich? Close adaptation?
2. French humour, characters, satire, the wealthy, ordinary citizens, the spoilt generation? The device of setting up the film, the 18^th century village, the citizens acting, the scenario? The moral intention?
3. The title, the meaning, domestic, valet, leading to stooge and flunky? Here the valet of the piddle?
4. The situation, the wealthy businessman, the board meeting, the criticisms, his resignation? The criticism of his son, the son and his friends, invading the hotel, partying, the confrontation with his father?
5. Louis, brought up in wealth, spoilt, arrogant, his friends and their lifestyle? His father exasperated?
6. The friendship with Christian Parmentier/Chris Palmer? Filmmaker and the ambitions? Personality, self-confident? The commission to make the film?
7. The father, his relationship with Helene, her participation in the film? Chris and his jealousy, Helene as an assistant? Her input?
8. The extravaganza of setting up the set, costumes and decor, the actors? The lavish recreation of the 18^th century?
9. Chris, his ambitions, filmmaking, the scenario, the improvising, the connection with the actors, their responding to direction?
10. Louis, the incident in the street, his being drugged, waking up in the 18^th century, his believing this, time travel, adapting to the 18^th century?
11. Louis finding himself as a servant, the valet of the piddle, his bucket, the count and his associates, in the field, the toilet episode and the analysis, health?
12. Louis and Sylvain, the accommodation, Louis and the different world, Sylvain encouraging him? His work of service, the treatment by the aristocracy, being looked down on? The encounter with Isabeau, sexual, her running off? Lison and her work with the horses, directed towards Louis, the encounters, her performance, the beginning of his infatuation?
13. The aristocracy, the count, the treatment of Louis, the humiliations?
14. Audiences responding to this make-believe, enjoying the performances, the role of the director, Helene and her suggestions, the father and his observations and hopes? The improvisations, the threat of the drone? Louis and his memories of the 21^st-century, and explaining things to Liz on?
15. The incident of the punishment, standing in for the aristocrat, the public meeting, the consequences, the population jeering? The son and her being urged to encourage Louis, the encounters, falling in love?
16. The father wanting to give up, Helene wanting to intervene, her ultimatum, Chris and his enjoyment of directing, praising himself, demanding the film to go? Helene leaving? The father ultimately changing his mind and chasing her?
17. Setting up the crisis, the Viking attack, the taking of Lison, the urging of Louis to rescue her, his turning his back? Everybody disappointed? His re-thinking, getting a horse, writing to the rescue?
18. Drugged, coming to, explaining that he was in a coma, yet his vivid memories? On the horse, writing to the scene, seen Lison – happy ending?
19. Chris, seeing himself in the Orson Welles, Stanley Kubrick tradition? The father reunited with Helene? Louis and Lison?

THE SEED OF THE SACRED  FIG/ dân e-ye anjîr-e ma'âbed

Germany, 2024, 167 minutes, Colour.

Soheila Golestani, Missagh Zareh, Setareh Maleki, Mahsa Rostami, Niousha Akhshi, Reza Akhlaghirad.

Directed by Mohammad Rasoulof.

A drama which gained a great deal of attention in 2024, many awards and nominations, including Cannes, Golden Globe, Oscars, and, the award of the Ecumenical Jury in Cannes.

The action takes place in Tehran, 2022, the Women, Life, Freedom Movement, protests, police brutality, arrests, death sentences, on the occasion of the death in custody of the young Kurdish woman,Mahsa Amini, and her not covering her hair properly. The film has been written and directed by celebrated Iranian director, Mohammad Rasoulof, who served prison time because of official disapproval of his films and themes, who made this film secretly, carried it with him when he escaped from Iran and moved to Germany where postproduction was completed.

This is quite a long film, initially focusing on a government official, an investigator hoping to be a judge and provide a much better lifestyle for his wife and two daughters, but faced with a moral dilemma about death sentences and commands by prosecutors. He is a devout man, completely loyal to Allah and his understanding of Islamic law and to the state.

However, the first part of the film focuses on his wife, also strict, devoted to her husband, apprehensive about any dangers to his career, demanding with her daughters and not revealing details of their father’s life and work. Soheila Golestani’s intense performance is impressive.

Then the protests, the official condemnation of the young protesters, especially women against the wearing of the hijab, the director inserting actual footage from the protests and riots. The drama for the film heightens when one of the daughters gives her college friend some accommodation, despite the mother’s protest, but the student then is violently beaten, buckshot wound to her eye– and the challenge to the mother, a very careful scene with some tenderness as the mother tends to the wounded young woman.

One of the key issues of the film is the official handing of a gun to the father, and then its disappearing, a threat to his career when the authorities will think he is lax and careless, his making demands on his family, even taking them to a ‘therapy session’ with a skilled interrogator.

As his situation worsens, he takes the family to his old birthplace, his becoming more and more paranoid, including an effective episode where two protesters film and pursue the family. There is a highly melodramatic ending, the issue of the gun, his treatment of his wife and daughters, and their response to him, with the gun and the father’s collapse as well as that of the disillusionment of his wife.

Iran is always in the headlines, its political connections, considered part of the “axis of evil”, its official religious stands as the Islamic Republic of Iran, connections with terrorism in the Middle East, stories of harsh and unjust imprisonment, the morality police and their interventions. Which indicates that this should be a must see film.

There is a verbal prologue to the film which serves as a metaphor for Iran and for the action of the film:  

"Ficus Religiosa is a tree with an unusual life cycle. It seeds, contained in bird droppings, fall on other trees. Aerial roots spring up and grow down to the floor. Then, the branches wrap around the host tree and strangle it. Finally, the sacred fig stands on its own."

MACBETH

UK, 2025, 114 minutes, Colour.

David Tennant, Cush Jumbo, Cal MacAninch, Noof Ousellam, Moyo Akande, Casper Knopf, Jatinder Singh Randhawa, Rona Morison, Brian James O'Sullivan, Ros Watt, Benny Young

Directed by Max Webster; Capture directed by Tim Van Someren.

For just over 400 years, Shakespeare’s Macbeth, The Scottish Play, has been regularly performed. And, there have been several film versions including those by Orson Welles, Roman Polanski, filmed stage versions with Kenneth Branagh, Ralph Fiennes, and the basic plot being used for several gangster films like Joe Macbeth and Geoffrey Wright’s version updated to Melbourne.

In the last decade there have been Justin Kurzel’s version with Michael Fassbender and Marion Cotillard as well as Joel Coen’s version with Denzel Washington and Frances McDormand.

But, here is Macbeth with a Scottish accent. And a number of the other characters as well. And it is a striking performance, especially with his accent, by popular film and television star, David Tennant. At the outset, he makes Macbeth’s character his own and doesn’t let go. Sometimes, Lady Macbeth seems to dominate in interpretations. However, here she is played by Cush Jumbo, strongly intense but never dominating Macbeth himself.

The rest of the cast is an ensemble, often standing in a row at the back of the stage, then emerging and taking on quite a range of characters. And there is a racial mix in the cast as well as two actresses taking on male characters, especially Ross and Malcolm. And amongst the ensemble are musicians playing on stage.

And, considering the stage, it is a white square, surrounded on three sides by the audience (wearing headphones so that they hear the Shakespearean language well and extraneous sounds are excluded). At times there can be some props carried on stage including the weapons. And, at the end, behind the stage there is a colourful nature panorama. The minimalist staging of the play works particularly well, making demands on the imagination of the audience.

But, one might say the triumph of this version is the decision to use close-ups throughout the film, bringing the audience so close to Macbeth himself, to Lady Macbeth in her scheming as well as in her guilty madness, to all the characters. But, best of all is the decision to have Macbeth, David Tennant, frequently in close-up, looking and speaking straight into camera, intense, confiding in us the audience, trying to make us complicit in his decisions, in his regrets, in his ruthlessness, in his ultimate disillusionment.

This certainly makes this version of Macbeth worth seeing, brief, running under two hours, on the move, intense for performers and for the audience.

This version has another special surprise. Often the Porter sequence is omitted.

It is intended are some comic atmosphere/relief before the full tragedy descends on us. In this version, the director has decided to do some stand-up comedy, touches of broad appeal, the comedian as the Porter, Jatinder Singh Randhawa, engaging with the audience, asking about their headphones, joking but eventually moving into the Shakespeare text. Quite a memorable interlude.

The director of the play is Max Webster, significant in the UK his creative work. However, there has to be a credit for the director for the “Capture” of the play for the screen, Tim Van Someren. His use of the close-ups has been praised, and, often, the camera looking straight down on stage and characters, keeping the camera moving for the action, a sense of stillness for the soliloquies and the reflections.

This version of Macbeth reminds us of the richness of Shakespeare’s language and the quotations we remember, the political complexities of the plot, the psychology of the downfall of an ambitious man and his supportive wife – there can be many more versions.

MARIA

Germany, 2024, 124 minutes, Colour.

Angelina Jolie, Pierfrancesco Favini, Alba Rohrwacher, Haluk Bilginer, Kodi Smit-McPhee, Stephen Ashfield, Valeria Golina, Caspar Phillipson.

Directed by Pablo Larrain.

It is almost 50 years since the death of famed opera singer, Maria Callas. She died in 1977, aged 53. Franco Zeffirelli made a film of the last week of her life, Callas Forever, with Fanny Ardant. Fanny Ardant collaborated with documentary filmmaker, Tom Volf’s documentary, 2017 documentary, Maria by Callas.

This is a film for both older audiences and younger audiences. It will offer older audiences the opportunity to remember, to listen again to the many arias throughout this film, the voice of Callas herself. The film will offer to those younger, who don’t remember her, a vivid portrait.

The film was written by English screenwriter, Steven Knight (Pretty Dirty Things, Peaky Blinders and many films and television series) but, importantly, was directed by the Chilean, Pablo Larrain, directors of significant political films but also two other biographies of significant 20^th century women, Jackie (Jacqueline Kennedy Onassis) and Spencer (Princess Diana). Interestingly, there is the common denominator of Aristotle Onassis in Jackie and Maria.

And the choice of Angelina Jolie. She moves quite majestically through the film, often sweepingly, not only a prima donna, but one might say the sola donna, proud, sometimes arrogant in her interactions with people. The main focus is on the last week of her life, opening with her death, flashbacks of the previous week but, of course, flashbacks to past performances and achievements, and memories of her relationship with Onassis, and the insertion of an episode of meeting Jacqueline Kennedy at a party, present at the birthday where Marilyn Monroe sang (and some acid comments on her voice), and an icy encounter with JFK. (Callas in fact sang at this occasion.)

However, the main supporting characters here are her to devoted servants, her butler and her housemaid of many years, played by Italian stars, Pierfrancesco Favini and Alba Rohrwacher. We look at the ways she interacts with them, as she speaks to them, always superior, but a deep affection and sometimes dependence on them.

There is also the device of her wandering around Paris, stopping at various locations, flashbacks to performances, especially an orchestra playing in the rain, a scene from Madame Butterfly… And, during this wandering, there is a young filmmaker, Kodi Smit McPhee, called Mandrax, the drug that she was taking for support, her interactions with Mandrax, her conversations, his response, final hallucinations as she reviews her life.

This is a portrait of Maria Callas rather than a biography, an opportunity to listen again, to appreciate, to wonder at the complexities of personality for figures in the public eye.

1. Audience knowledge of and admiration for Maria Callas, her voice, performance, career? What is knowledge of her life, mother, the war, criticisms of being fat, her emergence, her husband, the encounter with Aristotle Onassis, life with him, separating from him, her loss of her voice, her final years?
2. The work of the director, his portrait of Jacqueline Kennedy, of Princess Diana, and the into cutting off the two women and their lives with Onassis?
3. The framework of the film, the opening with Maria Callas’s death, her assistance standing around, the flashback of the seven days, the flashbacks within flashbacks, her performances, black-and-white photography, Angelina Jolie and her voice, the lip syncing with Maria Callas’s voice, the locations and her memories, her tablets, the filmmaker and her hallucinations, the conversations? The clash with her doctor? Of the theatre with the pianist, the technician in the spotlight, the journalist and his later confrontation?
4. The importance of Ferrucio and Bruna? With Maria Callas for so many years, butler, housekeeper, with her in Paris, Bruna and the meals, the conversation, The ratio and the moving of the piano, concern about the doctor, that Maria Callas’ beck and call, her treatment of them, her dependence on them, their loyal service? The memories of being at her performances in the past? The concern in the present, her death?
5. The film offering an overview of Maria Callas’ career, born in New York, her mother, the German soldiers, in Venice, the initial success, the visualising of the various concerts, the buildings in Paris, the performance in the rain with the orchestra, Madame Butterfly, her success, the decline? For testing her voice, but wanting to listen to her records? The final aria?
6. Her personal relationships, the glimpse of her husband, at the party, the encounter with Onassis, his estimation of himself, rich and powerful, his infatuation with her, the invitation to the yacht, going with her husband, the beginning of the relationship, Onassis’ love for her, her moving away, not marrying, the issue of children, not wanting to be controlled? But her final visit to him?
7. The contrivance of the scene at Kennedy’s birthday party, Marilyn Monroe’s happy birthday song, her comments of Marilyn Monror and the voice, the encounter with Jackie Kennedy, the yacht, the discussions with Kennedy himself, her estimation of himself and the relationships?
8. The device of the film, the director and the name of the drug, Mandrax, the interviews, his responses, initially stolid, mellowing, the various scenes and interviews? The device, the hallucinations from her drugs? Herself revelations?
9. The prima donna, the diva, her arrogance, treatment of people, the fan who had missed her performance and her treatment of him, the attack on the intrusive journalist, the conversation with the man at the bar and her music?

• The film as a portrait rather than a biography? Angelina Jolie’s performance? The sequences of actual Maria Callas during the final credits – more smiling and genial and throughout the film?