Displaying items by tag: Peter Malone's Movie Reviews

TRIGGER WARNING

US, 2024, 106 minutes, Colour.

Jessica Alba, Mark Webber, Anthony Michael Hall, Tone Bill, Jake Weary, Gabriel Basso.

Directed by Mouly Surya.

This is quite a standard action film, interestingly directed by Indonesian director, Mouly Surya (Murder in Four Acts).

It opens outside the United States, a terrorist episode, introducing Jessica Alba is a tough agent, enabling her to be the lead in an action film. She returns home at the death of her father, killed in a mine collapse. They are Hispanic family, looked down on by some of the local inhabitants.

In her investigations, she has to confront the local Senator, Anthony Michael Hall,. One son is the local sheriff (Mark Webber) the other is a thug, involved in stealing weapons from an Army Depot with a gang.

A lot of expected investigations, clashes, fights, revolution of the truth, the final confrontation in the minds and tunnels.

Familiar material, the variation for a star turn by Jessica Alba.

1. Popular action thriller? Overseas action? Action in a small American town?
2. The opening, CIA, surveillance, terrorists, the attack? Parker, talent in action, her partner killed? Working with Spider? Her return home?
3. The town of Creation, small, the sheriff’s office, risen, the Sen’s mansion, the mine, the interiors, the arms depot, the tunnels? The musical score?
4. Parker, her relationship with her father, the flashbacks, Hispanic and local reactions, the Hispanic community, her father, the mine, the collapse? Her investigation, discussions with the sheriff, an accident? Finding grenades? Her suspicions?
5. Trapping Mike, feeding the lizard, their friendship? His mother, the continued help?
6. Jesse, sheriff, the past relationship with Parker, some of the senator? The senator, the billboards, his conservative approach? Elvis, personality, his thug friends, the revolution of the stealing of the arms, selling them? The contact, Ghost? The deals, the threats, the deadlines?
7. Parker, confrontations with Elvis, his gang? The fights, her skills? Discussions with the senator, the meal, Spider giving a warning, leaving, the confrontation?
8. The buildup to a climax, Spider and his arrival, the gang, attacked? Parker, the arms, the old man giving her the machete, getting the cooperation of Mike and his mother, Hispanic friends?
9. The climax, the confrontations in the mine, the fights, the final fight with Elvis? The explosion, Spider and his being overwhelmed, rescued? Parker and the confrontation with the senator, with Jesse?
10. Jesse, ambiguous, the relationship with Parker, the sexual encounter, the aftermath, the revelation of his participation in the scheme? The finale, Parker chasing him in the depot, the final tour, his killing himself, the explosion?
11. The aftermath, renaming the County, new candidates, Parker with Spider at the service station, Mike and the phone call, the bar and its future?

THE BRICKLAYER

US, 2023, 110 minutes, Colour.

Aaron Eckhart, Nina Dobrev, Clifton Collins Jr, Tim Blake Nelson, Oliver Trevino, Ilfenesh Hadera.

Directed by Renny Harlin.

This action thriller is based on the novel by former Marine and FBI agent for 20 years, Paul Lindsay, writing under the name of Noah Boyd. The screenplay has changed the agency from the FBI to the CIA.

Renny Harlin has made action thrillers for several decades, especially Die Hard 2. There is quite a mixed quality to his work. The action sequences are very strong – even though Aaron Eckhart is the hero, bricklayer, agent, is able to defeat all kinds of tough opponents, though in one sequence succumbing to just one of them! However, Eckhart is strong and tough in the role.

The villain is seen at the opening, Clifton Collins Jr, a disaffected agent, turning Road, wanting to expose the CIA and its many tentacles in Western cultures, secret assassinations…

The central character is a very prim, first, agent played by Nina Dobrev who accompanies the bricklayer to Greece where the action takes place. Quite a number of complications, assassination of journals, a political assassination attempt, a final confrontation between hero and villain despite a bonding in the past.

Tim Blake Nelson is the CIA boss.

More or less as expected.

1. The title? The cover for the CIA agent? His explanation of his liking the work, precision, well fitting?
2. The CIA, action throughout the world? Attitudes Western countries? Covert operations? Assassinations and targeting? Reactions?
3. The realism of the screenplay? Or far-fetched?
4. The opening, the journalist, Victor Radek, his purpose, her reporting, the photos and or sitter? Shooting her? The next journalist on the list? The group politician on the list? His making a case, disrepute of the CIA?
5. The introduction to Steve Vail, Philadelphia, working on the building, the bricks, precision? Contact O’Malley? The meeting with Kate? The explanation of the situation? His decision to go to Greece, with Kate?
6. The subtext of Miles Davis, music, records, the gift from Victor Radek, Tye with the collection of records, indication of her guilt?
7. Kate, her CIA work, the office, re-examining the photos, discovering Radek?
8. The flight, the interactions between the two, her self-importance, professional, his attitudes, Frieda? The arrival, posing as husband and wife, the hotel, the range of surveilance? Going to meet Patricio, his skills, the vehicle, IT and tech?
9. She’s three, to the social, meeting with Tye, the past relationship, the discussions, her being bureau chief? The later encounters with her, at the apartment, the music?
10. The attack on the journalist and the square, the protesters, Constantine and his speeches, Radek and his communication with Vail, motivations, memories, the death of his family? The decoy and Vail following, the shooting? The escape, the pursuit, talking with Radek?
11. Vail and his visiting the club, the thug and his respectability, the fights? The credibility of Vail and his ability to conquer so many attackers? Yet in the office, his being overcome? The dangers for Kate, her involvement, with the vehicles? And the use of tracking devices?
12. Vail, the memories and flashbacks with Radek, his family, his job is with the CIA, the promised to transfer his family, the Russians, the killing his family? Vail, the deal with Radek that he could disappear?
13. The car chase, Radek’s escape, with the camera on the building, male or knocking it, the assassination attempt failing? Konstantin and his change of attitude, rescued by the CIA?
14. Final confrontations, Radek’s death, the suspicions about O’Malley, the vast transfer of the bid calling? Vail and his suspicions, going to Tye, the confrontation, her death?
15. The end, the interview with Kate and O’Malley, his being upset about suspicions, offer of promotion to Kate, her refusal? And Vail going back to his bricklaying?

IN THE ROOM WHERE HE WAITS

Australia, 2024, 88 minutes, Colour.

Daniel Monks, Susie Porter, Annabel Marshall-Roth, Anthony Brendan Wong, Chris Bartholomew.

Directed by Timothy Despina Marshall.

An evocative title, the audience immediately wondering who “he” is. And why he is waiting in a room. An invitation to join him?

This is a small-budget film, filmed during the Covid years in Brisbane, the action can find, in fact, to 2 rooms and a hotel corridor, more than a touch of the eerie, listen to the corridor in The Shining. There are windows, glimpses of the city, few pedestrians, few cars, a train passing by. However, there is no explicit reference to Covid, simply the situation for the central character, Tobin, in lockdown, locked in and locked into his character, a kind of prison experience, locked up.

Tobin is an actor, returning from the US, separated from his partner, contact with his mother, participating in his hotel room by his with rehearsals for Tennessee Williams The Glass Menagerie, text from one of his fellow-actors. That is the setting of the scene.

However, what is important is the atmosphere, Tobin in lockdown, confined, the mental pressures, mysterious objects appearing, underwear, red shirt, cufflinks, and disappearing, contact with the the hotel receptionist by phone, a guard patrolling the corridor and keeping him in. Noises in the night, since it strange presences. He does ask to be transferred to another room – eventually moving more strange experiences, an old naked man seen sitting in the chair… What is happening to him?

That is the general focus of the screenplay. However, there are most important subtexts which make this film quite different from others.

Firstly, the actor portraying Tobin, Daniel Monks, is a disabled actor, a campaigner for the disabled actors, and his character, Tobin, with tensions in his arm and leg, able to use them freely, limping.

Secondly, there is a gay subtext, with Daniel monks and with the director, and the significance of portraying gay characters, Tobin, his mother liking his partner from whom he is now separated, his emotional needs, physical needs, psychological needs, dating apps…

Thirdly, there is a subtext of Tennessee Williams The Class Menagerie, and the parallels between Tobin’s mother and the mother in the play, the character of the son, Tom, and the character of the Gentleman Caller and Tobin seeking a caller.

The film is well-made, keeps the attention, and the tension, involving the audience keeping them waiting with Tobin in the room.

1. The title and its atmosphere? The focus on the room, the question of who is “he”? Why he is waiting? Inviting the audience to meet the “he” and join in the waiting?
2. ^{The production filmed during Covid lockdown, Brisbane, vistas outside the window, city, the train passing, few people, few cars? In two rooms and the corridor – and the hotel corridor reminiscent of The Shining? Touches of the sinister?}
3. ^{The performance by Daniel Monks, Tobin in the US and returning, the goodbye to his partner, cutting contact with his partner? The rehearsals for The Glass Menagerie, his role as Tom? The sequences of rehearsal on Zoom? Phone calls with his mother, relationship, love, tensions, her taking superior attitudes, his being upset with her? Memories of his father, alcohol, his mother’s attitude? Saying that he would be like his father? The contact with Sienna, her texts, the discussions with the producers of the play? His being late, unreliable, his being fired?}
4. ^{The experience of lockdown, confined to the hotel room, the view from the window, meals at his store, glimpses of the guard, contact with reception? The isolation and its effect?}
5. ^{The eerie happenings and their effect on Tobin, the card jumping out of its hold, the lights going out, the cufflinks at the door, the red shirt, briefs, his putting them outside, the phone calls from reception about them, the reappearing, in the bath, his eventually wearing them?}
6. ^{The sense of presence in the room, the knocking, the dark, his searching? The reaction of the guard, ordering him back in the room?}
7. ^{His request to move to another room, the reasons, the effect on his mind, on his sleep, waking, searching the room, sense of presence?}
8. ^{The new room, vision of the man sitting naked in the chair, appearing, disappearing? The effect on Tobin’s mind? Moving out of the room, searching the corridor?}
9. ^{The cumulative effect, the final phone call with his mother, being fired from the play, wearing the shirt and cufflinks and underwear, his final isolation – a sense of doom or a sense of hope?}
10. ^{The subtext of the screenplay, Daniel Monks as disabled, Tobin as disabled, his arm and legs, his movements and walking, showering, in bed, audience response to Tobin as a character, and to his disability?}
11. ^{The subtext of the screenplay, Tobin as a gay man, out, not closeted, his mother’s acceptance, his relationship with his partner, his mother’s approval, the separation and its effect, his need for some kind of companionship, sexual urges, the masturbation, online, the dating apps, the contacts?}
12. ^{The subtext of the screenplay, Tennessee Williams and The Glass Menagerie, the dominant mother, Tobin as Tom, his seeking a gay gentleman caller?}
13. ^{The overall effect of the film, technical qualities, small-budget and running time, performance? And the theme of someone alone, locked down, locked in, feeling of being locked up, prison parallel? Coping and not coping? Mental consequences?}

 INHERITANCE/SPADEK

Wind, 2024, 93 minutes, Colour.

Jan Peszek, Maciel Stuhr, Joanna Trzepiezcibnska, Gabriella Muskawa, Piotr Pacek.

Directed by Sylwester Jakimow.

This is a popular comedy designed for Polish audiences. However, basic plot is universal (seen in such films as the British Laughter in Paradise, or the various versions of The Cat and the Canary), relatives gathering for the reading of a will.

As expected, there is a motley set of characters, are very fixated teacher, his haughty and somewhat ambitious wife, teenage daughter, younger son. There is a writer of crime fiction with a younger man, and a gay couple. Nieces and nephews of the eccentric inventor, game show host, with whom they have had little contact, but who has summoned them, by the eccentric butler. As a sitting, the but the reeds the will – all the money left to a local orphanage.

But, the uncle is alive, inviting them to get to know each other, and some games that he wants them to play. Although disappointed in not getting the money, there is the prospect of getting the patents to his many inventions if they succeed in the game.

So, a whole lot of popular ingredients which may appeal to the popular audience (it seems not to critics!). There is the range of characters and their eccentricities. There is a storm but to policeman turn up and interrogate each of the adults, the audience seeing what they answered in their interrogations and what they say they said. And these turn out to be bogus police, to criminals eager to find the patents.

There is a voice-over by the father of the two children, rather ingenuous in its way. And, of course, each of the characters has a secret, the state couple pondering a divorce, the gay couple the possibilities of adopting, the novelist concealing her age and wondering whether the younger man is really in love with her.

And course there are secret passages and tunnels in the house, and escape room and the various shenanigans to get out, the quiz a quiz for them to be eligible for the patents.

And the further complication that the old uncle has been stabbed to death, his having invented a stronger than Kessler first and shown how he could stabbed himself without dying – but stabbed while not wearing it!

In various solutions, the old uncle and ominously ringing each of the candidates to get information from them so that he could build up his quiz and test them, and the revelation about one of his programs, a woman giving a wrong answer then committing suicide, her son going to an orphanage and wanting to wreak revenge. Spoiler, the young lover of the novelist was the son of the quiz contestant!

Actually, the plot could be remade by any other film industry.

AM I OKAY?

US, 2022, 95 minutes, Colour.

Dakota Johnson, Sonoya Mizuno, Jermaine Fowler, Kiersey Clemens, Sean Hayes, Tim Notaro.

Directed by Stephanie Allynne, Tig Notaro.

This is a continued question by the central character, Lucy, played by Dakota Johnson. She is 32, working in mass Haj but schooled in painting, and questioning her sexual orientation and attractions.

This is a film for female audience, the male audience looking on from the outside, two male characters somewhat on the periphery of the action.

The writer and directors are wanting to explore Lesbian issues, the uncertainties of the central character reflecting on her past, of the formal relationship with a male friend, an attraction towards a co-worker in mass Haj, and quite a lot of discussion about female issues.

Is also a story of friendship, the of the central character, Jane, played by some lawyer mid to know, is a best friend from years ago, not appreciating the orientation of Lucy, always wanting to give her advice, a controlling character, eager to set her up with a man friend, quite explicit in sex language, in a relationship with Danny, Jermaine Fowler.

The cause of conflict is the situation in which Jane, originally from London, is asked by her boss (a cameo by Sean Hayes) to set up a bureau in London – and the effect on Lucy, sometimes emotionally distraught, thrown back on her own devices, and experiment with the worker at the mass arch, on to cope with the loss of her best friend.

The two friends attend yoga classes and Jane goes to a camp, with a cameo by Tim Notaro yoga and meditation oriented we Jane is urged to scream as loudly as possible – and she does.

There is a surprise ending with Lucy deciding to teach and to London, stay for a while – but neglects to think about where she will park the car while she is away! (And one wonders how she paid for the ticket to London books are quickly.)

While there are many mainstream films about manual gay friendships, this is a contribution to films about lesbian questions.

NO ACCIDENT

US, 2023, 97 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Kristi Jacobson.

This is a significant documentary for American audiences. It is also significant for non-American audiences who observe the ideological conflicts, the action of the white supremacists, protests against them, the rally in Charlottesville 2017, the violence, interest charging protesters and killing one. Famously, the day after the rally and the death, President Trump from made a speech stating that there were good people on each side, leading to criticisms in his first year of his presidency.

Two lawyers with strong reputations, Robbie Kaplan and Karen Dunn began a lawsuit against 17 L of the white supremacists, charging them with conspiracy to incite violence. And they contacted 12 plaintiffs, many injured during the rally.

This is a documentary by Kristi Jacobson who has quite a strong portfolio of documentary films and television episodes. And filming began with the proceedings inaugurated in 2017. Covered the work of the two lawyers, the recruiting associates, there is legal aspects in proceeding with the case. There are also interviews with the plaintiffs telling their stories as well is a great deal of footage from Charlottesville itself.

There are extensive interviews with the defendants, especially filmed during the D positions, their defence, discounting all charges – but some of them quite violent in their responses.

The case progressed somewhat slowly, and then was held up considerably by Covid and locked down, finally coming to the courts in October 2021.

While the film takes us behind the scenes of preparation for the case, with strong interviews from those concerned, there is a great deal of footage from the case itself, the questioning of the plaintiffs and the emotional effect on them, but, significantly, the interviews with the defendants. A lot of research was done for documentation about their careers, their intentions. However, so much of the evidence came from emails, texts, recorded phone calls, video material, some very strong and expressions of insight into violence.

There is some suspense as the jury goes out that all defendants were found guilty. The court also imposed considerable fines – though these were later reduced and the defendants have appealed.

It is important to have this kind of material within the space of a documentary, available for the wide audience, an opportunity to see the faces of the white supremacist movement and, especially, listening to them speak with their bigotry, their theories about Jews and other races replacing the whites, the misogyny, and the absolute self-confidence and self-righteousness. Especially Richard B.Spencer who concludes one speech with “Hail, Trump”.

DESPICABLE ME 4

US, 2024, 95 minutes, Colour.

Voices of: Steve Carell, Kristin Wiig, Joey King, Will Ferrell, Sofia Vergara, Miranda Cosgrove, Pierre Coffin, Steve Coogan, Stephen Colbert.

Directed by Chris Renaud, Patrick Delage.

We might wonder how often we use the word “despicable” in real life. However, since 2010 and the first Despicable Me film, the first thing we think of when we hear the word (well, most of those who are younger) are the films and, especially, with all respect to Gru, the Minions. They appeared in Despicable Me 2 in 2013, had their very own film in 2015, reappeared in Despicable Me 3 in 2017. And, of course, these films can be regularly seen on streaming. The Minions are always with us. But, it is something of a surprise to find that it is seven years since the previous film.

It takes up where 3 left off, the Institute for villains, the escapades of some of the graduates, the agency led by Silas Ramsbottom (Steve Coogan) engaging the help of now reformed Gru (the popular Steve Carell).

This time we have a new villain, top graduate to Gru’s jealousy, a Frenchman, Maxime (voiced by Will Ferrell). He is vain, something of a peacock in clothes and strutting, has an odd criminal girlfriend who spends most of her time putting on lipstick, determined to be a worldwide criminal phenomenon.

It doesn’t quite work out that way, Ramsbottom summoning Gru into action. Since we know Gru from the past, we know that this isn’t going to be swift justice being done, a whole lot of situations going wrong, Maxime actually caught and imprisoned but, of course, escaping and continued to threaten.

We have seen it before but we are happy to see it all again! This time we see Gru’s wife and children again but there is a new bundle of joy, a baby son. He is a bundle of joy for his mother, always smiling and goo-gooing, but scowling at his father. Which means then that the baby offers an opportunity for Maxime to take him as a hostage, Gru in pursuit (even on high buildings, on an aircraft, all over the place).

And the Minions, plenty of them, their shapes, yellow colour, range of situations, sometimes awkward, often to the rescue, then mumbling and chirping, even, at one stage, their Academy, and dozens of them there on screen. And we are thinking and feeling, long live the Minions!

Lots of action, lots of colour, lots of comic situations (and the question of how long this kind of action franchise can continue), happy family reunion, and the baby now goo-gooing its daddy.

1. The popularity of the Despicable Me series, Gru and his adventures, the presence of the Minions?
2. The animation style, colour, movement, settings, real and imaginative? The characters in this style? The range of the Minions? The voice cast? The musical score?
3. The continuation from the previous film, the Institute, villains, the management, the awards? The social, Gru dramatic arrival, with the Minions, his expectations, the clash with Maxime? Maxime winning the award? His speech and attitudes? Ambitions? The picture of his girlfriend, Valentina, lips on lipstick?
4. Maxime and his career, the clash with Gru, the threats, the threats to the family, their going to the safe house, the continued threats? The visit of the old lady from the Institute?
5. Gru, his wife, support, the family, the happy scenes, the teenage daughter, the little children, the scenes with the new baby, severe with his father, smiling at his mother? His finally being abducted, Gru to the rescue, Maxime and his controlling the baby, the baby finally acting, reconciled with father, family?
6. Maxime and his actions, crimes, reputation, daredevil? Is arrest, imprisonment? His escape?
7. The buildup to the confrontation between Maxime and Gru, the action sequences, in the air, the flight, the baby, over the city, precarious situations?
8. Ramsbottom, his organisation, warning Gru, wanting his help, supervision?
9. The comedy with the Minions, the characters, behaviour, voices and sounds, action? And the variety of Minions, being called from all occupations, gathering, the Minion force?
10. An entertainment for children and adults?

THE CHESSPLAYER

Spain, 2017, 98 minutes, Colour.

Marc Clotet, Melina Matthews, Alejo Sauras, Lionel Auguste, Stefan Weinert, Mike Hoffman.

Directed by Luis Oliveras.

The Chessplayer offers a different perspective on World War II. The director has said that it is a film not about war, not about chess, but about human beings. In fact, it combines all three elements.

The film opens in 1934 with a chess match, the emergence of a Spanish champion, Diego. A French journalist is observing the game, not understanding it, but attracted to Diego when she interviews him. They marry, begin a family. They lived through the period of the Spanish Civil War.

But, as the years pass, they take refuge in Paris, especially helped by the wealthy Pierre. The family is successful in Paris but, when the war breaks out, Diego is arrested and charged with being a spy.

What follows is harrowing for Diego but also harrowing for the audience as we watch Diego’s plight, the treatment in prison, the interrogations, the humiliation, the false accusations, encounters with other prisoners, executions, torture.

However, he experiences some respite when the German commander is enthusiastic about chess and asks to play with Diego, surprised at his skills, playing, learning from him, and this taking place over a number of years. The commander has urged Diego to write to his wife every month but there are no replies.

And the film continues sad with the end of the war, the retreat of the Germans, Diego free, gradually returning to his family, his wife thinking him dead now married to Pierre. Audiences have been identifying with Diego throughout the film but, especially here, difficulties of travelling to find his family, the encounter with his wife, with his child, some evocative memories within her of the past and his teaching her chess. And, an open ended finale.

A compassionate war film to be recommended.

1. A World War II film? Spanish perspective? French perspective? German perspective?
2. Political perspectives, torts the Spanish Civil War, the Franco regime, Germany in World War II, the invasion of France, occupation of Paris? Resistance groups? Spies?
3. The designation of times, Spain during the Civil War, in the aftermath, free France, occupied France, the years passing in the prison? The liberation of France?
4. The focus on chess, audience interest in chess, knowledge, the range of games, moves, explanations of theories? The opening of the film, Diego and the match against the champion, his reticence, doubts about his winning, Javier and encountering Marianne, his confidence, her work as a journalist, thinking she had made a mistake? Diego and his victory, the reaction of the champion?
5. Javier arranging the meeting with Marianne, the bonds between them, falling in love, the marriage, the birth of their daughter?
6. Diego, his personality, quiet, a good man, memories of his father and his encouraging his chess playing, his abilities with the game? Marianne, her personality, French, settling in Spain? Her desire to go back to France, the connection with Pierre, Diego discovering her letter in the drawer?
7. The move to France, Marianne and friendship with Pierre, her work? Diego and the time with his daughter, introducing her to chess, explanations of the murders? Chess pieces?
8. Diego, calm and loving, taking his daughter out, seeing Marianne with Pierre, her initial lying, her explanation of the truth? The effect on him?
9. The arrival of the police, his arrest, no explanations, the rough treatment, stripped, searched, in the cell? His bewilderment? Accused of espionage? The others in the cell, his talking with role, roles that his back story? Support of Diego, building the chessboard, the pieces, the authorities smashing them? Life in the cell, dismal, the names of the prisoners called out, their being taken to execution?
10. Marianne, going to Pierre, the plea with the Minister, the promise of Diego is being freed, Marianne keeping vigil, is not coming out? Her going to the official, the confrontation, her being told that Diego was dead, executed? Her sadness, her distance from Pierre, the meetings, his friend home and shelter? Her waiting?
11. Diego, called out, the rough treatment of the German guards, brutality, mockery, laughing at their brutal treatment of people? Is not going to execution, is guided to see the commander?
12. The interrogation, his saying that he was a chess player, that being considered not a job, warehouse supervisor instead? But the commander interested in the chess, the initial game, his being seated, Diego standing, the moves, the commander thinking had been defeated, Diego causing him to hesitate, the return, the finale of the game?
13. Diego going back to his cell, talking with role, their working together? Then rolls disappearance? Diego, summoned to the commander, the various games, the change of clothes, the guards top told not to be brutal, better clothes? The scene of their gleefully hosing him down? A different cell? Diego and the calling out of the names of the men, his passing and watching the firing squad?
14. The years passing, the chess games, Diego’s request to write to his wife, the monthly letters, the irony of the commander not sending them out, giving Diego back the cash of letters?
15. The revelation that Pierre had betrayed him?
16. The Allied invasion, the Germans moving out, the commander letting Diego go, shooting himself, Diego in the street, the brutal German guards, looking at him, their departing?
17. Diego wandering, going back to his home, the neighbour giving him the information about his wife, the address, Bordeaux? His walking, the encounter with the Vineyard owner, the lift, the directions to the house?
18. Marianne, her amazement, her being married to Pierre, for two years, helping Diego, the bath, the food, his meeting his daughter, her not recognising him? His accepting Pierre and the marriage? Access to his daughter? The scene with his daughter, the chess piece, her initially thinking him a bigger, his shave, and the final touch in the moving moment her saying that she remembered him?
19. Diego as a man of integrity, the issue is religion, Catholic, not practising, the commander and the discussion about atheism, whether God had abandoned Diego – but, in fact, God not abandoning him, but saving him throughout the war?

DESPITE THE FALLING SNOW

Canada/UK, 2017, 93 minutes, Colour.

Rebecca Ferguson, Sam Reid, Charles Dance, Oliver Jackson-Cohen, Anthony Head, Antje Traue.

Directed by Shamim Sarif.

Despite the Falling Snow is a film about the Soviet Union, the collapse of the Soviet Union, transitions, espionage. The director, Shamim Sarif, adapted the screenplay from her own novel.

The film has two time eras, the late 1950s in Russia, the early 1960s in the United States. This establishes the main characters, especially the Russian, played by Australian Sam Reid (Interview with a Vampire, The Newsreaders). Then there is Russia in the early 1990s, after the collapse of the Soviet Union, as will the sequences at this time in the United States. The Russian displayed this time by Charles Dance.

There are complexities in relationships, seeming betrayals, efforts to make atonement. The leading character in the later period is played by Rebecca Ferguson (Mission Impossible, Dune).

The film was made in Serbia standing in from Moscow. At the time of this film’s release, even the 1990s was becoming part of Soviet and American history.

1. The title? Moscow and snow? Moscow and espionage? Moscow and romance?
2. The work of the director, novel, screenplay, production, direction?
3. A cold war story? The USSR in the Christian era? The US in the Kennedy era? The transition to 1992, election year for Bill Clinton, the collapse of the Soviet Union, Boris Yeltsin?
4. The filming in Serbia, the Moscow sequences, the winter, the streets, the river, the Kremlin, official offices, apartments, schools? The contrast with the US, receptions in the 1960s, apartments in the 1990s? The musical score?
5. The introduction, the US reception, 1961, meeting between Soviet officials and Americans? Sasha and his presence, nervy, accompanied, meeting the US contact, his making a run for it, pursued, the car, the photo of his life, the contact had been lost?
6. 1959, Sasha, is political career, his parents, friendship with Misha, his boss, severe protocols in secrecy? The meeting with Katia? The attraction? His being used, her getting the documents, her falling in love, mission and his influence, the preparation for the wedding, her hesitancy, her commitment, life together? The romance with Katia? Meal with his parents? His going to the US, the on, security? His boss, the revelation of espionage? Katie telling him the truth, the effect on him, wanting to save her, going to America?
7. The film has cut his story, her background, the flashbacks to the brutality against her family, work at school, connections with Misha, the contacts, the documents, passing them on? The relationship with Misha? The relationship with Sasha, using him, his attraction, her attraction, the decision for the wedding, life with Sasha, the revelation of the truth, the dangers?
8. Misha, his political affiliations, espionage, photographing documents, passing them to County, his friendship with Sasha? The complications, the discovery?
9. 1992, the older Sasha, his war with the documentation, the loss of cut here? With his niece, her artwork? Going to Moscow? His being unwilling to go?
10. Laura, artwork, going to Moscow, the Moscow connection, the artwork of cut here, the exhibition? The impact of the art of cardio on visitors, on the audience? Is trying to make connection with Misha?, Personality, reserved? Pretending to make the contact? Lauren, lesbian, her approach to mania? Millions resistance? Telling the truth, the conflict between the two?
11. The visit to measure, old age, invented, staying in Moscow? His hostility, drinking? His going to the exhibition, getting the suitcase? Seeing the artwork? Meeting with Sasha? The clash, leaving the suitcase?
12. Sasha, going to Moscow, the exhibition, the encounter with Misha, the suitcase, the letter and his reading it?
13. The audience seeing the flashback, Misha and the torture, the soldiers, his meeting with Katia, the confrontation, her running, her being shot?
14. An espionage story? The Cold War? 30 years later and consequences? But, principally, a romance story?

THE TEACHER WHO PROMISED THE SEA/  El mestre que va prometre el mar

Spain, 2023, 105 minutes, Colour.

Enric Auquer, Laia Costa, Louisa Gavasa, Ramon Agirre, Gael Aparicio, Alba Hermoso, Nicolas Calvo.

Directed by Patricia Font.

This is a film with moments of hope but also many moments which are grim. Perhaps the title indicates this – promise but whether the promise can ever be fulfilled.

This film is based on an actual character and events, with tributes and photos during the final credits. The setting is Spain in the mid 1930s, at the outbreak of the Civil War. However, there is a framework for the Civil War story, an elderly man in an aged care home, the concern by his granddaughter about his health, and wanting to know more about his past during the 1930s. The film shows the range of excavations of mass graves which have taken place in recent decades, she’s too horror of the discovery of the skeletons, so numerous, the need for identification – and this all over Spain, a map indicating the number of mass graves.

With her investigations, going to the town where her grandfather lived, finding one of his schoolfriends, the action of the film goes into flashbacks. Especially a focus on the new school teacher, Antonio (Enric Auguer). Antonio has arrived, a friend in the town publishing his articles with socialist bent, trying out various experiments with the small group of children, getting them to participate themselves in their own education, programs, activities. This, of course, causes difficulties, especially with the Mayor whose young daughter is in the class, feeling herself superior to the rest of the children.

The teacher has to look after one of the children, Carlos, whose father is in prison. And this is the young boy who will become the grandfather in the aged care home.

In terms of a film about education, this is the work of the pioneers who want to involve the children in their education and not just be subject to curricula. And, Antonio is atheist. This elicits on the part of the very stern parish priest.

The children have never seen the sea and that is one of the promises that Antonio makes. However, the war breaks out, audiences have seen troops and fascist factions roaming through the village. Ultimately, the military arrives, the village people have to take a stands, Antonio very much supported by the old widow who has been his housekeeper, the mayor taking the side of the troops.

It is sad to see the treatment of Antonio, the response of the children, of the people in the village, his being taken into prison, all put by Carlos’s father, and a particularly plain but moving sequence where Antonio is taken out into the hills, the soldiers having a smoke before casually shooting him.

Audiences have been continually interested in Spanish Civil War stories this is a strong addition to these stories, based on actual characters and events, but continually questioning the behaviour of right-wing extremists.

1. Audience interest in Spain, the 20^th century, the Civil War, the aftermath with Franco, the 21^st century and dealing with the history, the murders, the digging up of the mass graves, younger generations searching for understanding of ancestors?
2. The town, in the 1930s, homes, farms, schools, the church? 21^st-century and mass grave sites, the excavations? And residents in care? The musical score?
3. The interplay between the two time periods? The concern of the present, Carlos in aged care, his daughter, granddaughter, her illness, her own daughter, concerned for her grandfather, his stroke? The information about the graves, the travel, the discussions with Laura, the nature of the excavations, the information, the bones and skeletons, DNA tests for identity? Arianna and her anxiety, disappointment, the discussions with Emilio, his support, going to see Josefina, spurned, her daughter bringing the documents, the examination with Emilio, the return to her grandfather?
4. 1935-1936, the political situation, the rise of the fascists, the patrolling of the towns with fascists, the entry of the Army? Anti-communism? The ordinary people of the town, Catholic background, working, their families? The role of the parish priest, his severity – and his look at the end when Antonio had been tortured?
5. The story of Antonio, teacher, new appointment, interactions with the Mayor, the children at the school, their families, Carlos and his imprisoned father, Josefina daughter of the mayor, her severe mother, Emilio and his father, unable to read, demanding on his son for work? Antonio and his principles for education, less formal education, more questions, experiments, solutions? Telling stories? The writing of the pieces, compiling the books, printing the books? The effect on the children, their enthusiasms? The issue of the sea, the promise to go there, the reluctance of commissions, the mayor and his wife, Emilio’s father, Antonio reading Emilio’s story, the permission? The episode of the photo and the children’s delight?
6. Antonio, atheist, taking down crucifix, respect for faith in the church, his articles in the paper? The mayor and his comments? The hostility of the parish priest?
7. Antonio settling in, Charo and her work, the conversations, the gradual warming and friendship, her warnings about his politics, support? Her sadness at his arrest?
8. Carlos, unable to read, his father not teaching him, hostility to Antonio, Antonio persuading him to write letters to his father, learning, embracing Antonio?
9. Inspector, the mayor and the parish priest, the excellent performance by the students?
10. Life in the town, the festivities, the dancing, yet the shadow of fascism?
11. Antonio arrested, tortured, bound, drained through the town, everybody watching, the children upset? Into the cell, Carlos’s father helping him? His friend who had supported him with his publications? His being dragged out, into the countryside, the soldiers having their smoke, and the shooting?
12. Spain, the decades after Franco, coming to terms with history, and the history of the search for the mass graves?