Displaying items by tag: Peter Malone's Movie Reviews

BEYOND THE WASTELAND

Australia, 2022, 92 minutes, Colour.

Bertrand Cadert.

Directed by Eddie Berouthy.

The Wasteland of the title is Mad Max territory.

This is a documentary about fandom, international fandom, not only at the time of the initial release of the film but a celebration 40 years later.

The film focuses particularly on the first Mad Max film, 1979, interviews with George Miller himself, with various actors from the original including Steve Bisley, Roger Ward, Joanne Samuel, and various people who portrayed the idiosyncratic supporting characters. There is commentary by Luke Buckmaster who wrote a book about the films. There is commentary by Alan Finney, publicist at the time.

And there are sequences from the original film, reference to the second film, The Road Warrior, a nod in the direction of the third film only, and reference to the later films focusing on Furiosa.

However, the main thrust of the documentary is a pilgrimage! The audience is introduced to Frenchman, Bertrand Cadert, who came to Australia in the 70s, found himself with a role in the original film, kept in touch, fostered the memory of the film, collected all kinds of souvenirs. Suffering from leukaemia, he decides, the doctor encouraging him, to go on this pilgrimage. With the aid of a screen map, the audience sees him drive from Queensland through western and central New South Wales to Victoria, to the town of Clunes, where many of the fans, the actors, technicians, have come to celebrate the 40^th anniversary of Mad Max. Those who gather our young and old, a re-creation of some of the stunts, especially a car crashing through a trailer, and enthusiasts gathering up relics to keep.

The busy camera, roaming the streets, capturing people, interviews, stunts, reminiscences… And, not forgetting the elaborate costumes and their re-creation, fans proudly wearing them.

On the way back, Bertrand visits Silverton, used for Mad Max 2. We are introduced to the owners of the pub, reminiscing about the time of the filmmaking, of other crews coming to the town, of the range of pilgrimages.

And, throughout the film, there are lengthy interviews with international fans, from France, from the US, from Italy, from Japan, seeing them in their home countries, rules and conventions, but also seeing them coming to Australia, some of them amazed at the vastness, but relishing their Mad Max experiences.

Who would have thought? Back in 1979?

KILLERS OF THE FLOWER MOON

US, 2023, 206 minutes, Colour.

Leonardo DiCaprio, Robert De Niro, Lily Gladstone, Jesse Plemons, Tantoo Cardinal, John Lithgow, Brendan Fraser, Martin Scorsese, Cara Jade Myers, Janae Collins, Jillian Dion, Jason Isbell, Scott Shepherd, Tatanka Means.

Directed by Martin Scorsese.

By 1918, when this film opens, Native Americans were something of a lost minority in their own land, in reservations, or wandering from place to place in the Oklahoma Badlands, as is with the Osage Nation here. In silent film style, the situation is dramatised, poverty and on the move, the sudden gushers of oil on Osage Land, unexpected wealth and affluent lifestyle, befriended by Whites, patronised by Whites, and the targets for intermarriage and inheriting land and oil rights. It is not yet 40 years since Cochise and Custer’s Last Stand at Little Big Horn.

There is also a preface to the film where Osage Elders gather, talk about their traditions, and regrets that the next generation is being taught by white teachers, their learning other ways and forgetting their own.

Into this world comes Ernest (Leonardo DiCaprio), returning from being a cook on the French battlefields. Not the smartest, he is welcomed by his highly reputed uncle, King (Robert De Niro), and his brother Byron (Scott Shepherd). King seems to be benign personified, promoting the welfare of everyone in the town of Fairfax, whatever their origins. Ernest runs a taxi, and is eager to drive Mollie (a dignified and quietly passionate Lily Gladstone) to her mother’s house. She has several sisters, who are involved with white men. And then the visual information that many Osage die. King encourages Ernest’s interest in Mollie for marriage, children and inheritance reasons and, while Ernest continually smiles and gloats that he loves money, he does fall in love with Mollie.

Martin Scorsese has made films for over 50 years, so many of them about American crime, especially gangsters. And this time, he takes up the cause of the Native Americans, and their being victimised by criminal greed and violence.

And this is a very long film, 3 ½ hours. And, to make a comparison with the film, Oppenheimer, it presents itself in three parts. The first part introduces the characters and issues, immerses the audience in the life of the town, part frontier, part stable, and the interaction between white and Native American. Once this is established, the second part focuses on the characters, the events, the violence, the exploitation, King, continually smiling, yet a Machiavellian influence, Bible quoting, especially on Ernest for whom greed and loyalty to King affect his love for his wife, who is suffering from diabetes, the beginnings of the availability of insulin. The third part, like the third part of Oppenheimer, might seem something of anti-climax to those very much involved in the action. The third part is the legal part, the arrival of FBI agents, investigations, prison, court sequences. But a necessary third part to evaluate the rights and wrongs, mainly wrongs, of what we have seen.

As expected, the performances are excellent – and, in the third part, some welcome cameos from Jesse Plemons, John Lithgow, Brendan Fraser and, in a tantalising finale to the whole film, the audience taken to a 1940s radio studio and participating in the dramatising of this story, led by the show’s producer, Scorsese himself.

The film is an important piece of Americana, a conscience-jolting exploration of the defeat and exploitation of the Native Americans.

1. The title, and the American killers, the season of beauty, the fields and the flower moon vistas?
2. American history, first Nations Americans, the opening, the silent film style, the situation of the Osage Nation, migrations, minority, the discovery of oil, the vista of the gushers, the ownership of the oil, the scenes of exploitative wealth, cars, clothes, jewellery, and the succession of murders, bodies lying in state?
3. The scenes with the Osage nation, assessing the present, the next-generation being taught by Whites, the white ways, the changes, the 1920s and this coming into fulfilment? The various dignitaries, their leadership? Henry, his role in leadership, his drinking, ultimate collapse, his death?
4. The structure of the film, the first part the introduction, the second part, the murders and exploitation, the third part justice and legal issues?
5. The locations, Fairfax, the railway and the trains, the streets, the bars, homes, mansions? The interiors? The prison, the courts? And the finale on the radio station? The musical score?
6. Ernest returning home, the American situation, 1918, serving over there, the reputation of the troops, Ernest as a cook? Not the brightest? Coming home to his uncle, to Byron? Agreeable, naive? Believing in his uncle? Promotion? Driving the taxi, the encounter with Mollie, his uncle’s plan, marriage and murder, inheritance? Interaction between Mollie and Ernest, making her laugh, her inviting him in, the meals, the mother, the sisters?
7. The character of William King Hale, Robert De Niro’s performance, quietly sinister, the smile, the smooth talk, quoting the Bible, relationship with the Osage, bringing the benefits to the town, prosperity, but his overall plan? At home, meeting people, always smiling? Machiavellian? Scheming, plotting, advising? His role in the deaths of the Indian women, the inheritance of the oil wealth?
8. The moral climate of Fairfax, attitudes towards the First Nations, the oil, wealth, Ernest and his love for money, almost equal to his wife? The men in the bar, Byron and his contacts, the murders, colours, planned, the set-ups, Anna, her wild life, Byron, her pregnancy, the visuals of her drunkenness, her murder? The autopsy, cutting up the body, the search for the bullet? Anna and her relationship with his mother, her mother’s favourite?
9. Smith, his relationship with his wife, her illness, the picnic scenes of the sisters together, her death? His reaction, hiring the detective? Relationship with Reta, marrying, her being a comfort to him? His becoming the target?
10. Ernest, the revelation of his motivations, connections, setting up the killings, the loan of the car, the insurance scheme? The killers, their backgrounds, prison? Their characters, callous? Byron and his role, with the women, with King, with Ernest?
11. Mollie, at home, with her mother, her mother favouring Anna? Life-and-death, traditions, the vision of the owl? Her death?
12. Mollie, the diabetes, her health, in love with Ernest, the marriage, the ceremonies and joy, her pregnancy, over the years, the children? The doctors, the insulin? The brothers and their medical expertise, exploitation? Ernest and the injections, a means for Mollie’s death and the inheritance? Mollie and the vision of the old?
13. The murder of Henry, the killer, his change of heart, meant to look like suicide? The hiring of detectives, their being brutalised, the visit to Washington, the representation of the Osage, Mollie and her talking with President Coolidge?
14. The FBI investigator, White, his arrival, interrogations, Ernest putting him off because of Mollie’s health, King and his smooth talk? The further investigations, the variety of agents arriving, uncovering the truth?
15. Ernest, his being arrested, his complicity in the planning of the murders, the bombing of the house and its destruction? The old man who witnessed Anna’s death and his giving testimony? The arrest of King? King, the signed deal with Ernest, his being observed?
16. Ernest and the interrogation, keeping him standing, holding his relationship with Mollie over him, his children? The news of the youngest child to death, the hooping cough, the Coffin?
17. King, arrested, agreeable, in prison, the pressure on Ernest? His threats to Ernest in prison, holding Mollie’s health over him? Ernest being freed, talking with Mollie, the funeral, promising to tell the truth, his admissions – but the question of his injections for Mollie? Her being in court, her walking away from him – and the final information about the divorce?
18. Ernest, his change of heart, his testimony, condemning King? The callous murderer and his offhand testimony in court, telling the truth?
19. The lawyers, the defence, speeches in court, dominating Ernest? The prosecutor and his rhetoric?
20. The very American ending, the radio program, the announcers, the actors and two voices, the white man and the Osage voice, the special effects and sounds? The information about the case, Ernest, imprisonment, release, with Byron, the divorce, Mollie and her new life, her death? King, jail, release, his death?
21. The final visuals of the Osage Nation, the rising drone shot, the pageantry?

THE DARKNESS WITHIN LA LUZ DEL MUNDO

Mexico, 2023, 113 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Carlos Perez Osorio.

A powerful documentary from Mexico – with a story which will be well-known in Mexico and in Central and Latin America but less well-known in the English-speaking world although its culminating trials took place in Los Angeles.

La Luz del Mundo is an evangelical church which was founded in Mexico in 1926 and soon developed, spread, became powerful and wealthy by the end of the 20^th century, and was established in many countries throughout the world, even with a branch in Sydney.

Audiences familiar with the development of evangelical churches in the 20^th century in the south of the United States, will be interested in the similarities with Mexico. Audiences wary of the leadership of this kind of church, the possibilities for cult leadership and indoctrination, the possibilities for exploitation by the leaders, will find this film even more interesting. Audiences with a variety of attitudes towards the tele-evangelists, their methods, their preaching, their money collection, their affluent lifestyles, will also be eager to watch this story.

In its almost 100 years history, the church has had only three leaders, Aarón (Eusebio) Joaquín González, Samuel Joaquín Flores, and Naasón Joaquín García. There are some flashbacks and photo visual material on the founder, but the first part of the film focuses on his son, Samuel, and his leadership of the church and its extraordinary growth, visuals of the disciples, their intense faith, the enthusiasm, their belief in the leader as “the Apostle of Jesus Christ”. Samuel died in the 1990s and the leadership was assumed, a process of religious discernment decided that he was also The Apostle, by Naason, who, to all appearances, did not look as if  fulfhe could fulfil the requirements of this kind of leadership.

So, this documentary takes its place as a portrayal of a religious group, Christian aspects, clashes with the Catholic Church and leaders in Mexico, a building program, a communal program, and thousands of avid and devoted disciples, old and young, men and women.

However, it is also a story of cult leaders and sexual exploitation. For audiences who are connected in any way to organisations whose leaders and members have been arrested, tried and condemned for sexual abuse, especially of minors, this is an important film because it is looking, from their point of view, very objectively at abuses, at offenders, at victims, at survivors, listening to their testimony.

Eventually, a number of women were prepared to speak openly about their sexual experiences, especially young women, young teenagers, who were chosen by the leaders, especially Samuel and then his son, with the aid of female members who were the equivalents of pimps, grooming these young women, leading them into sexual behaviour, the loss of their virginity, the bewilderment of their experiences.

As always, it is very moving to listen to these testimonies and the saddest of memories, of abusive and destructive experiences.

There is a great deal of information and visuals about Naason, he is arrested, in the United States, on trial in Los Angeles. This documentary covers the various trials, his pleas, denials, compromises, imprisonment, deals, right up to decisions by the end of 2022, the judge listening, sentencing, but bound by limitations for which he apologises, especially to survivors, making the documentary very up-to-date at the time of its release to Netflix.

Clearly, this kind of story, this factual documentary, often stark and direct, can be very disturbing viewing. With this caution, it is a documentary that should be seen widely, contributing a Latin American perspective, unfamiliar to many audiences, to the exposure of organisational sexual abuse, especially in the latter part of the 20^th century and into the 21^st-century.

ROTTING IN THE SUN

US/Mexico, 2023, 113 minutes, Colour.

Jordan Firstman, Catalina Saavedra, Sebastian Silva, Matteo Riestra, Juan Silva.

Directed by Sebastian Silva.

This is a small-budget, independent film, introduced at the Sundance Film Festival. It is not a mainstream film, distributed in the arthouse circuit.

Sebastian Silver is a prominent musician, artist, film writer and director, from Chile but also working internationally. Prominent amongst his feature films are The Maid, Magic Magic, Crystal Fairy and the Magical Cactus.

This is a gay film, a gay culture film, Silva himself openly gay. With his long-time writing partner, Pedro Peirano, he has created a character, with his name, but a variation on his persona. He is joined in the film by comic writer, producer and comedian, Jordan Firstman, also doing a variation on his persona and career.

The setting is Mexico City, the screenplay making some comments on how Americanised Mexico has become, the presence of visitors from the US, poverty, wealth, holiday resorts… And, with the depressed Silva urged to go to a resort, the film goes to a gay nude beach, frank and direct nudity and sexual activity. At the resort, Silva rescues Firstman caught in a rip. Firstman gets the idea of using Silva to work on a television series, personal and encounters with people.

This strand of the film continues, pressure from Firstman, reluctance from Silva, but contact with HBO who like the idea and meetings are set up.

Then comes the main part of the film, Silva with the maid (played by Catalina Saavedra, his star in The Maid), are working in a house being repaired by a friend who continually eggs on Silva. Carrying a sofa from upstairs, there is an accident, Silva falling to his death, the maid anxious, contacting her brother, hiding the body, planning to remove it, and lying about the situation, especially with Firstman interrogating her, his phone doing translations, the situation becoming more and more dire.

Firstman then calls Silva’s brother to visit (played by Silva’s actual brother).

And, interspersed throughout this narrative there are various characters shown in the house and elsewhere, gay men involved in sexual activity.

The film won awards from its target audience – many audiences may be put off by its explicitness. However, in terms of drama and comedy, the story of Silva’s death and his body being moved about seems something of a very laboured variation on the Weekend at Bernie’s comedy farce.

MAD ABOUT THE BOY: THE NOEL COWARD STORY

UK, 2023, 92 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Barnaby Thompson.

In the 1930s, Noel Coward was a celebrity in England and in the United States, a personality in the media, an actor, a significant playwright, a composer of songs with arresting and delighting lyrics. He continued this persona in later decades, contributing to the British World War II effort with the film, In Which We Serve, continuing to write plays and to perform, writing significant screenplays like Brief Encounter, appearing to advantage as a guest star in films like the 1969, the Italian Job, a prison variation of his sardonic persona.

This documentary, narrated by Alan Cumming, with quotations from Coward himself voiced by Rupert Everett, takes the audience through Coward’s life, comparatively poor circumstances, bond with his mother and family, little formal schooling, auditions and acting, success during his teens, self-educated. The film also illustrates how he changed his persona as the years went on, adopting the sophisticated air, the arched tones and intonations of voice, his comic timing and wry humour. There are interviews with David Frost and other television interviewers, scattered throughout the film, illuminating the various aspects explored by the documentary. And, as the title suggests, there are many excerpts from his songs.

A great deal of attention is paid to Coward’s dramatic career in the theatre, in the UK, sailing to the US and overwhelmed by Broadway, his writing of The Vortex, its success, its condemnation by moralists, the continued performances and Coward’s own presence on stage. Which leads to a significant focus on his key play, Private Lives, excerpts, vocal excerpts, his work with actress Gertrude Lawrence.

Noel Coward certainly belongs to past eras, audiences familiar with those decades enjoying this encounter with Coward. He may not be familiar at all with younger generations. And, his very British upper-class accent and attitudes could be offputting.

However, this film with its many quotes from his works, while not a deep exploration of his personality, his homosexuality (presented in a very matter-of-fact way here), or his influence on theatre, cinema, music, it is an opportunity to have a taste of his achievements, to hear him speak (and enjoy his sometimes wry comments, self-deprecating). He had, as he said, “a talent to amuse”.

THE DIVE

Germany, 2023, 91 minutes, Colour.

Louisa Krause, Sophie Lowe.

Directed by Maximilian Erlenwein.

It is probably a good sign of the times to have women protagonists in action adventures that used to be the prerogative of male protagonists. In recent years, there have been underwater adventures, like this one, featuring women, or mountain climbing challenges, women trapped on ledges. The Dive, filmed in Malta, with some spectacular cliff scenery, and underwater Mediterranean photography (as well as in studio tanks), has two sisters driving to a remote location for scuba diving.

In fact, the premise of the story is quite simple. And it could happen. There is always this kind of risk. The two sisters are exploring, there is an underwater shower of rocks, one of the sisters being trapped, her leg caught by a substantial force. And, for the sisters, and for the audience, the questions of the amount of air available, how to lift the rock and free the leg, is the issue of whether there is anyone around (in fact, there is a church with a large cross, and some Catholic imagery, but no one there). What about the timing, the energy of the sister who has to perform all the steps for the rescue, the pressure on her, the worry. And, the fate of the woman trapped below the ocean surface.

This is quite an international film. It is a German production, the director himself German. One of the sisters is played by Louisa Krause, an American actress, the other by Sophie Lowe, from Australia. And the dialogue is in English. It is based on a 2020 Norwegian film, Breaking Surface.

The impact of the film will depend on the audience’s attitudes toward scuba diving, enthusiasts will be interested, others might find it too remote from their own experiences. And there is something frighteningly claustrophobic about being trapped underwater. And there is the continual challenge – what would we do in similar situations, what is the effect of the physical pressure, the psychological pressure, and how much inventiveness and creativity would we have for the rescue?

For the first 12 minutes, the main intention is the relationship between the two sisters, memories of their father, playing together, diving together, some falling out – and a few flashbacks throughout the film, personalising the underwater crisis.

So, enjoyment value will depend on the impact the sisters make, audience response to the dangerous situation, and the challenge for a rescue (which, does not quite turn out as we might have been expecting!).  

1. The title, straightforward, the plot and relationship between the two sisters, tensions, the scuba diving, the remote place, the accident, the rescue?
2. The Mediterranean settings, remote, the vast cliffs, the beaches, the water, the underwater photography, fish, the crags and cliffs, canyons, the rock shower? The church, the interiors, the iconography? The remote boat? The flashbacks? The musical score?
3. The two sisters, the tensions in the car, the relationship, memories of their father, the flashbacks, swimming, companionship, rivalry? The bonding scuba diving?
4. The remoteness, no one around, later seeing the church, the cross, the interiors, the iconography, the tools? The boat on the horizon? Writing the note for the rescue?
5. The Joy of the swimming, the rock shower, the sister trapped, taking control, the issue of the oxygen, the tanks, the timing? Her staying underwater, the pressure? Her memories?
6. The sister and her panic, the instructions for the oxygen of the tanks, going to the surface, the car locked, breaking the window, the tanks, going to the church, desperate, the tools, writing the note? Seeing the boat in the distance? The car boot, locked, pushing the car, the crash? The Pole?
7. Going to the rescue, trying to lift the rock, the Pole breaking? The issue of the oxygen? Ultimately getting the leg free? The rescuer staying underwater, in the pool, unconscious, the other sister going to the surface, getting the oxygen, returning? Resuscitating her sister?
8. The Joy of scuba diving, adventure? The personal story? The drama of the rescue, each sister rescuing the other?

DAMAGE

Australia, 2022, 84 minutes, Colour.

Ali Al Jenabi, Imelda Bourke.

Directed by Madeleine Blackwell.

This is a very personal film written and directed by Madeleine Blackwell, an Adelaide-based story, but very much an Australian story.

One night, an Iraqi refugee, without a visa, takes his turn driving a taxi around Adelaide, using the identity card of a fellow driver. We see him prepare, go to his car, begin to look for passengers. The driver is played by Ali Al Jenabi, his only film.

Suddenly, he is accosted by an elderly lady, appearing out of nowhere, vague, lost, getting in the taxi, but not knowing really where she wants to go, rummaging in her purse, not having an address. She is played by Imelda Bourke, a noted singer from the past, this her only film. And, it is striking to discover that she is the director’s mother.

The tagline for advertising the film states that he wants to forget but that she can’t remember.

The driver has flashbacks to various aspects of life in Iraq, bombings, sports events, personal experiences. It colours his perspective, his defensiveness, touches of aggression, especially when the old lady challenges him with asking why he has come to “my country”. She has a lot of old prejudices against migrants, against Muslims.

There is a scene where the driver drops her at a Catholic church, comments about faith and different perspectives on God/Allah.

There is a striking sequence when the driver has to fill up his taxi with petrol but has been told by his phone boss that he needs to have the taxi cleaned. The driver becomes very anxious, some harsh memories of the past, desperate in fear of being overwhelmed by water, asking the old lady to drive, she refusing, saying she has forgotten how, going into the car wash, his being overwhelmed, the old lady left stranded, but eventually driving it out of the car wash. They then sit and talk.

So, within the brief confines of a taxi ride, destination uncertain, two unlikely characters meet, confront, share, come to some understanding. The driver does look in the lady’s bag, does get an address, wants to drive her to her daughter’s place, finding a destination, the old lady rescues her dog (initially unwelcome in the taxi), leaving the audience to wonder where this will lead, the driver being able to settle in Australia, the old lady able to find relatives and home.

The film works very well on this level of the interaction between two strangers. And, it makes audiences realise that there is a great deal of prejudice ingrained in Australian society that needs not only to be challenged, but to be experienced humanely, by authentic human contact.

1. The title? Damaged people, damage continuing, healing and mending?
2. The Adelaide setting, city sequences, the suburbs, the roads, service station, the Catholic Church, homes? The city by night? The musical score?
3. A two hander, a taxi ride, the two actors and their only films? The director working with her mother?
4. The driver, Iraqi background, no visa, driving the taxi, shared identity, preparing for the ride, the passenger, memories of Iraq, destruction, sports, oppression of water?
5. The old lady, her age, suddenly at the window, getting in, vague, her purse, no address, loss of memory, minimal back story, her daughter, in care or not?
6. The issue of refugees, Muslims, the prejudice of the old lady, the later Catholic Church visit, discussions about Allah and God?
7. The service station, the issue of the car wash, the driver and his fears, going into the wash, flashbacks, getting out, the old lady saying she had forgotten how to drive, the driving out the car?
8. Sitting on the bench, the talking, aspects of their stories? His taking her to the church, her getting back in?
9. Her purse, and address, the drive to the glass building, the dog, not welcome the taxi, the coming back to the taxi?
10. The film in the taxi, confined, yet audiences appreciating both characters, the interactions?
11. The effect of the drive and the encounter on the driver? Some softening of the old lady, her attitudes? A future?

DISCONNECT ME

Australia, 2023, 98 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Alex Lykos.

Beginning a review with a solid recommendation.

This is definitely a film that will do its audiences good. It is a documentary. It raises a great number of themes which challenge the audience. But, not only is it interesting, it is very entertaining. And the writer-director, Alex I costs, is very personable, inviting us the audience into his film and share his experiences.

The title is an alert. The disconnection – from one’s phone! Alex Lykos is very definitely concerned about our reliance on our phones, their being in our hands and therefore part of an extension through our arms to the total body. The IT is practically physically part of us, in our hands, and then at our ears, and our eyes fixated on our screens, heads bent, bodies stooped, the way that we live hours of our lives every day.

Alex decides that he will conduct an experiment, go without his phone for 30 days. Audiences who are not dependent on their social media may be interested and amused to see what happens. Audiences who are dependent, co-dependent, might well be alarmed and fear what they are going to see and wonder if it will have any repercussions on their own lives.

Once again, it is worth saying that Alex Lykos is very personable, talking straight to camera, confidentially talking to us as individuals or as the group audience. He introduces us to his wife of 12 years, who will lock up his phone, pad and computer, and then has to play Monopoly with him during the evenings, but finding his behaviour hard during the 30 days. And, then there is his father, continually ringing him, complaining about his useless job in making documentaries, not being available when he brings his phone, his father Greek, and the conversations in Greek (and some of his father’s exasperation not translated in the subtitles!).

So, Alex explained to us what happens over the days, the sense of absence and separation, the need to know, not having his contacts instantly available (and the consequences of missing out on important calls), not checking the news, the weather… Even having to read the paper! (Interestingly, there is no mention of radio as a source of news and information.) So, we are engaged in Alex’s drama, its comic side effects, its exasperations, and all the time the invitation to make comparisons with our own lives.

There are quite a number of experts in the film. Alex has a physical checkup before the 30 days, a doctor questioning him about his sleep patterns, concentration, doing sleep tests, prescribing for sleep apnoea. And there is also the issue of the curvature or not of his spine. (Spoiler alert – the 30 days of not looking at a phone has some very good physical repercussions!)

There are interviews with experts, especially about children and their use of phones, the limitations of physical development in terms of movement, play, interactions, a kind of stunting of development which, the more we think about it, and the more we look at the interviews even with five-year-olds who are telling us whether they use mummy’s or daddy’s phone and force them to give it to them, and then play computer games…

The interviews with the senior primary school students and the secondary students, and the statistics of time devoted to looking at their phones certainly can ring alarm bells. One cheerful boy says he spends 12 hours on his phone, an hour sleeping – and Alex points out that that leaves only four hours in the day for any kind of human interactions, meals, learning… And the youngsters explain why they have to be on their phones, to keep in contact, not to be left out, even if, as one girl who shows herself to be a singer of great range, is bullied and mocked.

And, interviews with adults, Alex being able to ask them probing questions, some of them admitting that they are phone-addicts, some worried about information about their children, others worrying about the effect on their parenting.

By the end of the film, there are even questions about how IT will affect our future, the role of the robots and robotics, implants in the brain to help us think better, IT making our judgements, positive but also destructive (a theme explored in The Creator released at the same time as this film).

This is a fine example of the power of a documentary, presenting themes that are interesting and immediately relevant, plenty of facts and data, quite a number of experts, but all presented in an engaging and enjoyable way. (Alex sometimes asking the audience to put up their hands if they are guilty of some of the hard situations he raises.)

1. The title, the tone, phones?
2. A personal documentary, the role of the writer director, personal involvement, personable, talking to camera, confiding in the audience, inviting the men, challenging them?
3. The documentary style, following Alex for 30 days, the personal sequences, relationship with his wife, with his father? Talking heads, the experts, doctors, psychologists, social observers? Alex sitting in interview with them? Interviews with parents in the streets? The range of interviews with children, five-year-olds, primary school, secondary school?
4. 30 days without a phone, the phone as an extension of the human body through the hand and arm, close to the years, so long observed each day by eyes? The physical repercussions, difficulties in going to sleep, waking during the night, sleep apnoea, physical inactivity, curvature of the spine? The interviews with the doctors? And the good effects of the 30 days?
5. Alex and his wife, 12 years, her locking the phone, pad, computer in the safe? Playing Monopoly? Alex buying the landline? The dial phone unable to function? Buying Monopoly? Getting on reading the papers? No radio? The television set? The realisation of the connection to the phone, mails, texts, important missed calls, news items, the weather, keeping up-to-date to the minute? The repercussions for Alex? Pining for the phone? But able to play golf and enjoys golf?
6. His father, the phone calls, complaining about difficulty in contact, criticising his job, his finances? Issues of health, consulting the doctor, suspicious, the tablets, the subtitles for the conversation in Greek, not translating his father’s outbursts? Finally seeing his father, the visit to the home, but seeing his father dancing?
7. The adults, the interviews, their phone dependence, surprise of news about their children, their example with phones, determinations for the future? The man in the street and discussion about IT?
8. The children, the youngsters, adept with phones, using their parents’ phones, playing the games, forcing their parents to give them the phones? The other children, the amount of time spent looking at their phones, the reasons, keeping up-to-date, keeping in contact, not isolated, feeling deprived otherwise? The secondary school boy with 12 hours daily on his phone? The other boy who is giving up his phone and dependence? The bullied girl (and the video on her singing so beautifully)? Her wanting to keep contact even when bullied, not to be left out?
9. The interplay of Alex’s life and story with the interviews and the talking heads?
10. Coming to the end, the role of AI, robotics, chips implanted in the brain, futuristic considerations? And the youngsters not wanting to have chips in their brains?
11. The overall effect, the audience learning, challenge, entertained?

RETURN TO SEOUL

Korea/France, 2022, 119 minutes, Colour.

Park Ji-min, Oh Kwang-rok, Guka Han, Kim Su-young, Yoann Zimmer, Louis-Do de Lencquesaing,Son Seung-Beom.

Directed by Davy Chou.  

The basic plot for this French film can be outlined as a young Korean woman, an adoptee in France, comes to Korea and discovers more of her identity. But, in fact, this could be misleading. It is not a simple story.

The film opens in Korea, at a guesthouse, the young woman, Freddie (Park Ji-min) books in for a two-week stay. She is welcomed, she has arrived in Korea only because her flight to Japan was cancelled, not really in search of her identity. She speaks French and English, not Korean – and behaves in quite extravagant, even alienating, bizarrely French, sexual.

But, the host of the guesthouse does mention the Hammond organisation in Korea for finding birth parents. Freddie does follow through, is confrontative to the authorities but, fortunately, has a code number which leads to a very quick identification. She visits the family, seems a bit alienated from them, but the family happy to see her, especially her father who explains how he was young, that her mother wanted to live in the city, not on the fishing village, and the wants to keep in contact with her.

In fact, the screenplay does not go as we might have thought or even hoped. Her father makes contact – Freddie doesn’t. He drinks, becomes rather desperate, some stalking of her. But she seems to have a good relationship with her French adoptive parents, but also treats them in her rather self-centred offhand way.

Then, suddenly we move five years ahead, Freddie in a relationship, visiting Korea, in a liaison with a businessman involved in the missile industry. And, even at this stage, visiting her father yet even resisting him. She still does not speak Korean but is helped by her aunt, English into Korean. The audience is still rather alienated from Freddie. But, she is in relationships, is successful in business.

Then another sudden jump of two years, Hammond having contacted her birth mother, and a final consent, a meeting which is the culmination of Freddie’s mixed national identity, and need for finding her mother, and the audience in hope for her future.

1. Korean-French production, Korean identity?
2. The title and tone, the story of an adoptee, growing up in friends, the chance returning to Korea for two weeks, the consequences?
3. But Freddie The Korean locations, the city of Seoul, guest houses, interiors, restaurants and bars, the contrast with the streets, the highways, cities outside the capital, family gatherings? The contrast with the business world? The musical score? The range of songs, Freddie and performance?
4. The structure of the film, the focus on Freddie’s visit to Seoul, the events, meetings, the transition to 5 years later, the changes in Freddie, her job, behaviour, relationships, the transition to 2 years later, her life, meeting her mother?
5. The use of close-ups throughout the film, faces, expressions, lack of expression, silence?
6. Freddie at the guesthouse, Tina and the music, Freddie wanting to listen? Tina befriending Freddie, the young men, speaking French, Freddie not speaking Korean, the issue of communications throughout the film? At the bar, Freddie’s behaviour, getting the group together, the drinking, the music, her being outlandish, the night with the young man, the sexual encounter?
7. The initial audience impression of Freddie, is a person, her age, hearing her story of adoption, brought up in France, contact with her parents, the phone call to her mother? Yet and alienating person to those she met, alienating the audience?
8. Tina and the suggestion to contact Hammond, the agency concerning adoptees, Freddie’s visit, the difficulties with documents, the photo with the number, finding the file, making the contact with the father, with the mother? The regulations and time limits?
9. Freddie going with Tina to meet her father, the whole family, his story, young, the mother, not wanting contact, the difficulties of bringing up the daughter, her father living with his mother, the mother present at the meeting, the aunt translating, other members of the family? The use of English, the aunt translating? The effect on Freddie, the effect on the father, the rest of the family, the daughters and the video of their dancing, photo opportunities? The father taking her to the Bay, talking about his life in the tradition of fishing?
10. Freddie’s reaction, hostile, Tina and her criticism, Freddie going out on the town? The young man pleading with her to stay, her stubborn and offhand reactions? Ignoring her father’s texts, his drinking, confronting her in the city? Her disdain?
11. After five years, Freddie and the contact with Andre, the weapons company, her becoming involved, the relationship? Meeting her family again, her father drinking less, his seeming better, her aunt translating, the effect on her? And her still alienating behaviour, her moods, alone, returning to the apartment, the young man and the art, going out, socialising?
12. The transition to 2 years later, her work with the company, the relationship with Maxime, still difficult in terms of her relationships? The news about her mother, going to the office, the young assistant, the regulations about contacting the mother, her arrival, briefing, bring her in?
13. The final scene, the mother coming in, touching her daughter, the embrace, the focus on the mother, the focus on Freddie? And her life after this?

JESUS REVOLUTION

US, 2023, 120 minutes, Colour.

Joel Courtney, Jonathan Roumie, Kimberly Williams-Paisley, Anna Grace Barlow, Kelsey Grammer, Jackson Robert Scott, Nicholas Cirillo, Julia Campbell.

Directed by Jon Irwin, Brent McCorkle.

When 21^st-century historians, as well as the public, look back at 1968, the focus is on the American involvement in Vietnam. And, especially in San Francisco, they look back at the hippies. However, this documentary looks back at the hippies but from a different perspective, from a religious perspective. The beginnings of the Jesus Revolution, and the influence on Christianity, evangelical churches, revivalist Christianity, Pentecostal and charismatic Christianity, and the tele-evangelists, as well as the alert about cult leaders, sexual abuse, financial mismanagement…

This film is based on a book by one of the central characters of the film, Greg Laurie. And, there are the writings of several of the other key characters in this film, especially Pastor Chuck Smith and evangelist Lonnie Frisbee. And, documentaries have been made about each of these characters.

The film had great box office success in the United States and received some affirmation from critics who felt that it was not “preachy” like other faith-based films. However, there is a great deal of enthusiasm that pervades the film, offering credibility for this kind of enthusiastic Christianity. It opens with enthusiasm, baptisms in the ocean, crowds, declarations of faith, manifestations of prayer. It then goes back a year, re-creating the atmosphere of 1968, especially the hippy movement, protest, alternative lifestyles, critique of the status quo, drug experimentation…

Key to the drama is the presence and performance by Jonathan Roumie as Lonnie Frisbee. Frisbee, a reformed hippy with a drug background, gay orientation (not really explicitly mentioned in the film), dressed and appearing like many traditional portraits of Jesus himself – this complicating audience response because Rumi appeared as Jesus in the celebrated television series, The Chosen.

The other key to the drama is Pastor Chuck Smith, dedicated to a small congregation, supported by loving wife, a critical daughter who commends hippies, Smith saying he would need to meet one in his own home, and his daughter inviting Lonnie. Chuck Smith listens, is moved, Lonnie bringing hippies to the church, the displeasure of the traditional elders (under threat of withdrawing financial support), a growing collaboration, a marquee, huge and filled on its first night of prayer gathering. And, Smith is played effectively by Kelsey Grammer.

It is in this context that Greg Laurie (Joel Courtney) is introduced, his story as a child with a single alcoholic mother, military academy, an encounter with a hippy girl, drug experimentation (and a sequence featuring Dr Timothy Leary, the promoter of LSD), a wild drive, sitting on the curb in the rain – and found by Lonnie Frisbee.

(For those interested in these characters and their careers, there is ample material available on Wikipedia.)

While there is the enthusiasm of gatherings, prayer, music, the hippies stating that in their search for truth, many of them found the truth in Jesus, the Gospels, there is the issue of the cult of the leader, especially with Lonnie Frisbee, his capacity for healing, and this being challenged by Chuck Smith.

The Jesus Revolution was more Protestant, evangelical in orientation (the Catholic Church developing Charismatic Renewal during this period). The three central characters continued their ministry for many decades, Greg Laurie continuing at the time of the making of this film.

An opportunity for audiences to see, appreciate, consider, critique, the Jesus Revolution and its consequences.

1. The title? The events of 1968, 1968-1972? Recreation of the period, the spirit? And scene in the retrospect of the 21^st-century and consequent history of the Jesus movement, evangelical churches, revivalism, Pentecostalism, Charismatic Renewal, media evangelists, exposes…?
2. The screenplay based on the book by Greg Laurie, with reference to the books by Lonnie Frisbee, Chuck Smith, documentary films made? And the extensive material available on Google, Wikipedia, giving full background to the characters, the events, the difficulties suggested but not explored in this film?
3. The commercial success of the film in 2023, box office, highly profitable? The wide range of audiences, American, overseas?
4. The response from religious audiences, enthusiastic? From secular audiences, observation, generally favourable reviews, contribution to American cultural and religious history?
5. The opening, the baptisms in the ocean, Chuck Smith, Lonnie Frisbee, the crowds, the enthusiasm? Going back to a year earlier?
6. The story of Chuck Smith, impersonated by Kelsey Grammer, loving relationship with his wife, her support? Their daughter, 1968, the touch of rebellion, the issues of drugs, Vietnam, protests, the hippies in California, San Francisco? Chuck in the small congregation church, quite buttoned up? His daughter, talk of hippies, his saying he would like to meet a hippie? The daughter, driving, seeing Lonnie on the road, giving him the lift, his Jesus -like appearance, his way of talking, bring him into the house, her father’s reaction, shutting the door, opening it, the conversation, Lonnie coming to the church, bringing friends, the reaction of the congregation, the threats to Chuck’s ministry?
7. Lonnie Frisbee, as interpreted by Jonathan Roumie, the fact of Jonathan Rumi portraying Jesus in The Chosen, audience response, the story of his upbringing, drug addiction, wandering, hippie, religious experience, the Bible, enthusiasm? The mention of his past, doing everything and everyone (and the screenplay’s reticence about his homosexuality)?
8. The effect on the congregation, more hippies coming, music, song, the address, church elders and their criticism, their feet spoiling the carpet, the sequence of Chuck washing the hippies’ feet before they entered the church? The crowds, the final challenge, the Elder and wife walking out, the older man joining the crowd, the applause?
9. The nature of the Jesus Revolution faith, the hippy experience and what it brought, opting out, protest, freedom, the sequence with Timothy Leary and the LSD solutions, rock stars like Janice Joplin? The growing disillusionment, the drugs, the effect, finding and enthusiasm in the personal Jesus (rather than the personal saviour as later emerged)?
10. The reasons given for the spread of the Jesus Revolution, the movement, faith, issues of the truth, open to possibilities of other truths, faith and the gospel? Community, support, music?
11. Greg Laurie and his story, at high school, the flashbacks to his mother, the video of swimming with his father, the father’s disappearance, the mother and her behaviour, his looking back, settling, singing “Fly me to the moon…”, The further flashbacks, his mother and her behaviour? His going to the Academy, the uniform, his photography and movie camera, his sketches, observing the hippies, the encounter with Cathy, the hippies coming to the Academy, his walking out despite the authority threats? Sharing with Cathy, the hippy experience, the drugs, seeing the woman foam, the effect on him, his mother’s accident and going to the hospital, later visits to her?
12. Greg, the journalist, his observations, discussions with Greg, the questions asked about faith in the movement, his initial scepticism, not revealing the magazine – and the later cover of Time Magazine?
13. Cathy, her parents, her father’s disapproval of hippies, her sardonic sister? The encounters with Greg, the attraction, with the hippies, moving towards religion and the movement, Greg to the meal, the father’s disapproval and warning him off? His reaction, sharing with Cathy, clashes with Cathy, going to the home to apologise, the father support? His encounters with Lonnie, wandering after the reckless car ride, the rain in the street, Lonnie rescuing him, Lonnie finding him again, talk about his vision of what would happen to Greg? Going for the baptism, the visuals of the baptism, the underwater photography (reminiscent of Romans 6 and Paul on the death to self and baptism)? The reconciliation with Cathy? His lack of self-confidence, the discussions with Chuck, the first attempt with a Bible group Father Malone, the failure, Chuck buying the church, offering the job to Greg – and its continuing for decades?
14. Lonnie, his manner, charm, Jesus-appearance, encounters, preaching, encouraging, in the small church and small congregation, the effect on Chuck, Chuck supporting him, Chuck’s wife? Lonnie and his relationship with his wife, her enthusiasm? The bigger church, moving towards the healing, his sense of healing, the “slaying in the spirit”? The effect on him, the drama raising the issues of self-importance, newspaper article suggesting cult? His defending himself, Chuck and the theatrics, the ultimate confrontation, his decision to go to Florida?
15. The development of the Jesus Revolution, small church, large church, the tense, the marquees, the crowds, prayer, song, Scripture, and the healings?
16. Chuck, some depression, support of his wife, his daughter? His later ministry, reputation?
17. The Time Magazine article, the television reports, the significance of the Jesus Revolution in the late 60s and early 70s, the consequences in churches, ministry, evangelical perspectives, later moral and political issues?
18. An opportunity to look at this aspect of American cultural and religious history? In comparison with other cultures?