TRAVELLING LIGHT

Australia, 2003, 84 minutes, Colour.
Pia Miranda, Sacha Horler, Brett Stiller, Tim Draxl, Marshall Napier, Heather Mitchell, Tamblyn Lord, Simon Burke.
Directed by Kathryn Millard.

Travelling Light is a rather slight story, set in Adelaide in 1971. It focuses on a family, mother and father and two daughters. Surface-wise they seem ordinary. Below the surface, there are many difficulties.

Marshall Napier and Heather Mitchell are always reliable and portray the parents. He is commonsensed, she is something of a hypochondriac, fearful of life. The two daughters are played by Sacha Horler, who is married to the very conventional Brian (Tamblyn Lord) and lives in the country. She is prone to depression and breakdown. Pia Miranda is the younger daughter, studying at teachers’ college, making a mess of her practice rounds, wanting to be a photographer, an arty photographer, instead.

One of the catalysts of the action is an American poet, Lou (Brett Stiller). He becomes friendly with Lee (Pia Miranda) and her group. He also gives a press conference, composes the kind of poetry that was popular with the beat generation and the protest generation.

The film shows the developing friendship between Lee and the poet. However, there is the problem of the next-door-neighbour, a young man who lives with his mother, uncertain of his sexuality, who becomes attached to the poet. On the other hand there is Bronwyn (Sacha Horler) and her fear of pregnancy, the suggestion that she undergo electric shock.

There is also a subplot about the television station where the friend next door works as a studio hand. Simon Burke does a parody of the kind of television personality of the period, confident, intervening in the advertisements, singing a song with dreadful lyrics, celebrating the Christmas program for the adoring older audience.

This all goes into the mix with some comic and serious touches.

1. A South Australian story, Adelaide, 1971, the particularities of Adelaide, the universal story?

2. Suburban Adelaide, homes and their styles, clothes and cars, the contrast with the countryside, homes and roads? The television station? Real – of the period? The musical score, the range of songs?

3. The title, Lee and Bronwyn, Lou?

4. The Ferris family, a nuclear family, not without difficulties, not living up to the ideals? Dad as sensible, practical? Loving his wife, the outings – and pre-television to the airport? The mother, anxious about turning off appliances, unable to go out? Their relationship to their daughters? Welcoming them at home? Lee and her wanting to move out, her father advising her to wait for the right time? Bronwyn using home as a refuge?

5. The background story of the grandfather who committed suicide, the mother and her concern about telling this story to her daughters? Bronwyn and her concern about mental instability? In the family? Electric shock? The grandmother and her calm visits?

6. Lee’s story, as children and her bond with Bronwyn? Teacher-training, the teaching rounds, her making a mess of things, the clashes with the principal, her photography, her skipping classes, answering back? Swearing on television – and the breaking of the bond? Her happiness that this happened? Her photography, photographing herself, others, art style? Lou, the airport, the photos, admiring him, meeting him at the club, her group and their friendship with Lou, her conversations with him, discovering the photo in the book of poetry, realising that he was from Adelaide? The fountain, the detergent? His going on television, her reading the poem, swearing (and her mother missing out, her father being stunned, the grandmother admiring)? Her support of Bronwyn, talking with her, the visit to her house, the meals with Brian, Lou’s advice and her being herself? Travel light?

7. Bronwyn, her age, married to Brian, the house, the home movie, Brian going to work? Her continually being upset, leaving, going home to her parents, her talk? The pregnancy and the doctor? Shopping, the juicer, the new fridge, her breakdown and the raise? Throwing everything out? The discussions about electric shock? Talking with Lee on the road, her fears? The miscarriage? Her not telling Brian that she was pregnant?

8. Gary, living with his mother, friendship with Lee, working at the TV station, the date with the other executive, the talk about left-hand drive, his backing out of the relationship? The date at home, the girl, telling his mother off? Discussions with Lee about sexuality? Kinsey? Lou and the attraction, listening to him, the sexual encounter? His future?

9. Brian as ordinary, clothes, going to school, chipper, the car? The home movies? Obtuse in his relationship with Bronwyn? The family meals, the gift of the fridge, the electric shock?

10. Lou, the poet, on the plane, his verses, the press conference, 70s protest, his performances and poetry? With Lee, the group, the outings? The discussions, their admiration for him? The American background? Talking with Lee about parks and fountains? With Gary, the relationship? The photo, the truth about his being from Adelaide, the detergent in the pool, his wanting to get away from home, his not coming back? The poem on TV, his being deported for swearing?

11. The TV station, Simon Burke as Ray Sugars, television in 1971, the comperes, the joviality, the parody and the performance? Makeup, the audiences, the advertisements, the co-host and her being straightforward? His intervening? His song – and the lyrics? The Christmas program?

12. A glimpse of the past, real, heightened, comic and sad?

DIAMANTE LOBO/ GOD’S GUN

Israel/Italy, 1976, 93 minutes, Colour.
Lee Van Cleef, Jack Palance, Leif Garrett, Richard Boone, Sybil Danning.
Directed by Frank Kramer (Gianfranco Parolini).

God’s Gun comes rather late in the development of the spaghetti western. In fact, it is an Italian- Israeli production. It comes from Golan Globus, the company for many derivative action films and comedies in the 1970s and 1980s.

It provides a star vehicle for Lee Van Cleef. He had been a star in several spaghetti westerns, principally, The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. Here he has a double role. He is introduced as the priest in a western town, dressed in cassock, collar, and a hat. He is seen praying in the street, he is respected by the people. He shows the young boy in the town how to throw horseshoes. He keeps a gun under the altar, though he does not use it. We see him diligently cleaning the church with the young boy. Courageously, he confronts the Clayton gang after they have robbed a bank and caused mayhem in the town. As he prays in the street, he is gunned down.

The young boy immediately rides to Mexico to find the priest’s twin brother. This offers Lee Van Cleef the opportunity for a double role. The boy is pursued by gunmen, outwits them, but loses his voice.

The twin is a gambler and a gun man. He tells the boy the story of his brother, providing some flashbacks and the opportunity to see the priest again. The brothers had grown up learning to shoot, but one day one brother was inspired by the bible and became a priest. The other twin gambled, was involved in shootouts, but was persuaded to give up his guns.

The rest of the film shows the boy and the gun man coming to the town. There is some imagination in the way that revenge is shown. The gun man puts on the cassock and hats, is filmed in the shadows, suggesting that the gang will see him as a ghost. Needless to say, the gang are eliminated (one being disguised as the priest in front of the altar, and shot by the gang).

Matters are complicated when the owner of the saloon tells Clayton that the boy is his son. Clayton wants his son back, captures him and his mother, takes them to the cemetery when he has the money from the bank robbery. There is a confrontation between the brother and Clayton, ending, of course, in Clayton’s death.

The film has an Italian director as well as Italian and Israeli cast. However, the stars are American. Jack Palance is Clayton, Richard Boone is the sheriff, Sybil Danning is the owner of the saloon and Leif Garrett her son. Some of the voices are dubbed. And, a lot of the acting is very weak or a parody of spaghetti western styles.

The basic idea of the priest and his twin brother is a good one and some of the aspects are quite inventive. However, this is an average to below average spaghetti western.

MOONRISE KINGDOM

US, 2012, 93 minutes, Colour.
Bruce Willis, Edward Norton, Bill Murray, Frances Mc Dormand, Tilda Swinton, Jared Gillman, Kara Hayward Jason Schwartzman, Bob Balaban, Harvey Keitel.
Directed by Wes Anderson.

Moviegoers will know that any film from Wes Anderson can be described as ‘quirky’ (at least). Moonrise Kingdom has plenty of quirks.

Basically it is a fable and, with a title like this, it is something of a fairytale. You sense that from the artificial opening during the credits, the camera panning from room to room, upstairs and downstairs, of what looks like a doll’s house. In fact, it is a house that belongs to two lawyers, the curmudgeonly Bill Murray and the flighty Frances Mc Dormand. In the meantime, there is a scout troop on exercises, with an earnest but unimaginative scoutmaster, Edward Norton. At home is the 12 year old daughter, Kaya Hayward, who wants to run away. In the troop, is a young lad, Jared Gilman, who doesn’t want to be scouting. They do run away together.

In the meantime, there is a colourfully dressed narrator, Bob Balaban, who emphasises the stylized nature of the storytelling. While Bruce Willis plays it for ordinary realism, Tilda Swinton is in the spirit of the playfulness and the satire as the Social Services official.

They have a series of adventures, survival moments. In pursuit is the local captain, Bruce Willis with the rest of the adults helping and hindering.

In theory, there is room for entertainment even if the whole thing is a mixture of the realistic, the artificial, the emotional and the twee.

One of the problems is that the two children are not as engaging as all that (especially compared with other screen children - the Harry Potter series comes to mind since Kara Hayward looks something like Emma Watson). Which means that, unless an audience is engaged (and many have been), we are observing what happens rather than wanting to support the children in their venture for freedom.

Moonrise Kingdom has been described as a comedy. Perhaps. Rather, this is a wry fable, with some laughs, but with a more challenging intention of helping us to look at a children’s world.

1. Wes Anderson and his career, quirky, individual comedies? Satire? Observation on the United States and Americans?

2. The film as a fable, as a 20th century fairytale, the tones of the title?

3. The quality of the writing, character, comedy, human foibles? The satiric tone? The strength of the performances, the quality cast? Fey, the idiosyncratic, quirky, realistic?

4. The setting of the mid 1960s? The opening credits? The rooms of the Doll’s house, the roving camera? The real house? The real family - and their likeness to dolls? The world of the adults, the world of the children? Imagination? The word of the scouts? The lighthouse? Social care? The musical score?

5. Suzy, her age, her friendship with Sam, her place within the family, attitudes toWards her parents? The plan to run away? The year and her letters to Sam? Running away?

6. Sam, his being an orphan, his adoptive parents and their willingness to give him up? With the scouts? Meeting Suzy, writing letters? His escaping from the scouts, his independence, his survival skills, meeting the adventures?

7. The narrator, his appearance, clothes, manner of speaking, telling the audience of the forthcoming storm? His appearance during the film? At the end?

8. The parents, their being lawyers, the work at home, the father and his crusty manner, the mother and her affair with Captain Sharp? The husband knowing or not? The demands on the children? The reaction to the running away?

9. Scout master Ward? His personality, teacher, his career with the scouts? Wearing the uniform, something like a young boy? The morning inspections? The response of the scouts? Preparing the meal? Breakfast? The discovery that Sam and discipline? Organizing the search? The boat? Commander Pierce? The mishaps with Pierce? The boat, the storm, with Captain Sharp?

10. Bruce Willis as Captain Sharp? Ordinary, his work and duties, supervising the island? His relationship with Suzy’s mother? Hiding it? Contact from Ward? His work in searching for the children? Helicopters? His calling social services? His reaction to the official? Her prim stuffiness and uniform? His willingness to adopt Sam?

11. Cousin Ben, in the scouts, the boat, meeting Suzy and Sam, his being a marriage celebrant? The organization of the marriage, the children’s consent, the scouts witnessing, the ceremony, hurrying to the boat?

12. Commander Pierce, scouts, the rules, his management, the difficulties, storm, his getting wet, humiliation?

13. The children, their friendship, talk, relationship, love, parallel to the adult world, the marriage? The becoming lost, sailing, the scouts helping them?

14. The portrait of the scouts, personalities, antagonism towards Sam, helping scoutmaster Ward, the fights, injuries, deciding to help Sam, helping with the boat, during the storm?

15. An entertaining will children find this film? How entertaining for adults?

LES NEIGES DU KILIMANDJARO/THE SNOWS OF KILIMANJARO

France, 2011, 90 minutes, Colour.
Ariane Ascaride, Jean- Pierre Darroussin, Gerard Meylan, Marilyne Canto, Gregoire Leprince- Ringuet.
Directed by Robert Guediguian.

A film about goodness, not an easy accomplishment.

Audiences can identify with the central couple in this film and get a lift from what they think and feel – and do – after a challenge to their way of life. And, it has nothing to do with Ernest Hemingway. Mt Kilimanjaro serves as an ideal goal, somewhere exotic but seemingly unattainable. It is also in the title of a popular French song which is sung in the film.

Writer-director, Robert Guediguian has been making fine films for a quarter of a century or more, usually working with his wife, Ariane Ascariade, and friends. It is the same this time. He lives in Marseilles and usually sets his stories there – although he did make a film about Francois Mitterand as well as a film about the French Resistance, The Army of Crime.

We are once again on the Marseilles’ waterfront. Workers are being laid off. Michel (Jean- Pierre Darroussin) is an official but has decided to put his name in the hat for the lottery for retrenchment, against the advice of his close friend,Raoul (Gerard Meylan). He pulls his name out and goes into retirement – which, after a busy life, he doesn’t find easy. However, he is supported by his wife of almost thirty years, Marie- Claire (Ariane Ascaride) who works in care for the homebound. Their married children and grandchildren visit for meals and are concerned.

At a joyous party for their thirtieth anniversary, with some of the retrenched men as guests, they are given a gift of money and a ticket for Kilimanjaro.

It does not end there. Playing cards one night with Raoul and his wife, who is Marie- Claire’s sister, the house is invaded by two burglars who steal their money and the ticket and bind and hurt them. By chance, later, Michel sees a clue which leads him to one of the thieves.

What follows has an enormous effect on Michel and Marie- Claire. The thief is one of the retrenched men, young, with a chip on his shoulder, highly critical of the older generation, the way they managed union matters, their being stuck in the ways of the past. The young man has two little brothers – and their mother couldn’t care less and is away working on a liner.

The goodness in the film is in how the couple deal with their anger, the fierce attitude of, Raoul, the sullenness of the young man and his tirades. The goodness concerns the two young brothers and the decision by Michel and by Marie-Claire?, separately, to come to the support of the boys (despite the hostile response of their own son and daughter who want attention for their children).

The audience is immersed in the life of this part of Marseilles. The performances are fine. And the picture of kindness in human nature is positive and hopeful.

1. The film based on work by Victor Hugo? His perspectives on happiness and the poor? A film about goodness and social awareness?

2. Robert Guediguian and his themes, the Marseilles setting, the waterfront, poverty and middle class, communities, family?

3. The atmosphere of Marseilles, the focus on the waterfront, the workplace, the cruise ships, industry? Homes, the police precincts, the streets? A sunny Marseilles? The musical score?

4. The title, the song, the talk about Kilimanjaro, a goal, the possibility and impossibility of going there? The fact that Michel and Marie- Claire did not see it?

5. The industrial background, Michel and Raoul, the lottery, the men having to leave, retrenchments? Michel and his decision, putting his name in the box, it being drawn out, Raoul’s disapproval? Marie- Claire and her happy acceptance of the reality?

6. The portrait of the family, Michel and Marie- Claire, thirty years married, their love for each other, knowing and understanding each other? Michel at work, out of work, at home, wanting something to do? Marie- Claire and her nursing training, her care for the home-bound, the rebuke from the woman’s daughter? Her care for the old woman, the old woman ringing at any time, her conversations with Michel? The children, Flo and her husband, child? His being absent, her concern? Her serious approach to life? Especially about her father’s retrenchment? Gilles, his children, his wife, his concern? His father building the pergola? The home settings? The friendship with Raoul’s friendship with Denyse, the two sisters, the bonds? The visit – and the two women dancing? The men talking, old friends, confidants?

7. The party, the invitation to the men retrenched, the celebration, the speeches, Marie- Claire, Michel? Tender? The cake and the children? The gift of the money, the plane tickets to Kilimanjaro?

8. At home, playing cards, the four easy with each other, the robbers intruding, masked, hitting Michel and the others, Michel’s fall? Denyse and her being very upset, the taking the cash, the pressure to find the money, the credit cards? The young man waiting for the call of the other robber? The aftermath, their being tied up all night?

9. The transition of the narrative to Christophe, his retrenchment, being at the party, his angers, the robbery and his reasons? Jules and Martin, his care for them, the absent mother? His clash with his mother? Her wanting the good life, being ditched by two men, left with the children, her abandoning everyone? Going on the cruise ship? The stealing of Michel’s precious comic, the gift from Raoul? Christophe and his use of the money, paying the bills? Agnes as a good neighbour, the food, looking after the children?

10. Michel and the comic, talking with the police, seeing the boys in the tram with the comic, following them? The interrogation of Christophe, Michel going into the room, Christophe being defiant, insulting Michel about his selfishness? Michel hitting him? Marie- Claire and her reaction? The police and their reactions? Later being wary about allowing Michel to speak with Christophe at the court? Yet his talking with him, Christophe’s anger, his talk about the poor, jobs, opportunities, the middle class? The effect on Michel, his thinking things over, discussions with Marie- Claire, wondering if Christophe was right? Christophe and his being dumped by the other thief – who took most of the money? Getting the plane tickets back, the refund?

11. Michel and Marie- Claire and their reflection, the money, the refund, Marie- Claire going to see the boys, making friends with them, with Agnes? Her going out at night, pretending that she had nursing jobs? Cooking for the boys? Their bonding with her? Taking them for the swim? Michel, the refund, thinking that he should give the money to the boys? Finding Marie- Claire with the boys, their agreement?

12. The family reaction, Gilles and Flo and their negative response? Concern for their own children? Raoul and his severity with Christophe, wanting a harsh sentence? Reconciling with Michel? Denyse getting over her trauma, bringing the tiramisu? The reconciliation all round?

13. A film about goodness in human nature?
 

LIMITLESS

US, 2011, 105 minutes, Colour.
Bradley Cooper, Robert De Niro, Abbie Cornish, Andrew Howard, Anna Friel, Johnny Whitworth, Robert John Burke.
Directed by Neil Burger.

The meaning of the title becomes apparent very quickly as the rather ordinary would-be writer, Eddie Morra (Bradley Cooper), explains it as he contemplates suicide on the roof of a skyscraper. He wants to communicate how he got to that point and what drove him to it. We go to flashback and see him trying to get going on his book, relate to his reluctant girlfriend (Abbie Cornish), encountering the brother of his ex-wife. What happens is that he is persuaded to take a designer drug, NZT – and the rest of the film follows.

Limitlessness is what the drug offers Eddie. There is talk about our using only 20% of our brains. NZT activates the brain 100%. This is not just a high, it is a sky high where the sky is really a limit and Eddie can go further and further. He smartens up, finishes his book, finds that he is an instant expert on everything and is able to summon up all the memories of his past and connect them. What can hold him back?

That is not a question that he considers while his stash of the drug lasts (which he had purloined when his brother-in-law is killed – and he is a suspect). What does happen is that with his knowledge of the financial markets, his investments and his making millions, he comes to the attention of a millionaire businessman Carl van Loon (Robert de Niro) who uses him to vet the details of a takeover of a company from another instant self-made tycoon.

And reality steps in. The supply of NZT is coming to an end. Gangsters are after the stash and money and violence is no obstacle. Eddie is tricked by a crooked lawyer and everything begins to fall apart. His girlfriend tries to help... And Eddie is back on the roof ready to jump.

Actually, the whole film might be called ironic and immoral, amoral at best in its portrait of Eddie and the consequences of his NZT transformation. It is not a story of a man seeing the evil in his ways. Rather, the opposite. Eddie vanquishes all before him and enters the world of politics and not even the experienced pressures and influences of van Loon can provide barriers to his rise and rise. Ruthlessness triumphs. Which means that, at the end, we have to do more thinking about issues than we might have thought when we first saw Eddie on the roof. (And part of the thinking will be about the parallels – by means of modern fable – with bankers, financiers and politicians, and make us think suspiciously less of them.)

1. A story of reality and fantasy? Science and technology? Designer pharmacy? The workings of the human brain? Possibilities?

2. An American story, the fulfilling of the American dream, questionable means? Success? The cost, the consequences, competitiveness, survival?

3. An allegory of the American dream, ordinary people, means to an end, use of the means, addiction, success?

4. Eddie’s story, standing at the window, prepared to kill himself? The flashbacks and explanations? The return to this sequence? His age, experience, ordinary, his marriage, separation and ex-wife, the passing years? His relationship with Lindy? The tensions in the relationship? His inability to complete things? An author with writer’s block?

5. The sudden change, his brother-in-law’s arrival, the designer drug, the help, the information? The brother-in-law’s stash? His death? Police suspicions? Taking the drug, the effect, a hundred percent of the brain working, clarity, memories, connections, rapidity of drawing conclusions? Enhancing personality? Lindy and her concern and puzzle? Her own job, whether to stay with Eddie or not? Her promotions – the ups and downs of the relationship, her giving up, coming back to him, the dangers for her life?

6. Eddie’s knowledge, finishing the book rapidly, his memories, theories, finance, greed? Making profits? Change of lifestyle, clothes, apartment, friends? His reputation and the media?

7. His friend urging him to meet Carl Van Loon? The preparation for the meeting? Van Loon as shrewd, listening, testing Eddie? Advice, scenarios, in the car, Eddie reading them, in the car, taking them home, giving views? Van Loon impressed? Commissions?

8. The tablets, the supply, the gangster in the street and his attack? Taking the pill himself, wanting more? The entrepreneur and the deal with Van Loon, his wife, his sudden illness? Appearing out of nowhere? Taking the drugs? The lawyer, his getting the drugs for his client?

9. Eddie and the difficulties, down, ill, trying to cover, the disappointment of Van Loon? The dealer, getting some final tablets, recovery?

10. Lindy and her help, the drugs, in danger, the phone call, the pursuit by the gangster, taking the pill, knowing what to do, escaping?

11. The visit of the ex-wife, her story, her warnings?

12. The laboratory, the scientist making the drugs? Eddie finally commissioning him to make more?

13. The gangster coming to his apartment, thugs? The attack? The gangster’s death – and Eddie and the blood in order to give him the boost?

14. The suicide contemplation, his surviving – and moving to a new phase of his life?

15. The supply, going into politics, campaign? Van Loon’s arrival, taking over the pharmacy company, his threats, his hold over Eddie? Eddie turning the tables, controlling Van Loon?

16. Limitless abilities, power – and the consequences?

THE WAY

US, 2011, 123 minutes, Colour.
Martin Sheen, Deborah Kara Unger, Yorick van Wageningen, James Nesbitt, Tcheky Karyo, Matt Clark, Angela Molina, Emilio Estevez.
Directed by Emilio Estevez.

The film has the advantage of being the work of members of Martin Sheen’s family – which is for some commentators a disadvantage. On the one hand, there is Martin Sheen’s active Catholicism and social justice concerns (even to arrests). The Catholic emphasis meant that a number of critics declared that the film was Catholic propaganda. And they did not approve of that. That point needs further consideration.

On the other, there is the headline behaviour of his son, Charlie, something which more than blew up at the time of the British release of The Way. Which gave Martin Sheen an opportunity to talk about support and forgiveness and not giving up hope. He was with his oldest son, Emilio Estevez, who was not without his own problems in the past, but who has moved on. Emilio has written and directed The Way and makes a cameo appearance.

The Way is El Camino, the pilgrim journey from the Pyrenees across northern Spain to the shrine city of Santiago di Compostella and the tomb of the apostle, St James. This is a film of pilgrimage.

Pilgrimages are an important part of all major religions. Catholics have flocked to Rome, to Lourdes, Fatima and to less well-known shrines. Muslims make the Haj to Mecca. Hindu festivals abound. Buddhists from all around the world make their way to Tibet and to various Asian centres. The Wailing Wall in Jerusalem is a destination for Jews worldwide.

El Camino finds its place amongst all these pilgrimages.

Chaucer’s Canterbury Tales reminds us that not all the pilgrims are saints, some not particularly devout, with lives that are marked by vanity, violence and bawdiness. Not all pilgrimages are just prayers and piety under the guidance of a clerical chaplain. Many pilgrimages are individual or in groups, for penitence or for renewed conversion experiences.

It is the same in this film. Audiences expecting the equivalent of a documentary that emphasises the sacred are mistaken. This is a feature film for a wide audience. It is Catholic in background and culture but does not limit itself to the audience to Christians or to the converted. The focus is on a small cross-section of ‘ordinary people’ as well as inn-keepers, police, and strangers in the street. Two priests do make small appearances, one explaining some aspects of the pilgrimage, the other on the way himself, old and rather infirm but with words of wisdom.

For those who have walked el Camino, the film uses a great deal of location photography, the mountains, the open countryside, the villages, the towns and cities that they have experienced. A pleasing reminder. For those who wonder whether they should make the pilgrimage, they can see for themselves where they would walk and what it might be like. They would also see what the pilgrims do, how the walk affects them, the range of people they meet.

While the film has a running time of over two hours, the group is quite small, focusing particularly on four people.

Martin Sheen plays Tom, a middle-class, comfortable American, who has not seen eye to eye with his son, Daniel (played by Emilio Estevez). He cannot understand why his son would want to go to Spain and walk. The dialogue between them raises questions about what life is really for and about. When, very early in the film, news comes that Daniel has died at the beginning of his pilgrimage, his father decides to go to Spain. He further decides to go on pilgrimage himself and to scatter Daniel’s ashes at significant spots along the way.

For older audiences, Tom is a character to identify with, even when they disapprove of some of his attitudes and behaviour towards others. He comes to realise his life so far has been only a stage of his own pilgrimage and now he has the opportunity to re-assess it and change, continually reflecting on his son’s approach to life (with some imaginary sequences where Daniel appears during his father’s walk). It is also the three people that keep crossing paths with him until he eventually joins with them that are catalysts for his re-examination of his life.

Yorick Van Wagenining plays a heavy-set Dutchman who says that his motivation is to lose weight for his wife’s sake and to be ready to celebrate a family wedding. Nothing particularly religious about his reasons for being in Spain. Debora Kara Unger is a Canadian woman, rather intense and private, who smokes heavily but declares that she will give up when she reaches Compostella. A personal ascetical motive rather than religious. The group is joined by a boisterous Irish author, played by James Nesbitt, who is suffering from writer’s block but hopes, in a neo-Chaucerian way, that he will be inspired by the pilgrim stories.

As can be seen, the pilgrims do not express themselves very much in explicitly religious terms or in Christian or Catholic terms. While the Catholic and religious perspectives underlie the journey for Tom and the two priest cameos do make some themes explicit, the film is geared towards a wider audience as a thoughtful entertainment rather than propaganda – but, obviously, Martin Sheen and Emilio Estevez have a high regard for El Camino and what making such a pilgrimage can achieve within a person.

Emilio Estevez offers a film of wide appeal, more for adults than younger audiences, which is meant to be in both religious and humanistic terms, ‘inspirational’.

1. Audience knowledge of the Camino? Information about it? Its cultural significance, historical significance? Religious? A journey through northern Spain?

2. The American background, California, father and son, the European settings, France, the Pyrenees, Spain? The terrains, the towns, the cities? Buildings and cathedrals? The outdoors? A tour of northern Spain? The range of the musical score, songs? Religious overtones?

3. The origins of the Camino, the burial place of St James? Pilgrimages in the Middle Ages, their backgrounds? Pilgrims walking, relying on hospitality, managing? The religious goals?

4. Emilio Estevez and his producing, writing and directing the film? Performing the role of Daniel? Daniel and his father, their disagreements, Daniel and his emphasis on experiencing life rather than choosing it? The demanding father, the clashes? Daniel going to Spain, on the Camino, the visuals of him trekking? The storm, his death? His reappearance to his father throughout the film?

5. Tom, the news of his son’s death, his world, business, not particularly religious, with his golf companions? The shock, his going to France, the interview with Captain Henri? The ashes? His decision to walk?

6. His personality, American, gruff, not expressing emotions, not touching? Taciturn?

7. Tom’s journey, becoming a pilgrim, the emblem of the pilgrimage, his son’s? Walking for his son? Taking the ashes? Atoning? The different terrains, his coping? His meeting people, the accommodation, mellowing throughout the journey, appreciating people better? The increasing religious dimensions? Seeing his son? The importance of distributing his ashes – going off, the various places, the memorial?

8. Tom’s companions, Joost? Dutch, eating, his wife wanting him thinner, preparing for the wedding? His chatter, indiscretions, giving out information? His connecting with people? With Jack, with Sarah? Cheery? The effect of the journey on him?

9. Sarah, her smoking, her decision to walk, her personality, her interest in Tom, relationships? The achievement?

10. Jack, Irish, his arrival, free spirit, writer, writer’s block, looking for anecdotes, sharing with Tom, Tom’s initial reluctance? His relating to the other characters? A merry man? The challenge to him? Faith or no faith?

11. The people met on the way, the hotelkeepers, the people giving directions, hospitality for the pilgrims? The open road?

12. The happiness on the walk, sharing? The inevitable clashes and fights?

13. Padre Frank, the old-fashioned Catholic priest, walking? His chatting with Tom, giving a Catholic perspective? The earlier priest and his comment on the Camino?

14. A range of portraits, a range of characters in a different situation?

15. The actual Camino, the way it was visualised, the audience experiencing it with the cast?

THE BEST EXOTIC MARIGOLD HOTEL

UK, 2011, 124 minutes, Colour.
Maggie Smith, Bill Nighy, Judi Dench, Tom Wilkinson, Dev Patel, Penelope Wilton, Celia Imrie, Ronald Pickup, Tena Desae, Diana Hardcastle.
Directed by John Madden.

If you don’t enjoy this pleasing story of elderly British in Jaipur, responding to India, you are probably a stone – or, maybe, young!

First of all, this is an excellent cast, British character actors at their best. And they are well served by an amusing, often witty, script by Ol Parker who has adapted a novel by Deborah Moggach, These Foolish Things. And, apart from the opening which introduces the main characters in a less than attractive Britain, the rest of the film was shot in India, colourful and full of verve.

We find seven people who are having difficulties in England and in need of some kind of move. For most of them it is going away from home, job or, even, family. One has need for an immediate hip replacement operation. They all come across a brochure advertising the hotel of the title – the brainwave of a young man (gifted with enthusiastic dreaming but not with managerial skills): just as so many industries outsource to India, why not the care for the elderly?

Anyway, off goes this motley group, only to find it (you’ve guessed it), exotic and best are the last words you would use to describe the hotel. But, a saying is repeated, the optimistic ‘Everything will be all right at the end. So, if it is not all right, it is not yet the end'!

As the visitors begin to adapt to Jaipur, so do we (though there is one resister in the group). One does tours and delights in India, two are after partners and have roving eyes, one gets a job tutoring at a Call Centre, one is searching for a long lost friend. This provides quite some emotional and entertaining action. But, all the central characters get at least one opportunity for some heavy emoting.

Judi Dench is at her quietly charming best. Maggie Smith (who needs the hip surgery) is prejudiced and unashamed at her xenophobia, effectively delivering some bigoted lines in dominating form. Bill Nighy and Penelope Wilton are a couple, he discovering a new world, she resisting it. Celia Imre and Ronald Pickup are the two who are on the lookout for someone else in their lives.

The Slumdog Millionnaire himself, Dev Patel, is credibly enthusiastic as the proprietor of the Best Exotic Marigold Hotel (who has to cope with a dominant mother who disapproves of his love for a modern young woman who works at the call centre).

While the film is basically light entertainment, there is still enough depth in the dialogue and characterization to raise some more serious thoughts and feelings about ageing, care for the elderly – and taking advantage of opportunities in later years.

1. The audience for this kind of film? The elderly identifying with the characters and situations? The younger audiences depending on their interest and experience?

2. The title and its tone?

3. The role of outsourcing in the United Kingdom? The idea of outsourcing aged care? Comic implications?

4. The reality of ageing, life experience, care for the elderly, a new life and possibilities?

5. The focus on the United Kingdom, the variety of situations, the introduction to each of the characters, the situations of deaths, financial difficulties, moving home, change of occupation, the law, opportunities, interest in adventure, operations, audiences identifying with these issues?

6. The advertisement, online, the responses, the decisions to go to India, the reaction of the families?

7. Travel, at the airport, the delays, the introductions to each other, on the bus, their experience in driving? The near-crash? Arrival, the hotel, Sonny and his welcome, his optimism, the dilapidation, their reactions? Demands for rooms?

8. The philosophy that all will be well at the end – and if this is not the end, then it is in progress?

9. Sonny and his enthusiasm, his situation, the bequest from his father, owning the hotel, his plans, the staff, the possibilities? The welcome, his patter, the very Indian style?

10. The visuals of Jaipur, contemporary, ordinary, the streets, transport, the people? The antiquities, the temples? The atmosphere of Hinduism? Official offices? Clubs and hotels? The colour, vibrancy? The explanations? The musical score adding to the atmosphere?

11. The variety of stories, the interconnections? Pro and con staying, Jean and her wanting to leave, Douglas and his decision to stay?

12. Evelyn, becoming a widow, talking things over with her children, phoning them from India, their reading her blog? First time on her own? Her delight in India, with the people, applying for the job, getting it, the lesson on how to answer the phone, the details and the sensitivity, the phone answerers all listening? The manager, his sister and her working there, at the hotel, with each of the guests, the friendship with Douglas, his attention to her, his decision to stay – and the final scene on the back of the bike?

13. Douglas and Jean, their home, leaving, the ideal in India, Jean and her reactions, stuck in the hotel, her fears and suspicions, the attraction towards Graham, going out, flirting with him, discovering the truth, her embarrassment? The clashes with Douglas? Her inability to be at home in India? Everything irking her? Going to the airport, the feast and their being stuck in the traffic, only one person able to go – Douglas urging her to go, her leaving? Douglas and his curiosity, going out, discovering the antiquities, history, his visits? His comfortable talking with Evelyn? The fights with Jean, his decision to stay, the bike?

14. Muriel, cranky, bigoted, her outlandish racist remarks, xenophobic? The doctors? The operation, her decision to go to India? Cantankerous, her own biscuits and food, her maid, the reactions? The operation and its success? The maid helping her? Despite her crankiness? The maid as Untouchable? Her agreeing to visit the house, her being made welcome, having to adapt – not always graciously? Awkward? Her gradual change, getting better in health, her experience as a nanny, managing the household, her being let go, her reaction, her taking charge, her managing of the hotel?

15. Norman, the old roué, his intentions, behaviour, talk, sexuality, the Kama Sutra? Flirting? With Madge? His meeting Carol, their discussions, the bond, the relationship? His collapse – but not dying? His staying?

16. Madge, the background of her family, husbands, new opportunities, her style, going to the club, pretending to be Princess Margaret, with Norman? Conniving with him? Friendship with Carol, the setups? Friendly with the other members of the group? The ending and her dating?

17. Graham, as a judge, the party, his being irritated, leaving, the decision to go to India, his experience there as a child, his motives? His memories? His relationship with young man, the families and their reactions, his leaving India, not having any contact? Jean and her attentions, his explaining that he was gay? The bureaucracy, trying to find the address? Getting the information, finding his friend? The reaction, his friend and his life, wife and family, joy in seeing Graham again, the communication? The wife? Graham and his achieving his goal, discussions with Evelyn, his collapse and death?

18. The call centre, the girl, modern, on the bike, the sexual relationship with Sonny, the reaction to Sonny’s mother? The brother and his protectiveness?

19. The contrast with Muriel’s maid, the Untouchables, the family gathering, the hospitality? Muriel and her heart being touched? The affirmation of the maid?

20. Sonny’s mother, snobbery, her own marriage, disappointment, the success of her other children, wanting to sell the hotel, confronted by Muriel? Consenting?

21. A feelgood film – and audiences feeling better? An anti-ageism film?
 

PURPOSE

US, 2002, 86 minutes, Colour.
John Light, Jeffery Donovan, Paul Reiser, Mia Farrow, Hal Holbrook, Megan Dodds.
Directed by Alan Ari Lazar.

Purpose is an interesting film in retrospect. It was made at the time of the dot com burst. The plot take us back to the bubble and the initial enthusiasms. The film focuses on a clever young man, his hopes to do something with the Internet to help people, his obsession with his work at the expense of his girlfriend, and his dependence on an ambitious and fickle friend.

The young man attends the lectures of a provocative professor at Stanford. Encouraged, he goes to see a millionaire rancher. The rancher bets him that he cannot stay on a difficult course for 30 seconds. He does and gets the money. He is helped in his enterprise by his two close friends, two computer geeks. As he goes to the wealthy friend, appoints him as manager, and relies on him far too much. His friend takes him to see a finance expert, organizes a board, but overspends to make an impression, and eventually conspires to oust him from the board and his own company.
The film opens with this day, the young man driving to Mexico in despair. The film reaches this point again and moves to the young man deciding to regain his company. He learns lessons from an old fisherman who wants nothing more from life than satisfaction, not worrying about managing what he does not need.

John Light is the young man. Jeffrey Donovan the deceitful friend. The supporting cast includes Mia Farrow as the finance expert, a ruthless operator, Hal Holbrook as the rancher, and Peter Coyote as the young man’s lawyer father.

Other films on the theme include Antitrust and The Social Network.

1. An interesting film about the dotcom bubble and burst? In retrospect, the experiences of the conpanies at the beginning of the 21st century? the financial situation in the US with these new companies?

2. The Californian settings? Stanford university? University residence? Financial offices? The musical score? The songs?

3. The introduction to John Elias? In class, the test by the professor, John achieving the balance? Others admiring him? His relationship with Lisa? Her music? His discussions with the professor, the need for finance, his ambitions to set up a company, his worthwhile motivations?

4. The visit to the ranch, meeting the crusty rancher, the horses, the dare, sitting on the horse for 30 seconds, getting the money? The later meetings with the rancher, his personality, cousin of the professor, his taking the side of John, coming to the board meetings?

5. John and Robert, the relationships with Lisa? Robert and his wealth? John asking his advice, Robert doing a shrewd deal? His self confidence? His going to Anna, not waiting for her to invite them in, giving her the information, the deal, the setting up of the board? His changing John’s style, the new suit, taking him to the club, introducing him to the women, filming him in the back of the car, the new office, the decoration? Overreaching in his ambitions?

6. John and his work on the program, his two friends? The percentages? The build up to the demonstration, seemingly successful, the failure? The reports on the media? John’s father seeing it? John’s disappointment, combined with Lisa’s departure and her anger with him? John’s degradation, the women, the car, sex, drugs, returning to the club and not admitted?

7. Lisa, her music, at the clubs, her love for John? Seeing the film on the computer? Her leaving John, no explanations? His later discovery of the E-mail?

8. Robert, his needing more money, scheming, partnership with Anna, deciding to oust John’s friends, stacking the board meeting, summoning John, the rancher and the professor being present, John losing the vote about a public listing of the company, his losing the vote as head of the company? The takeover of the company, money made?

9. John’s friends, the insults by Robert, his turning them out, John’s visit, and their anger with him? His call from Mexico, his solution to the problems, the working together?

10. The development of the project, using Lisa’s music? Success? Humiliating Robert?

11. The character of the professor, his classes, his interaction with students, his insight into John? Relationship with the rancher? The investment? At the board meetings?

12. Anna, her skill as, her manipulation, her ruthlessness, and the board?

13. The opening with the seeming success, John’s failure, the drive to Mexico, the chase in the streets, in jail, released, meeting the fisherman on the beach, the life-changing conversation? His return, more modest, better ambitions?

14. His relationship with his parents, the meal, the father’s health condition, a lawyer in Iraq, his collapse, hospital? His support of his son?

15. The title of the film? Seeing it in connection with other films of this kind, Antitrust, The Social Network?

W./E.

US, 2011, 119 minutes, Colour.
Abbie Cornish, Andrea Riseborough, James D’ Arcy, Oscar Isaac, Richard Coyle, David Harbour, James Fox, Judy Parfitt, Haluk Bilginer, Geoffrey Palmer, Natalie Dormer, Laurence Fox.
Directed by Madonna.

The fact that W./E. was given very little cinema release raises the question about hostility - to Madonna who co-wrote and directed the film and/or to Wallis Simpson, the Duchess of Windsor. Never liked much in Britain, especially at the time of the abdication of Edward VIII, Wallis Simpson received short shrift in The King’s Speech. However, this is an attempt to look at her more favourably, which succeeds in part in giving a more human face to the Duchess and giving the audience something of a look behind the scenes at the Duke of Windsor.

However, it is not a biography. Rather, it is a portrait, as seen by the writers through a character they have created in a parallel story, set in New York City in 1998, at the time of Sotheby’s auction of the Duchess’ memorabilia. She died in 1986, the Duke in 1972 (and they are buried together in Windsor Castle, where she was not welcome during her life).

Abbie Cornish plays a wealthy socialite with a well-respected doctor husband who is, however, unfaithful to her and physically brutal. Her mother had called her Wallis after the Duchess and the 1990s Wallis becomes more obsessed with her namesake, spending much time at the Sotheby’s pre-auction exhibition and moping around the city. She is befriended by a Russian security guard (Oscar Isaac) and persuaded to buy a pair of the Duchess’ gloves - for $10,000. Her being presented as one of the spoilt and idle rich with this kind of glove money does not quite endear her to ordinary audiences for whom this extravagance would be a dream.

The more interesting part of the film is the portrait of Wallis Simpson which is intercut with the New York story (1990s Wallis dreaming or fantasizing about meeting the Duchess, who actually takes a dim view of Wallis, snapping at her to get a life).

There is a difficulty (unnecessary?) in the flashbacks insofar as they are not in chronological order and run the danger of confusion for those not familiar with the dates and places. However, it is Andrea Riseborough’s excellently nuanced performance that makes the film worth seeing. Andrea Riseborough in recent films has played the mousy Rose in Brighton Rock and an IRA killer in Shadow Dancer. She can immerse herself in a role, roles that are quite diverse. James McAvoy? is, as an American commentator refers to him after the abdication, Mr David Windsor. He is sympathetic but the film indicates that he was prone to some profligacy in his relationships and the high life. As in The King’s Speech, George V (James Fox) and Queen Mary (Judy Parfitt) comes across as cold and imperious. Laurence Fox (James Fox’s son) is the stammering Bertie. This time the Queen Mother to be comes across as moralistically hostile to Wallis.

Wallis’ first husband was a brute (we see scenes in the 1920s in Shanghai), whereas Ernest Simpson, her second husband, is a gentleman who loves his wife. It is she who turns to the Prince of Wales, basking in his friendship, and who gives up her husband. The political atmosphere of the abdication is portrayed well and the abdication speech itself (very well-written) is moving. Then it dawns on Wallis that she has lost her freedom and will forever be yoked to her husband and suffer hostility and humiliations. There is, in recompense, a scene in 1972 where the Duke is dying and asks his wife to dance for him. They had been together for almost forty years. Wallis, in 1998, has a sequence where she goes to Paris to ask Mohamad Al-Fayad?, who owns the Duchess’ private letter collection, if she can read them. What is Madonna suggesting about Diana and Dodi Al-ayad and the Windsors?

So, the film is not without interest, especially in the scenes of the past, and an opportunity to think again about the abdication and what brought it about and the consequences. The New York story has some poignant moments but is far less interesting than the past.

1. Interest in Wallis Simpson? The history of the abdication of Edward VIII? Public opinion at the time? Since? A look at British history? Audience opinions – and changing opinions through watching the film?

2. The work of Madonna, her interest, themes, United Kingdom and US? History? The marriage, fidelity and infidelity, abuse, the consequences?

3. The two stories and audience interest? The way they were intercut, Wallis Simpson’s story not in chronological order – and possible confusion? Wallis’s dreams and fantasies in the 1990s? The connection between the two women? The musical score, the moods, Madonna’s song at the end?

4. New York City, 1998, the affluent neighbourhoods? Wallis, her name from her mother and grandmother, her marriage to William Winthrop? The dinner honouring him? As a husband, his treatment of her, his lies, infidelity, physical abuse? Wallis lonely, her comfortable life, her wanting children, her examination at the doctor’s? Ultimately her husband’s impotence? Her interest in Wallis Simpson, the auction, visits to the exhibition, her memories and dreams? The fantasy Wallis Simpson telling her to get a life, being stern with her? Evgeni, talking with him, her contemplating the exhibition, his urging her to participate in the auction, her standing at the sides, her eventual bid, ten thousand dollars for the gloves? Sharing conversations with Evgeni, his rescuing her after the assault? Their sexual relationship? The future, changing? Her sitting in the park, Wallis Simpson joining her, the gift of the gloves? An interesting character – and what would happen to her?

5. The United States in the 1990s, Sotheby’s, Wallis’s friends working with the auctioneers, the auctioneer himself and his jovial conducting of the bidding, the moods, bids and applause?

6. Evgeni, his life, his dead wife, his working as a security guard, his intelligence? With the other guard? His special interest in Wallis? Helping her to see the exhibition? Finding her in the apartment? Helping her? As a contrast with the husband and his deceptions, his brutality, kicking his wife?

7. History, audience knowledge, the use of clips from newsreels? The effect?

8. Wallis Simpson in Shanghai, with her first husband, his brutality, her pregnancy, kicking her, the blood and her losing the child? The effect on her? No more children?

9. Ernest Simpson, a good man, in the United Kingdom, an American? The American couple? Happiness, life together, the social circle, the Prince of Wales? Thelma and her relationship with the Prince of Wales? Her going to America – her return, her being upset at Wallis calling him David? Ernest observing what was going on, having to give up his wife?

10. David in himself, in the royal family, the ethos of the royal family, his visit to the poor in Wales and their support of him, his presence in parliament, his living the high life, socialising? Relationships, women? The episode of putting the Benzedrine in the drinks? A touch of profligacy?

11. George V, lying in bed, his stern attitudes? Mary, her severity? Lack of rapport with her children? Disapproval of David, of Wallis Simpson? Bertie, his stammer, with Elizabeth, their family, Elizabeth preventing him from talking to David on the phone?

12. David’s life with Wallis, the social outings, the holidays together, the homes, travel, the media response, the screaming headlines?

13. Stanley Baldwin, the parliament, the political crisis?

14. The abdication, the desk and its being auctioned, Edward VIII’s speech, its style, dignity, ‘the woman I love’?

15. Wallis hearing it on the radio, her worry, Ernest? His agreeing to the divorce? Wallis’s future? Confined in her marriage to the Prince of Wales? Their becoming the Duke and Duchess of Windsor?

16. Wallis hated, humiliated? Her reaction to the rumours about their Nazi sympathising – and the explanation of their visits? Bertie and his obeying his wife, her repeating the Nazi slurs? Their being forced to live away from England? Bertie refusing the phone calls? Their life in France? The visuals of Wallis in France, her age, getting older?

17. Wallis and her being imprisoned by the choice, devoted to her husband, living in exile, the 1972 sequence – and his asking her to dance for him, the Twist? His funeral? Her death, the two buried at Windsor Castle?

18. The film and its effect of having another look at David, the abdication and its process, Wallis Simpson herself? How would the situation be handled in later decades?

THE FIVE-YEAR ENGAGEMENT

US, 2012, 124 minutes, Colour.
Jason Segel, Emily Blunt, Chris Pratt, Jacki Weaver, Alison Brie, Mimi Kennedy, David Paymer, Jim Piddock.
Directed by Nicholas Stoller.

A romantic comedy, with older protagonists, and with a longer time to sort out issues of love and commitment!

The film has been produced by Jud Apatow, whose produced and/or directed films, run to a certain pattern. This one is no exception. There are usually some men and women behaving badly plotlines at first; then all seems lost, bad errors of judgment and conduct; then there is some recovery and acknowledgement of mistakes; then a firm emphasis on love and commitment. The Jud Apatow Syndrome.

It is hard not to like cook, Tom (Jason Segel) and his fiancée, Violet (Emily Blunt). He is a good chef. She is studying psychology. Then she gets an offer of a university position in Michigan (from San Francisco) and off they go, she to fulfilment of life hopes, he to being unable to get a chef’s job (and being laughed at for giving up everything for snowy Michigan). Then she gets an offer of a continued position. Is marriage really a no go?

In the background are Violet’s sister, Susan, who becomes involved with Tom’s best friend, Alex. And they settle down, against all expectations, to marriage and a family. There are also the respective parents (one of whom is Jacki Weaver as Violet’s British mother, disappointed in marriage, sometimes blunt and indiscreet) and grandparents who hope to see the couple married before they die – several of them don’t!

Academic life for Violet is helped along by Winton (Rhys Ifans), the professor, and his oddball team of assistants, thinking up tests and experiments to measure and promote their careers. Sandwich-making life for Tom is not always easy but there is an outlet in hunting deer with another homebound husband. And then some jealousy.

Where will it end? As if we didn’t know. But, as always, the point is not what happens, but how did they get there.

This is a mild comedy, smiles rather than laughs – though there are some of those – some crass jokes, as always, and some pleasant romantic scenes.

1. A romantic comedy – with older protagonists? For older audiences? More real because of the long engagement? Commitment?

2. The screenplay, from the director and the main actor, in the Judd Apatow tradition? People behaving badly, crassly, making mistakes, rectifying the situations, moral perspectives, especially commitment?

3. The plausibility of the plot and characters? American style?

4. Violet and Tom, the performances and engaging the audience? Change? Going to the party, the detour, the restaurant, the joke, the proposal? The memories of the New Year’s Eve party, superbug and Diana? Talking, kissing, the film returning to this episode throughout?

5. Violet and her studies and plans? Tom and his cooking, chef? The joke for the proposal – and the repetition at the end? Happiness, going to the rehearsal? The inn, the speeches, their pessimism, Susan and her crying, Violet’s mother and her attitude towards her husband? His presence with the Chinese girl, his comments? Alex? The aftermath, Alex and Susan together?

6. The characters of Alex and Susan, seemingly promiscuous, the night at the bed-and-breakfast, the pregnancy, breaking the news to Violet? The wedding, the Spanish song and the emotion? Tears? The fact that they would live together and have the family?

7. Violet and Tom, their lives, hopes, the position at Berkeley, the mail, the months passing, the pressures, the parents wanting them to marry, the grandparents – and the frequent episodes of grandparents’ death?

8. Violet not getting into Berkeley, the reply from Michigan? Violet happy, talking with Tom, delaying the wedding? Violet and the preparations? The venue, the music, the dress? Agreement to postponement?

9. The psychological background of the film, talk, honesty, truth? One person’s hold over the other? Tom and his anxieties? Violet and her delight? The build-up to the conflict, trying to talk it out – or failing?

10. Violet, the postponement, the class, people being entertained by Winton, the fire alarm hoax? The meeting, the team, thinking up the tests – and the jokes? The reality, the doughnut experiment? Violet’s research? Submitting her thesis? Her being accepted for tenure?

11. Tom, his jobs, trying to get something in Michigan, the Indian staff and their mocking him? Going to the sandwich-making, Tarquin’s welcome, eccentricities? Meeting Bill, the discussion about home husbands, knitting and the pullovers, the food, going hunting – the hunting sequences, the deer, the deer on the roof of the car? The later eating of venison, the stands from the hooves, mugs from deerskin?

12. Winton, Welsh, place at the university, his team, his behaviour in class? People attracted to him? The team, their bickering amongst each other, the eccentric tests, the ethnic background, Chinese, Indian, African American? Winton and the kiss? Violet allowing it? The repercussions?

13. The visits, Alex and Susan, bringing Vanessa, the awkwardness, the bold shot into Violet’s leg?

14. The deaths, the funerals? Violet’s mother and her continued advice?

15. The decision to marry, Tom and the planning, the venue, the rehearsals? His discovering what happened with Winton? His going out? Violet’s and Winton’s kiss? Drinking? Meeting Winton outside, talking, the long chase and the slapstick humour? His meeting the girl from the diner? Her advances, the sexual encounter, going out into the snow, in hospital, losing his toe – and Alex’s jokes?

16. The break, Violet staying at the university, with Winton? Tom, returning to San Francisco, working with Alex, the job? Audrey, her sexual energy and domination? His hesitations?

17. The phone call, Violet’s birthday, their talking? Tom and his parents coming to see him, their blunt talk about themselves, their marriage, their life and his ignorance of it? Alex trying to help, firing him? His breaking up with Audrey and her reactions?

18. Tom, developing the Mexican menu, success, the van, the customers? Violet helping?

19. Going to the airport, the proposal, the joke, the marriage conditions and choices, the ceremony, the Spanish song?

20. Alex and Susan, their children? The characters of the parents, the grandparents?

21. Winton, his age? Audrey, her age?

22. Themes of love, making mistakes, recovering, commitment?