WHITE DEER PLAIN

China, 2011, 188 minutes, Colour.
Fengyi Zhang, Gang Wu.
Directed by Quan’an Wang.

The film opens with waving wheatfields and closes with them. In between (for three hours), the audience is taken into decades of Chinese history, beginning with the revolution of 1911 (the subject of Jackie Chan’s centenary film titled 1911), indicating the changes which the country would experience after the defeat of the empire and the proclamation of the Republic.

For most of the film we remain in the village which is supervised by a spiritual leader who emphasises moral and humane values – but, we soon leave those values behind. In fact, while the history is important, it is the moral exploitation of characters that also commands attention.

The film is directed by award-winning, Qan’an Wang, adapted from a novel that government authorities had banned for some time (not just for the politics, but also for frank sexual episodes).

Three boys in 1911 grow into adults. One travels and is seduced by the wife of a rich man. They are discovered and exiled. They return to the village, are refused a wedding ceremony at the shrine of the ancestors by the village leader but allowed to live in a cave in the hills. He becomes caught up in 20s union movements, the execution of corrupt officials. He is enthused by the Communist philosophy of another of the young men. The third is the son of the spiritual leader who dutifully stays at home under the control of his father.

It is Xio’e, the woman who has been exiled who then becomes a catalyst for change, being whipped for misbehavior, condemned and then exploited by her father-in-law and then getting revenge on the leader’s son. Double standards are to the fore in the village’s dealings with her.

The audience needs to pay attention to times and characters to follow the action well – Chinese audiences will appreciate it more because of their knowledge of Chinese history. It is not an engaging film. Rather, despite the craft in its making, it becomes quite ugly in its portrayal of human nature, especially some of the crasser and earthier aspects of sexual behavior.


1. An epic film? The running time? The scope? The years of the 20th century? The range of characters? Change in China?

2. The adaptation of the novel, history, communism, government, government approval for the film (and the intense sex scenes of the novel adapted to the screen)?

3. The credits, the wheat fields, the end with the fields again? The focus on the work, getting in the harvest, the life of the peasants?

4. Life in the village in 1911? The leadership of Jiaxuan? The emphasis on moral and humane principles? The children in class, the recitations, the teacher with the strap, the children fooling around and throwing stones, reprimanded?

5. The three boys, as young, in school, growing up, the differences in their stories?

6. Jiaxuan and his strictness, Yu and his son, Zilin coming into the town and restoring order? Spiritual leadership? Political leadership? The role of the mayor?

7. 1911, the taxing of the wheat, the soldiers taking the wheat, the announcement of the president, a republic, the nature of the revolution?

8. Changing China, the soldiers and their imposition of their rule, the rebels?

9. The years passing, the seasons, especially the years of drought and starvation?

10. Hei Wai? His travelling, experience, work, the encounter with Xiao’e? Their talking, the seduction, the affair, the husband and his discovery, the punishment, their being ousted?

11. Hei Wai’s return, going to Jiaxuan to ask for a temple marriage, the refusal? Yu and his disowning his son? His travelling and being humiliated with the news about his son? Going to the cave, life in the cave, the pledge to each other? Hei Wai as a character? Xiao’e and her love, her reference to the brothel – and the indication of her policy, surviving, with the men?

12. Hei Wai and his friend, the professor at the primary school, his degree? His communistic principles, enthusiasm, the discussions, teaching the children? Hei Wai and his rounding up the protests? Forming the union? The decision to destroy the ancestral temple? The officials, their condemnation for corruption, the guillotine? His leaving?

13. The teacher fleeing, fourteen years passing, the 1920s, social change, revolution, morals?

14. Xiao’e and Gaudon, his mental abilities, his stalking Xiao’e, her being whipped? The denunciation? Xiaowen and his role in the town, his father, whipping Xiao’e?

15. The opera, the people watching, Xiao’e going out, leaing Xiaowen? The attempted seduction? Impotence? Her change of attitude? Xiaowen and his spying, saying the whipping enabled him to be free, free of his father? The sexual relationship with Xiao’e, his selling his property, gambling everything away, the loss, his father coming to plead with him and his defiance?

16. Yu, his attack on his daughter-in-law, his sexual behaviour, the coarseness, the denunciation, his hanging himself?

17. Jiaxuan and his son, his humiliation, no longer the leader, pleading for his son not to sell the property? Zilin and his offer?

18. Xiaowen, desperate, seeing the recruits, enlisting? His encounter with Yu, his giving him the food for Xiao’e?

19. The storm, the rain, the unsteady roof, the support? Yu and his murder of Xiao’e? The issue of building a pagoda, seeing her as the devil, wanting to destroy her influence?

20. The fate of Hei Wai, the communist party, becoming a gangster? The interaction with Xiaowen?

21. The need for Mao Tse Tung and the communist revolution? The optimistic and the pessimistic aspects of China in the 20th century?

KEEP THE LIGHTS ON

US, 2012, 101 minutes, Colour.
Thure Lindhardt, Zachary Booth, Julieanne Nicholson.
Directed by Ira Sachs.

A New York story that takes place over almost a decade from 1998. Erik (Thure Linhardt) is a Danish film-maker investigating a photographer from the 1940s. he relies on phone sex but begins a relationship with one of his contacts, Paul (Zachary Booth). Both are committed, but Paul is something of a high flyer in the city and has drug and alcohol habits. Though he is persuaded to go into rehab, he is not quite the same again and the relationship has its ups and downs as Erik makes an ultimatum at one of the rehab sessions, is successful in winning a Teddy Award at the Berlinale in 2004 (and this film actually won the award in 2012!), and becomes more desperate about Paul’s condition. He is supported by his sister and by Claire who works with him on the film.

With the increasing number of more mainstream films on gay relationships, this film makes an attempt to portray the serious ups and downs of a relationship.

1. A New York story, a gay story, the tone of the credits illustrations?

2. New York City, life, apartments, workplaces, documentary-making – and the change in the rural scenes? The musical score and the range of songs?

3. The title, the nature of the relationship between Erik and Paul?

4. The years captioned, development and change?

5. The introduction to Erik, Danish, his age, alone, the phone sex, Russ and his muscles – and the later visit? The date with Paul, the caution about his girlfriend – and seeing her later at the gallery?

6. Erik and his documentary, seventy-five minutes, his sister’s caustic comments, jogging with her, the discussions about the money from their father? His sister’s help later in the time of crisis? Claire, her friendship, support, work on the film – wanting a child with him? With the African – and the relationship and his breaking because he had two children already? Daniel, work on the film – and the harsh stances about Erik’s attitude to Paul and helping him?

7. The film, the photography, the interviews, the artist of the 40s and 50s, the interviewee and the critique of the artist, saying he had no talent? The editing process? The final film? The joy of winning the Teddy award at the Berlin film festival?

8. Paul, his late coming out, his girlfriend, the phone call, Erik coming to his apartment? Drugs, drinking? His work, success? His collapse, rehabilitation, Erik’s declaration at the session, the years passing, relapses, meeting again but failing?

9. The quality of love, tolerance, patience, fidelity?

10. Paul and his final collapse, in the hotel, Erik asking him to come home, phoning the hustler, Erik present at this session?

11. Erik, going to the club, his being sick, meeting Igor, their talk, the later meeting and lunch?

12. Paul’s ultimatum, Erik considering it, taking the pills, deciding that he would move back? Coming to tell Paul that he couldn’t?

13. The parting in the streets, the possibility of them meeting again? The possibility of not meeting again? Their futures?

POSTCARDS FROM THE ZOO

Indonesia, 2012, 90 minutes, Colour.
Ladya Cheryl, Nicholas Saputra.
Directed by Edwin.

Edwin is emerging as a young Indonesian talent fostered by several European and American talent seminars and festivals.

When you use ‘Postcards’ in your title, it enables you to be as free as you like – or as lazy as you like. If there is a criticism about a sequence or about continuity or about obscurity in the plot, you can always say that it is a postcard and, so, necessarily incomplete, or that it is symbolic.

This is a fair criticism of Edwin and his film. He uses words like ‘dream’, ‘fantasy’, ‘poetry’ and he has more than a point. But, his selection of episodes, their connectedness or lack of connectedness means that the audience has to do a lot of the supplying of meaning. Again, not necessarily a bad thing, but this series of Postcards makes huge leaps, dallies on some images, hurries over others.

It is the story of Lana who was abandoned in a zoo when a little girl. Edwin also inserts encyclopedia like brief entries at times about zoos, relocations and treatment of animals, to make us ponder or to scratch our heads!

Lana loves giraffes, especially the one at the zoo, tall and stately as it is – and the screenplay offers more information about giraffes that most of us never knew. She loves working in the zoo. When she meets a tall, dark and handsome magician dressed as a cowboy, she is drawn to him and, dressed as an Indian girl (of cowboys and Indians origins), participates in his acts. When he literally goes up in flames and disappears (the actor and the audience deserved more clues here), she suddenly becomes Number 33 at a massage parlour where we are treated to some training scenes and some scenes with clients. No wonder she goes back to the zoo and, unable to do it before but now liberated, she is able to touch her beloved giraffe. So, there you are.

1. An experimental film? A film of reality and fantasy?

2. The Indonesian background, the Indonesian imagination? The zoo settings? The layout of the zoo, the compounds for the animals, the places of recreation for the families? The contrast with the massage parlour and its rooms? The musical score?

3. The title with postcards – and glimpses rather than continued and detailed narrative? The audience supplying the connections?

4. The focus on the zoo, the information from the encyclopaedias about zoos, keeping animals, in captivity, in the wild...?

5. The focus on the giraffe, the visuals, the reality, the symbols? Lana and her information about giraffes? The elephants, the tiger and the keeper? The other animals?

6. The people coming to the zoo, watching the animals, picnicking?

7. Lana, the young child in the zoo, calling for her father? Left at the zoo? Her growing up, working, not wanting to be touched? Her fascination with the giraffe? Her work? Her uniform? The encounter with the Cowboy, the fascination, his magic, her sharing his tricks? Dressing as an Indian? Participating in his acts? His disappearance? The transition to the massage parlour, her training? The clients, the encounters, the effect? Her final decision to run away, going back to the bus she drove? Driving to the zoo – and finally touching the giraffe? Her future?

8. The Cowboy, his appearance, no name? The relationship with Lana, his magic, his training her, the box, the knives? His going into the box – the fire, his disappearance?

9. The massage parlour, the women, the trainers? The clients and their expectations? The atmosphere of sexuality?

10. Reality and dream? Lana’s life, real and symbolic?

REBELLE / WAR WITCH

France/ Canada, 2012, 90 minutes, Colour.
Rachel Mwanza.
Directed by Kim Nguyen.

We have seen stories of children in African countries abducted from their villages and forced to go to war with rebel armies. This is another of those although Komono, the child at the centre of the film, is a girl, taken at 12. In a scene of horror, she is forced to shoot her parents to save them from a death by machete. She is trained in fighting, taken in by the chief and proclaimed his war witch.

The film was made in Congo, Kinshasa, but no country is named in the film. Which means that there is no real political context for the story, simply violent rebels fighting the powers that be. While this means we concentrate on Komono’s story, we miss the political edge.

The story becomes more complicated when Komono escapes with Magician one of the main young soldiers. They want to marry and are determined to find a rare white rooster necessary for the ritual. When all seems to be right, soldiers attack again, leaving a pregnant Komono wandering the countryside, wanting to bury her parents before she gives birth. This emphasis on the dead, many here visualised as ghosts, is a feature of the film.

The film aims at an emotional impact and succeeds with the character of Komono. The picture of Congo is of unrest in the poor countryside, but that is context rather than a theme.

1. A film about Africa? Civil war? Child soldiers?

2. The Congo settings, the villages, the countryside, the cities? The musical score?

3. The title, the rebels, Komono and her being named as the rebel leader witch?

4. The opening, the village, the rebels coming? Komono and her parents? The rebels taking Komono, ordering her to kill her parents, shoot them instead of their suffering by machete? Her doing so? Her grief? Her quest to bury them so that their ghosts would not be wandering the earth?

5. Komono, her age, working with the rebels, the leader, training in warfare, sleeping partner? Her trying to cope?

6. The role of Magician? With the other troops? In war? In training? In recreation – and the scene with the group of young people watching the video of Jean-Claude? Van Damme in the bus? Children being forced to be adults?

7. Komono, her attachment to Magician, their escape, their wanderings? The decision to marry? The story of the white rooster? Their search, people laughing? Final help? Getting the rooster, chasing it?

8. Komono and Magician? A future? Magician’s death? The coming of the rebel troops?

9. The fights, the government, the army?

10. Komono being pregnant? The rebel leader being the father? Her decision to go back home? The appearance of the ghosts of the dead children? The long quest? The help from her uncle, the butcher? He and his wife, the help with the white rooster?

11. Komono’s collapse, her struggle to survive, in the boat, rowing to the village, seeing her parents, the bones, the emblems, burying them?

12. Her giving birth, the child? Going to her uncle? A future?

13. Komono as symbol of young Africa, in servitude, in war, in freedom, in hope?

CAESAR MUST DIE

Italy, 2012, 76 minutes, Black and white/Colour.
Directed by Paolo and Vittorio Taviani.

The Taviani Brothers have been making films for forty years or more, slices of Italian life, memoirs of World War 2, historical dramas and a look back at the early days of Hollywood and D.W. Griffith in Good Morning, Babylon. Now they have gone to the high security prison, Rebibbia, and made a film about a group there which has been experimenting with prisoners and theatre production for some years.

The artistic director, Fabio Cappelli, has collaborated with the Taviani Brothers for the screenplay and appears in his actual role in the auditions and direction sequences.

The play chosen is Shakespeare’s Julius Caesar. The film opens in colour with the death of Brutus, the curtain call and the acclaim of the audience from outside. It then goes back six months – and into black and white (except for a few select scenes) – to trace the developments in production and performance.

The auditions are quite striking, the prisoners asked to give personal details as if they were at a border crossing, sad to leave their wives, and then, the same information in anger mode against authorities. This gives us an opportunity to see the versatility of the prisoners in performance, as well as to be told of their ages, sentences and reasons for sentence. These men are criminals, some members of the Camorra, drug dealers and murderers. However, as the rehearsals go on, we get to know some of them and admire their acting skills.

Shakespeare’s words have been pared down considerably while retaining the core of the play and the sense of the dramatic tension in key characters. Most of the actors are convincing while, sometimes, guards look on, and other prisoners represent the Roman crowds. Sometimes a touch of personal drama intrudes, for instance when Brutus is upset one day because of a visit.

Then, the play’s audience arrives again, the play is performed and we take up with the Battle of Philippi, the death of Brutus and the curtain call.

Finally, the key prisoners return to the cells, the doors close and they are really in prison again. The credits indicate that the prisoners portraying Caesar and Cassius (who does not have a lean and hungry look) have both written books on their experiences. Brutus as been pardoned and now works in theatre.

The film is cinematically theatrical, an effective communication of Shakespeare and, of course, a positive activity for the prisoners themselves.

1. The work of the Taviani brothers? Glimpses of Italian life? Italian history, social issues, the arts?

2. The project in the prison? Rebibia Prison and its security, the prisoners and the staff? The theatre project, the effort, the effect? Therapy and rehabilitation? The role of theatre and arts?

3. The colour framework, the black and white in the prison? Inserted colour sequences?

4. The choice of Julius Caesar, social, contemporary relevance? Italian story? Roman story? Crime?

5. The film starting with the play, Brutus’s death, the audience applause and the curtain call? The return to this at the end?

6. Going back six months, the work of Fabio Capello, his project? The choice of Shakespeare? Julius Caesar? The prison authorities and their approval?

7. The significance of the auditions, asking the actors to portray two styles of giving information? The prisoners giving their name, address, age, sentences? The allotment of characters to the prisoners?

8. The rehearsals, the selection of scenes, the selection of words from Shakespeare? The prisoners and their skills? The mad seer, Caesar, Cassius, Brutus? Dignity? The film communication the core of the plot? The death of Caesar, Brutus’s speech, Marc Antony and the conspirators, Mark Antony and the crowd, the crowd response, his swaying their opinion? Philippi, Brutus’s death? Enough of the play to communicate the core? In seventy-six minutes?

9. The themes of the play, Caesar and his ambition, Cassius and his insinuations, persuading Brutus? The scenes of the ides of March? Caesar’s death? The role of Mark Antony, Octavius’s arrival, the deaths at Philippi?

10. The quality of the performances, Brutus and his visitor and upsetting him, rehearsal? The guards watching the rehearsals? The prison compound serving for the crowd sequences?

11. The audiences arriving, the performance, the curtain call?

12. The return of the prisoners to their cells, truly in prison?

13. The final credit information – the actor portraying Brutus becoming an actor after an amnesty? The other prisoners who wrote books? An interesting experiment in theatre and rehabilitation?
 

A ROYAL AFFAIR

Denmark, 2012, 130 minutes, Colour.
Mads Mikkelsen, Alicia Vikander.
Directed by Nikolaj Arcel.

An interesting costume drama where sets and costumes have not been stinted. It certainly looks the part.

The setting is Denmark in the 1760s and 1770s, a valuable story for Danish history and a story not too familiar for other audiences. The opening alerts the audience to the Enlightenment and how it flourished in this century, a return to reason instead of faith (and superstition), a dream of equality and dignity for all, an ideal of freedom for society. The French Revolution was just over a decade away as the film ends.

This is also the story of Princess Caroline Matilda of England, bound to an arranged marriage to Christian VII of Denmark. A young, beautiful and cultured woman, she leaves with high hopes. They are soon dashed. The king is mentally unstable, skittish in public manners and profligate in behaviour.

The film does begin by letting the audience know that Caroline sealed her fate and exile by an affair with Dr Johann Struensee. She is writing to her children to explain what she has done.

Dr Struensee (Mads Mikkelson, like a passive Jack Palance) is an Enlightenment thinker and writer (anonymously). Friends suggest he become physician to Christian who is on a year’s tour of Europe. The two click (helped by a love of quotations from Shakespeare) and Johann is able to guide the king to better behaviour. He becomes chief adviser, despite hostility from the nobility and the Council, eventually replacing the Council, and pushing through all kinds of enlightened and progressive legislation, from inoculation against smallpox, to the abolition of scensorship and capital punishment. For a while, Denmark set a model for the rest of Europe.

Someone quotes how Lancelot’s affair with Guinevere destroyed Camelot. It is apt, of course, when Johann and the queen (initially hostile but impressed by his ideas and manner) begin a liaison. A jealous Dowager queen and conservative nobles are able to arrest John and banish the queen. They also restore the kingdom to the status quo.

The film offers enough to reflect on with insights into this experience of royalty and Enlightenment. Cahracter performances are strong. This seems a story of folly and failure, a postscript adds that Caroline’s son, Frederick, staged a coup when he was sixteen and began a fifty five year reign that saw the implementation of so many of the Enlightenment ideas.

1. Costume drama? The appeal to the wide audience? A story of royalty? Of the Commons? Politics and intrigue?

2. A Danish production, the insights into Danish history? The 18th century into the 19th?

3. The lavish costumes, sets, decor, the palace, interiors, the contrast with the poverty in the city of Copenhagen? In Altona?

4. England and the palace, the Danish countryside, Altona? The musical score?

5. The framing of the film with Caroline writing her story, for her children, separated from them, her fate, the ending with the children reading her story?

6. The arranged marriage, England and Denmark, Caroline not knowing her husband, Christian’s reputation, her eagerness, the advice given about the marriage? Her travel, meeting the lady-in-waiting, a strong friendship? Meeting the king, his skittish behaviour and revealing himself? In the carriage, awkward? His greeting the dog with enthusiasm?

7. The Danish court, Juliane and the dowager queen? Her son-in-waiting? Status, preserving the status quo? The head minister, his age, his power in the kingdom? The effect of the marriage? The council and their attitude towards the king? The meal, the night and the king making advances, Caroline’s reaction, his behaviour, the effect? Her pregnancy?

8. The character of the king, his age, his upbringing, spoilt? His love of acting? His whims? Caroline playing the piano and his rude interruption? The tour for one year? Caroline alone, the pregnancy, the birth of Frederick?

9. The sequences in Altona, Johann and his work, his presence in Denmark? The enlightenment, his writings, his father as a pastor, his own religious attitudes, especially towards God? His friends and their suggestion he become the royal physician? Asking for him to bring them back to court? His ideas, meeting the king, the invitation, becoming the royal physician?

10. Meeting the king, getting on well with him, the Shakespeare quotations? The friends coming back to court? His medical treatment of the king, his advice? The return to court, Caroline not enthusiastic about Johann? The antagonism of the dowager and the nobles?

11. Johann in himself, his strengths of character, his decision to become the royal physician, his attitude towards the council, sitting in, listening to the legislation, offering his advice to the king, his reactions to the king’s behaviour and steering him in acting properly? The smallpox outbreak, the inoculation and its success, the suggestion that all be inoculated, the council and its problems with cash?

12. Johann and his power, the various decrees from the king, the abolishing of the council, the dismissing of the members? Their reactions and anger?

13. Johann and his ideas, the enlightenment? Caroline and her admiration, sharing discussions with him, the dance, the beginning of the relationship, her pregnancy, the cover by inviting the king to her room? Then her rationalising for his absence?

14. The nature of the reforms, their range? Plots against Johann, the maid and her evidence from the bedroom? The anonymous writings and accusations? Johann and his lies to the king? The king believing him?

15. Johann and his work, advising the king that he needn’t sign every document? The king and his absence, his erratic behaviour, the gift of the little black boy and his enjoying his company?

16. The arrest of Johann, going to prison, his being tortured, the false promise of a pardon? The visitor, in the carriage, Brandt with him? Brandt’s execution? Johann slipping in the blood, the crowds and their anticipation, his death?

17. Caroline, taken, exile, missing her children, the friendship of the lady-in-waiting?

18. The king and the dowager, her merciless attitude, especially towards Caroline and the children? The coup, the king being kept away, his anticipation of the pardon and his being thwarted? The merciless officials?

19. The 18th century and the background of change, the nature of the enlightenment, Christian and his work with Johann, the legislation, abolishing censorship, torture, capital punishment? Benefits for ordinary people? A model for Europe, the congratulations of Voltaier? Johann and his changing his attitude once the accusations were made anonymously, bringing back censorship? The nobles and the regression to mediaeval styles?

20. Frederick and Louise, reading their mother’s story? The information about Frederick, his coup at age sixteen, reigning for fifty-five years and implementing so much of the previous legislation?

GNADE / MERCY

Germany, 2012, 130 minutes, Colour.
Jurgen Vogel, Birgit Minichmayr.
Directed by Matthias Glasner.

Gnade is ultimately about mercy, about confession and forgiveness, possibilities of grace in ordinary and in troubled lives.

The setting for this story was, originally, Copenhagen, but the director had visited the town of Hammerfest, far north of the Arctic Circle, with its processing plant as well as its total absence of sunlight from mid-November until mid-January. He moves a German family here – so that the marriage could recover some stability, the father working at the plant, the mother at the hospital, their son at school, and their buying a farm to manage.

The centre of the film is a familiar situation. Late at night on her way home from work, the mother hits something with her car. She can’t see what it was and drives home. Her husband drives back and cannot find whatever it was. Maria panics and forces her husband to keep the whole event secret. She has a long speech of rationalisation which makes a big challenge to the audience to decide what they would do in similar circumstances, whether they would rationalise or go to the police.

While life continues, including an episode with the son who is mean to a fellow student and does not own up to it, Niels decides he must stop the affair he was having with a co-worker at the plant. Maria finds more support from Niels which changes him and re-kindles their love. This leads them, especially as they meet the mother and father of the dead girl at church and with work, to make a decision about telling the truth to the parents.

The scene where they do go, especially in showing the bewildered reaction of the bereaved parents, wondering what they should do, highlights the possibilities of justice and/or mercy.

1. The title, dramatising mercy, forgiveness, confession?

2. The information about Hammerfest, the Arctic, the town, the plant, the seasons, the darkness from mid-November to mid-January? Midsummer day in June?

3. The location photography, the coast, the town, the homes, hospital and school, church and choir, the darkness, the light, the icebergs and the islands? The musical score?

4. The introduction to the three central characters? The triptych? Niels and his work, moving away from Germany to Norway? Maria, her character, her work? Tension? Saving the marriage? The son, his homework, equipment, surveillance? The decisions, hopes, the farm and the management?

5. Settling in, the house, working at the plant, the problems at the plant, Linda, her approach, Niels beginning the affair? Six months? Maria, at the hospital, in the choir, her pregnant friend, going to the concert? Her son, at school, Ole, the antagonism, the friend and spitting in his school case? The reprimand from the teacher – and not owning up?

6. The accident, Maria driving in the night, hitting something, stopping, not seeing anything, continuing home, explaining everything to Niels, her panic, demanding? His going out to search, not finding anyone? Maria and her blaming him after his search? Imposing the responsibility onto him? Her speech of rationalisation, her decision, her demand on Niels, his acceptance? How much did the son hear and know?

7. The aftermath, the newspapers, the call for witnesses? Maria at work, her kindness, going to choir practice, seeing the mother weeping? Her own tensions and secrecy? Niels, growing anxiety, the meal with Linda, explanations of the break-up, her anger, Niels and his stopping at the accident site, embracing the mother? Linda and her departure, more rational, that Niels only promised her sex and fulfilled that – nothing else? Her return to Oslo?

8. School, the incident with the spitting, Ole being away from the school, no honesty amongst the children, the boy’s visit and Ole rejecting his apology?

9. Niels and Maria, depending more on each other, a growing tenderness? The issue of paying the father for the fodder, Maria and her firmness, Niels and his generosity?

10. The change, the effect of the love between husband and wife, Niels visiting Linda, Linda leaving? His telling Maria the truth?

11. The change in both of them, caused by their love, Maria forgiving her husband?

12. The decision to go to the family, the tension, the offer of coffee, the parents voicing the alternatives of what they might do? Leaving it to the audience to decide what happened?

13. The midsummer celebration, the handheld camera, home movies, the whole community, the sun shining, joy, picnic atmosphere? The two couples, the sun? Mercy, forgiveness – and grace in people’s lives?

 
METEORA

Greece, 2012, 882 minutes, Colour.
Theo Alexander, Tamila Koulieva.
Directed by Spiros Stathoulopoulos.

Most of us are aware of the monasteries of Mt Athos, those loft retreats on the tops of Greek mountains, centres of Greek Orthodox monasticism. Most of us may not be aware of other monasteries in the plains of Thessaly in northwestern Greece. Again, monasteries built, seemingly impossibly on the tops of rock formations rising from the plains, mountains as well as very high, thinner rocks which point like fingers to the sky (or, which may be forgiveable thought, since this film explores the carnal desires of a monk and a nun, phallic symbols).

At times Meteora is magnificent to look at, the natural beauty and extraordinary formations as well as fascinating glimpses of sky at different times of day. It is also amazing at times to look at as, after the opening credits and their iconic power, the film uses animation to further develop the plot as well as to suggest mythical and symbolic stories and themes. The icons also offer a clue as to how to interpret the action and characters. While they may be easily dismissed as artificial and not deeply developed, it could be argued that we should be looking at them as moving icons, gaze at them, as the protagonists do with the icons in their cells. We gaze at them for meaning rather than mere psychological insights.

As mentioned, this is a story of a monk and a nun and their desires. Easy film material these days in terms of church and sexuality. However, it is all presented her in the context of monastic vows and spirituality, in terms of ascetic practices and physical penance to control temptation (and the consequent suppression of instincts which leads to rigid repression which can shatter at short notice – and does). To this extent, the film is an interesting contribution to reflections on religious celibacy, its possibilities and impossibilities.

The monk (not necessarily ordained) has been in his community on top of his mountain for years. He is devout in prayer and rituals, assisting at liturgy. The nun is a visitor from Russia. The relationship is suggested immediately with an exchange of neck chains. Then the monk uses his mirror reflections to contact the nun. He also prepares a picnic meal of goat (which somebody reminded us is an animal symbol of lust), which they enjoy with wine, talk flirtatiously but raise the theme of despair and freedom – that all sin can be forgiven except despair. The monk physically accosts the nun, but they then go to their cells and pray again.

There follows an explicit sexual scene with the nun in her room. The writer-director could be accused of chauvinist sexism in not presenting the monk who seems more driven than the nun. As expected, their love/lust is consummated. Must they both then leave monastery and convent?

Throughout the film, Psalm 23 is interspersed in its entirety, offering a scriptural comment on the relationship and their stands before God. Icons, liturgy and communion are featured with a background score of arias and chant.

While the animation literally shows a fall as well as the nun’s previously unseen hair growing like Rapunzel’s to form a bridge between the monk and nun, the most striking is the sequence where the monk goes symbolically into a labyrinth and is lost. At the centre, he finds an icon of Christ crucified. He hammers nails into Jesus’ hands and blood not only flows but gushes forth, flooding the labyrinth, panel by panel, the monk floating on the blood until he is out and saved. He and the nun appear as small figures in the ocean of Christ’s blood which is poured out in abundance.

To say, as some have said, that this is simply the old story of forbidden love, is to focus on the obvious but not on the abundant visual and musical detail that invites us to contemplate religious love and love of God, desire and celibacy, infidelity in vows, God’s fidelity and an abundance of forgiveness for those who do not despair.

One credibility challenge is that the monk looks like a bearded movie star, cast for being handsome rather than for a life in a monastery. The actress playing the nun looks maturely beautiful. And then the press notes tell us that the actor for the monk, Theo Alexander, has been a regular on television’s True Blood for some years!

1. The experience of the beauty of Meteora? The religious background? Asceticism and repression? The nature of monastic life?

2. The Greek Orthodox tradition, the monasteries in remote places, on the tops of mountains? The fields below, the crops, the herds? Religion in this rural setting? Isolated?

3. The monasteries, reclusive, prayer and contemplation, the icons, celebrations of liturgy, the congregation, the rituals?

4. The credits, the sketches, the animation? The icons? The tone, the musical score, the drumming and the knocking? The use throughout the film of music, the aria, the chant? The animation of the characters and events? Symbolic use of animation: the nun’s hair and its crossing the gulf between monasteries, and his the monk’s traversing the gulf? The sequence of the labyrinth, the nailing of Jesus’ hands, the blood, filling the labyrinth, the monk’s ride to freedom, the vastness of the blood, the two caught in the blood? The animation – and its enhancing the realism?

5. The opening exchange, the recitation of Psalm 23, the verses interspersed throughout the film? The exchange of neck chains? Theodore and his years as a monk? Eurania and her being a Russian visitor? Audience expectations of the relationship?

6. Theodore’s life, his cell and the icons, its simplicity, his prayer, the candles? His assisting at the liturgy? His going up and down the steps? The scenes with the community? On the ground, the flautist and their discussions about the meaning of life? His talking with the goatherd? The skinning of the goat, his taking the meat for stew, his culinary skills? Invitation to Eurania to the picnic? The enjoyment of the picnic, drinking, eating? Flirtatious? His communicating with Eurania via the mirrors? The reflections of the sun? His approach to Eurania, her response and rejection? Their talk about language, translation of words, despair, freedom? The return to the monastery (the steps and Eurania being lifted in the rope?

7. Eurania, in herself, her prayer, the close-up of her sexual experience? Exploitative or not?

8. Theodore and his visit to the hermit, helping him, the ascetic way of life?

9. The culmination of the affair, its effect on each of them?

10. The decision that there should be no despair, the gift of freedom, the culmination of the psalm?

11. The background of life below the monastery and convent, the getting of bread, lifting it up, life in the convent, the superior? The ordinariness – but the asceticism, the repression? The breaking of repression?

12. The film as Greek in tone and tradition?

13. The monasteries, the style of life, the style of Christianity, the emphasis on prayer and contemplation, the images, asceticism and repression, the breaking out of urges and dealing with them? A critique of the monastic way of life in the 21st century?

CAPTIVE

Philippines, 2012, 120 minutes, Colour.
Isabelle Huppert.
Directed by Brillante Mendoza.

With his win (unpopular with the audience who booed) as Best Director for Kinatay in Cannes 2009, Brillante Mendoza has been able to move from local, ‘guerilla’ film-making and exhibition to the world stage. In fact, he has had films in competition in Locarno (Masahista), The Foster Child, Tirador (in the Forum at Berlin), Serbis and Kinatay in Cannes, Lola in Venice. With Captive, he was in competition in Berlin and had isabelle Huppert (head of the jury which gave him the award in Cannes) as his star.

Captive is based on actual events in Mindanao in 2001-2002, when a group of local and international men and women were abducted by Abu and held to ransom. The experience of the hostages was gruelling – and Mendoza invites us to share that gruelling experience with a great attention to detail, hand-held camera work which gets in there among the captors and the hostages. Watching the film is often hard going. But, it is all very well-staged, whether in the discomfort of the jungle or in a siege in a provincial hospital. There is diary information, including hearing the news of 9/11, New Year’s Day 2002, and the final attack on the terrorists when there were only a few hostages remaining, ransoms having been paid or deaths lessening the number.

The bewilderment is well conveyed, the long voyages and continual treks in the jungle. Some characters are well delineated, others more on the periphery, and that includes captors and hostages. With Isabelle Huppert, immersing herself as always in the role, there is an anchor for international audience. She plays a social worker from France who has worked in the Philippines for five years. Other hostages include some local women, some Chinese women, an American missionary couple. The captors can be vicious, sometimes considerate (including some booy soldiers), eager for the ransom money, rather naive at times. They also take staff from the hospital after the siege. They are presented as devout, if literal in their reading of Quran texts, warriors for Allah.

At this stage, hostage taking in Mindanao was rather elementary. As the film’s ending points out, hostage taking has increased rather than been stamped out, and disputes between Muslims and Christians have not been settled.

Mendoza has moved from more intimate stories, often focused on poverty and on sexuality, to a broader Philippine and international canvas and crafted an effective film on 21st century terrorism.

1. A film from the Philippines? Mindanao? The events of 2001-2002? Terrorism, abductions, ransoms? The Muslim jihad, Philippines style?

2. Brillante Mendoza and his career, international, yet embedded in the Philippines experience and style?

3. The location photography, the resort, the captives at sea, in the jungle, the town, the hospital, the attack on the hospital, the treks through the jungle, rest in the jungle, the visit to the school? A sense of realism? The television and the announcements by the government? The visuals of 9/11? The interviews for the television?

4. The title, the reality of the capture? The guerrilla style of filming, handheld camera, attention to detail, immersing the audience in the experience of the hostages, sharing the experience and feeling it?

5. The basic situation, the guerrillas and their leader, Abu Sayyid? Ideals? Devout Muslims, quoting the Koran? Literal? Their moral stances, especially about modesty in women, sex within marriage? The forced marriages? Attitude towards government, independence in Mindanao?

6. The arrival at the resort, the rounding up of the visitors, at night, Therese and her companion, their being taken? People herded on the boats, sailing for several days, the sea, the boy being seasick, seeing the dolphins? The coastguard and the questions? The transfer to the terrorists’ boat?

7. The ransom situation, interrogating each person, the potential for money? The identities of the captives, social workers, missionaries, the intermarriages? Their contacts?

8. The personalities of the leadership, their age, experience, the young boys? The decision-making? Treatment of the hostages, the guns, harshness – yet humane touches?

9. The long treks, the effect on hostages, weariness, illness? Angers? Hopes?

10. Going to the hospital, taking over the hospital, the work of the nurses, in the wards, the patients and their kindly giving food, Therese and her gratitude? The siege, the government troops, the attacks? The plea by radio to stop the attacks because of innocent civilians being in danger?

11. The sequence of the pregnant woman, her husband, coming to the hospital, the details of the birth sequence? Changing the mood from terrorism?

12. The decision to leave, taking the nurses, the Christian nurses, the Muslims?

13. The long period spent in the jungle, the times and dates given, the gradual releases, the wounding of the hostages, their being under fire? The execution of the wounded man? The significance of the marriages, the sexual behaviour?

14. Therese, Isabelle Huppert and her screen presence? Leadership, helping the women, her grief at the death of her companion? Making the weddings joyful?

15. The missionary and her anger, her husband and his reference to God’s help? The irony of his death when under fire from the government? Therese and her interview for the television, the plea to the government, the hostages feeling abandoned? The missionary and her interview? The various leaders able to contact the hostages and find them in the jungle? The television interviewer from Manila?

16. The background of 9/11 and the information given to the hostages? Their fear that it would endanger them further? The news' sequence, Therese and her discussion with the young boy the bonding? His later taking his gun? The group diminishing, a final remnant?

17. The visit to the school, the children? The food and hospitality? The Muslim village? The leadership and the relationship with the terrorists?

18. The passing of a whole year, its toll on the hostages? The final information about terrorism in Mindanao – and that it continues, the government unable to control the terrorists? The calls of independence for Mindanao?

THE BOY SHE MET ONLINE

US/Canada, 2010, 89 minutes, Colour.
Tracy Spiridakos, Alexandra Paul, Jon Cor, Thea Gill.
Directed by Curtis Crawford.

The Boy She Met Online is a conventional television film – with a message and a caution.

Tracy Spiridakos portrays a vivacious seventeen-year-old, almost eighteen. Good at studies, she is about to go to college. However, in chats with her best friend, Lindsay, she becomes preoccupied with a boy that she meets online. He tells her that he is a college student for electrical engineering. She tells him she is eighteen.

The fact is that the boy is actually in prison and has lied to her. When he gets out, they meet up – and do tell the truth. She falls for him very strongly, deceiving her mother who is rather strict and concerned about her, going to meet him out of class and finding herself involved in a shootout. This moves the film to some melodrama as the mother tries to find her daughter, going to the sister of the young man, going to a cabin where they are confronted by a criminal with a gun.

The film is easy watching for a home audience. With its emphasis on the giggling teenagers, some people might find it a bit trying. However, Tracy Spiridakos is quite vivacious and brings her character to life, her infatuation, thinking she was in love, wanting freedom, lying to her mother and defying her – only to find out with some harshness the grim consequences of her choices. Jon Cor is good as the young man. Alexandra Paul is the mother. Thea Gill, a rather glamorous presence, as the mother’s friend has an influence on the young girl.

The kind of film that might be useful in education and family contexts to alert people to the dangers of online communication, deceptions, dangers.

1. A popular North American television movie? American issues, universal issues?

2. The teen audience, parents, teachers?

3. The credibility of the plot, the characters, the dialogue, the issues? The strength of the moral warning?

4. Cam at seventeen, her absent father, her failure to communicate with him, her wanting independence, feeling her mother was too strict? Intelligent, good at class, yet misbehaving in class, the mobile phone and confiscation? Her going to college? Discussions with Lindsay, sex preoccupation, the internet, the contact with Jake, his photo, his self-description, communicating with him, the phone calls? Deceiving him? Her needs, the risks, emotionally naive?

5. Jake, on the internet, his creating a personality, the reality, his sharing a cell with Dewayne, the background of the robbery, getting out of prison, parole, getting out – and being picked up by his friend Edgar?

6. Tori, the background of her life, her husband, separation, his death? Her being strict, control? Whether she was correct or not in her attitude towards her daughter, her daughter’s reactions, right or wrong? The range of confrontations? Cam lying, the mother discovering the truth, the mobile phone? Kendra and her arriving, friendship with Tori, advice to Cam? Kendra and her meeting Cam in the restaurant? Making the connections, enquiring, finding out about Jake? Tori tracking down Jake’s sister, the visit, the information about the cabin, going to meet her daughter, Edgar and the violence, her being shot?

7. Cam and her changing, the meetings with Jake, talks, sharing, admitting the truth? The reactions? Going out of class, the situation, the sexual relationship, Tori and more lies, leading up to the violence, her being a witness, pleading with Edgar, the shooting?

8. Lindsay, her friendship with Cam, fostering Cam in her relationship with Jake? Their chatting? The lies? Her boyfriend, his common sense, his warnings? Cam and her falling out with Lindsay after Lindsay discovered the truth and advising her against Jake?

9. Kendra, Tori’s friend, sympathetic, listening, reminding Tori about her own life as a teenager and her mother? Covering for Cam? Her warnings about consequences? Discovering Cam at the burger outlet, her warning?

10. Dewayne, in jail, using the computer, friends with Jake, getting out, staying with Edgar and Jake, his plan, the setting up of house with the three? Going on the quest for Vincent? His death?

11. Edgar, the criminal background, his friendship with Jake? Jake wanting to do the right thing, interviews for jobs, not getting them? The delivery to Vincent? Vincent and stealing the money? The pursuit, the death of Dwayne? Jake and his anger, going with Edgar, the gun, Cam as witness? Killing Vincent? His wanting to escape, with Cam, going to his sister, her not being able to put him up, the family cabin?

12. A moral tale, decisions, mistakes, mistakes that change life, disasters?

13. The optimism of the film in terms of building the relationship again between mother and daughter, and the daughter learning from her mistake?