THE DEVIL’S TEARDROP

US/Canada, 2010, 89 minutes, Colour.
Tom Everett Scott, Natasha Henstridge, Rena Sofer, Gabriel Hogan.
Directed by Norma Bailey.

The Devil’s Teardrop is based on a novel by celebrated crime and detection writer Jeffrey Deaver. His central character of many novels, Lincoln Rhyme, was portrayed in the 1999 The Bone Collector with Denzel Washington and Angelina Jolie. Another film was made of one of his novels, Dead Silence, 1997 with James Garner and Marlee Matlin, based on A Maiden’s Grave.

Deaver’s novels are very complex. However, screenwriter Ron Hutchinson has got to the core of the mystery from Deaver’s novel for this brief telemovie. The key elements are there and the detection as well as the central characters. However, while the novel also placed a lot of emphasis on the handwriting expert and his family and trauma, the film spends a great deal of its time on this issue, making it a more family friendly murder mystery than many others.

Tom Everett Scott is genial and conscientious in the central role. Natasha Henstridge is a hard and glamorous FBI agent.

Canadian locations were used for the Washington DC setting of the film.

1. An entertaining mystery? Crime and detection? Blended with family themes?

2. The Washington DC settings? The visual presentation of Washington at the opening, the tourist and scenic landmarks? The background of the FBI, ordinary homes, warehouses and deserted factories? The musical score?

3. The work of Jeffrey Deaver, his status as a crime writer? Adaptation of his novel?

4. The initial crime, Union Station, The Digger and his massacre of people, indiscriminate? The transition to the tape played on the phone? The threats and the explanation for the FBI? The sudden death of this man in a hit and run accident?

5. Margaret Lukas, her work at the FBI? Her own personal experiences, the loss of her son and husband? Transfer to Washington DC? Strong minded? Taking responsibilities? Cage as her second-in-charge? His suggestion for Parker Kincaid for the investigation? Their visit to Kincaid, his refusal? Margaret Lukas and determining that he would change his mind?

6. Parker Kincaid and his family, with the children? His expertise in handwriting? Working on the Thomas Jefferson letter? His daughter asking about payment? His daughter and her age? His son – and the flashback explaining his trauma, the criminal coming to the house, his father shooting the criminal, terrorising the son? The psychological treatment? The father trying to help his son overcome the trauma? The reasons for his refusal of taking on the job?

7. Joan, her visit, presents for the children? The separation from Parker? Her new husband? Her wanting custody of the children? The threats? Parker and his contacting his lawyer? The meeting of the two parties? The demands, the letters of recommendation? Joan and her overcoming her alcoholism? The need for an official to visit the house? The woman coming in the morning after the murder? Her talking with the children, getting a good impression? Joan’s arrival, with gifts? Her overhearing the official with the boy? Listening to the daughter talking to her hamster – and the realisation that she should not get custody? Her tears, her handing over to Parker?

8. The focus on The Digger, in his room? The setup and his taking orders? The massacre and the time limit? The detection and thinking that the venue would be a hotel? The fact that it was a theatre?

9. Parker and his changing his mind, coming in, wanting anonymity? His clues from the writing, the devil’s teardrop? The nature of the paper, the contents and the physical nature of the compounds on the paper? The computer program, finding where the location was? Going, entering, the search, for the paper, the discovery of the bomb, escape on time?

10. Gage and his being injured in the explosion? Hardy coming in to help? His going to Parker’s house, looking at the documents, writing a report – and the irony of his writing? Parker discovering the devil’s teardrop? Warning Margaret, Parker and his scheme about getting the money, because The Digger was allegedly dead, the money going into custody? Hardy and his entry, shooting the guards, taking the money? The confrontation with Margaret, the shootout? His pride in his plan?

11. The Digger, Hardy’s friend, the plate in his head, taking orders?

12. The plans for the Fourth of July, the fireworks, the agents all in readiness? The irony of The Digger going to Parker’s house? The fight, his death?

13. The next morning, Parker awakening, the social worker arriving – and the house all cleaned? Margaret’s arrival, the explanation? Joan’s arrival?

14. Margaret and her friendship with the children, with the daughter? Her staying the day – and the television ending with the kiss?
 

HARD EIGHT/SYDNEY

US, 1996, 102 minutes, Colour.
Philip Baker Hall, John C. Reilly, Gwyneth Paltrow, Samuel L. Jackson, Philip Seymour Hoffman, Melora Walters.
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.

Hard Eight is a very impressive first feature film from Paul Thomas Anderson. In his career, which has received great praise, he has made comparatively few feature films: Magnolia, Punch-Drunk? Love, There Will Be Blood, The Master.

The film is very strong on dialogue, particularly well written and articulate. It is given full value in the performance by Philip Baker Hall as an elderly man who befriends a down-and-out young man as well as a prostitute in Las Vegas. It turns out ultimately that he is a former gangster, a gambler. However, he is someone who is always in control, well spoken and well dressed. It is an excellent performance. John C. Reilly is the young man, and also gives a fine performance at this stage of his career – he was to become quite a character actor and star in the early 20th century with films ranging from Chicago to Stepbrothers to We Need to Talk About Kevin. The film also shows Gwyneth Paltrow and her talent (though not particularly well cast as a prostitute to be fully convincing), two years before she won her Oscar for Shakespeare in Love. Samuel L. Jackson gives an energetic performance as an unsympathetic gambler in Reno. In the supporting cast is Philip Seymour Hoffman, making his mark as a vociferous player at the craps table.

Paul Thomas Anderson was to use Philip Baker Hall, John C. Reilly and Philip Seymour Hoffman in Magnolia and Hoffman in his other films. John C. Reilly and Melora Walters also appeared in Magnolia.

This is a film driven by character rather than by event. It seems to be in three acts, Philip Baker Hall’s Sydney being the common denominator. The first act is his meeting with John and setting him up. The second act is the encounter with Clementine. The third act is the confrontation with Jimmy, culminating in Jimmy’s death.

As with Paul Thomas Anderson’s other films, this is a film of intelligence for attentive audiences.

1. The title, the focus on Hard Eight, the scenes at the craps table and the bets? The bets and the losing? The alternate title, Sydney and its focus on Sydney and his character?

2. The career of Paul Thomas Anderson, his first film, dialogue and characterisation, the intricate camerawork? The strong cast?

3. The structure and three acts, Sydney and John, Sydney and Clementine, Sydney and Jimmy?

4. Sydney as a character, the performance of Philip Baker Hall, his look, manner of talking, dignity and gravity, his age, neat clothes, clarity, enigmatic? His past and the audience guessing? Eighty minutes into the film and the discovery of the true story, especially about the death of John’s father?

5. Sydney meeting John, John in the gutter, down-and-out, talking, offering the cigarettes and the money, John and his fear of matches (and the flashback of the cinema and the explosion)? The drive in the car, John’s caution, coming into the front, their talk? John as a slow character, desperate? The money, his mother’s funeral? His going with Sydney? His answering most questions with ‘I don't know’?

6. Las Vegas, the gambling scheme, Sydney and his control and explanations, John and his following Sydney’s orders, the details, the hundred and fifty dollars, the chips, the slots, turning them in, the record card, repeating and getting cash? The supervisor? John and his success, the comfortable room? The bond with Sydney?

7. The gap of two years, the situation in Reno? John’s success? Sydney, sitting, observing, playing keno, the discussions with Clementine, about her flirting, the tips, the other guests? Jimmy coming to the table, Sydney’s dislike of him, Jimmy’s language, Sydney explaining the crudity? His care of Clementine, offering her a room? Her thinking he was a client? His kindness to her? The breakfast? Her expectations? Her passing the night, John coming in the morning, offering the money, the clothes at the mall?

8. John and Clementine, their liking each other, the morning, the money, the mall? The marriage – and the video and Sydney watching it?

9. The phone call, the situation, the man beaten and bloodstained on the bed, Clementine wanting her three hundred dollars? John not knowing what to do? Sydney and his questions, Clementine and her foolish decision, her stubbornness, John helpless? Pleading, Sydney wanting to go, returning? The news of the marriage? Sydney’s decision, control, hitting the man into unconsciousness? Sending Sydney and Clementine off to Niagara – and the comedy with John not wanting to go because he had visited it before?

10. Jimmy and his visit, controlling Sydney, the situation, the news that Sydney had killed John’s father, the motivation, Sydney declaring that John was like a son? Jimmy demanding the money, the bank, Sydney giving him the money, Jimmy’s wild gambling?

11. The phone calls, Jimmy and Clementine, okay, out of danger? Sydney waiting in Jimmy’s apartment, shooting him, the girl running away in fear, the final image of the blood on Sydney’s cuff and his covering it?

12. The effect of this kind of experience, character studies, portraits? Reflection?

DRIPPING IN CHOCOLATE

Australia, 2012, 90 minutes, Colour.
David Wenham, Louise Lombard, Chelsie Preston Crayford, Caroline Brazier, Geoff Morrell, Aaron Glenane.
Directed by Mark Joffe.

Dripping in Chocolate is a police investigation and murder mystery. It follows the expected patterns - with a detective who has experienced alienation in his life, the death of his wife from cancer which he couldn’t face, the separation and hostility of his daughter, his going into a detox program. He is also not particularly computer-literate, relying on his various assistants to do this kind of work. However, as played by David Wenham, with a mixture of the hardboiled and the sympathetic, he is an interesting character as we watch him go about his work, piece together the mystery, become interested in a woman who is an initial suspect.

The film is set in Sydney, some glimpses of the landmarks, as well as of the New South Wales coast.

British actress Louise Lombard portrays Juliana, who makes chocolates and has a rather extensive and exclusive clientele. When a wrapper from one of her chocolates is found on the body of a murdered woman, she becomes a suspect. However, the chocolates lead to all kinds of connections.

There are many issues and red herrings in the film. There is a political subplot, with Geoff Morrell as a womanising politician, and his jealous wife. There is a development of hotels subplot, including the politician, with the murdered girl as the advertising face of the new project. There is also an elderly uncle in a nursing home, problems about inheritance. There is also a subplot about a gym trainer, in a relationship with Juliana, but also in a relationship with the murdered woman. There is also a psychological subplot – the psychiatrist has both the murdered girl and the politician as his clients and uses a special kind of chocolate in part of his withdrawal treatment. A further complication is found when the murdered girl is pregnant.

However, the plot gets a bit out of hand at the end, the murderer being a bit of a wild card, the film becoming highly melodramatic and implausible at the end as the murderer threatens Juliana in the sea – but a rescue in time.

The film was directed by Mark Joffe who made a number of thrillers in the 1980s. In the 1990s he made a succession of very entertaining light films including Spotswood, Cosi, The Matchmaker, The Man Who Sued God.

1. An Australian police investigation? The crimes? Politics? Domestic issues? Business and development? Psychology and therapy? Inheritance themes?

2. Sydney, ordinary, yet the landmarks? Homes, shops, galleries, the cemetery? The coast? The musical score?

3. The plausibility of the plot, the number of subplots, red herrings, the solution, the high melodrama?

4. The title, Juliana and her work, the details of recipes and skills in making the chocolates? Her range of customers and orders? The order book and its importance? The range of chocolates? Bunny – the perky assistant? Photographing the corpse at the beginning? Her information for the police?

5. Celine, wandering, waiting for an appointment? The night? Her death? Finding out her identity? Her being seen on the billboards? A sex addict, her relationship with the psychiatrist, pregnant? Her home, Travis and his lies, his hitting on Celine, his setting up the surveillance? The videotapes? Her clashes? Saxon and his liaison with her? The politician and the affair? The psychiatrist? Her uncle, his will, the unknown cousin? The various strands coming together, the solution?

6. David Wenham as Bennett O’ Mara? In detox, the old-style detective, his being anti-fast foods, his being wary of chocolates? His dog, illness, getting the drugs – and the setup in his being photographed? The vet? Juliana and her helping with the chicken wings for the dog? His background story, his wife and her illness, her death, his being absent? The resentment of his daughter? Her forcing him to go to the cemetery? His professional skills, the scene of the crime, collecting evidence, his assistant (and his eating fast food, trying to hit on Riley)? Riley and her work? His intruding, his style? Meeting Juliana, at the shop, at the gallery? Her being under suspicion? At the house when the politician was murdered? Going to the police office? The chicken wings? O’ Mara and his attacking Juliana on the phone? The attraction? Her being wary?

7. Juliana, her story, her husband and the flashbacks, infidelity? The shop? Her customers? The psychiatrist? Going to his office? The uncle and the chocolates, Bunny and her writing the wrong word in the order book? Her relationship with Saxon? O’ Mara and his visits, her helping the politician’s wife, her advice, the wife setting her up, the murder of her husband? The connection with Celine? The chocolates for the uncle, his murder? Saxon and his interrogation and her watching it? Her bewilderment, going to the beach, Saxon joining her?

8. The politician’s story, opening the gallery, his affair with Celine, his addiction, the psychiatrist, his wife and her jealousy, the wife discussing matters and Juliana’s friendly advice? The wife inviting her to the meal – setting her up for the murder of her husband?

9. The uncle, his story, the visit, his being poisoned, his will?

10. Saxon, the relationship, the gym, with Juliana, with Celine, other women? The cross-examination? Juliana seeing it? His going to the beach house, Riley killing him?

11. The assistant, his jobs, the research, eating? Slow on the uptake? Riley, her advances to O’ Mara?

12. The gathering of the information, the truth about the will, the identity of the heir, O’ Mara and his driving through the storm, reaching Juliana just in time?

13. Riley, the order book, confronting Juliana, the confession, the various murders? Killing Saxon, going into the sea, pretending that Juliana was trying to kill herself?

14. The resolution of the mystery, the characters, the situations – and the high melodrama at the end?

INFERNAL AFFAIRS II

Hong Kong, 2003, 119 minutes, Colour.
Anthony Wong Chau- Sang, Eric Tsang, Francis Ng, Edison Chen, Shawn Yue.
Directed by Wai-keung Lau and Alan Mak.

Infernal Affairs II is a prequel to the original Infernal Affairs (which was remade and became the Oscar-winning film of 2006, The Departed, by Martin Scorsese).

This film goes back to the backgrounds of the two young men, one of whom became an undercover policeman, the other an infiltrator for the triads in the police force. It also focuses on the career of Inspector Wong (Anthony Wong Chau-Sang) and his influence in the recruiting of the undercover policeman as well as his commissioning the assassination of a triad chief. The other central character is Sam (Eric Tsang), a boss who is able to manoeuvre his way through loyalties and conspiracies in the drug trade in Hong Kong and in Thailand.

The film focuses on character as well as the machinations of the triads, especially the son of the murdered head, Hau (Francis Ng), a suave gentlemanly type in public, ruthless in private.

The film is also set against the background of the final years of Hong Kong’s place under British rule and the transition in 1997 to its independence while part of China. There was a third film, Infernal Affairs III, which took on the aftermath of the first two films.

1. The impact of the film, as a prequel? Better delineation of characters, situations? Explanations?

2. The Chinese background of the 1990s, the preparation for the handover from Britain to China, the political background, the police background, the triads trying to develop their empires before the transition? Consideration of moves outside Hong Kong?

3. The picture of Hong Kong in the 1990s, wealth, the police, crime, the police academy, the offices? The landscapes and seascapes of Hong Kong? The musical score?

4. The title, its ironies and internal affairs? Infiltration and corruption?

5. Inspector Wong, his role in the police, integrity, the discovery of the truth about him, his talking about himself, the discussion with Sam, his revelation of his wanting to destroy the triads, using any means possible? The triad wars? The irony of the contract on the head of the drug family? The importance of the death, the takeovers? His cover? His sending Yan into triads as undercover? His friendship and bonds with Inspector Luk? Luk challenging him? Hau and the video, incriminating Wong? His stances, the investigation, his wanting to go ahead, resignation? The changeover and his being asked to lead a task force? Luk and the discussion, his death in the car? The confrontation, with Sam, Hau and his death? His character, his future?

6. Sam, jovial, as a character, his being head of the company, his loyalties, alliances, changing loyalties? His wife and the relationship? His brother and his youthfulness? His friends in the company? Talking with them – and their alliances with Hau? Their later deaths? Sam and the threats to his life? His deals, drugs, going to Thailand, his wife – and her death? His new family in Thailand? His return, under protection, his discussions with Wong, his death being one way to incriminate Hau? The challenge, Hau’s death, his survival?

7. Mary, the contract on the head of the drug family, Sam’s younger brother, persuading him to go into the police force, his meetings with her, his infatuation with her, her love for Sam? His career, success, in the office? Infiltration and information? His contacts, the jealousy of Sam? Mary and her going to the airport – and the younger brother killing her?

8. The drug family, the death of the father, the meeting of the family, the decisions about the company, Hau and his taking over, his control, suave manner, ruthless? His blackmailing of the members of Sam’s company? His bond with Yan, the illegitimate brother? Yan becoming his associate? His assistant, going on missions, the police and the springing of traps? His killing his assistant – undercover policeman? His deals, the death of the group, his controlling Sam? Sam’s return, the testimony, Sam confronting him, his death?

9. Yan, his father, relationship with Hau? A policeman? Wong persuading him to go into the academy, his misbehaviour, jail, being ousted? The cover? The passing of the years? Assistant to Hau? The dangers? His reports to Wong, in the bus, in the cemetery? His providing the information on Hau?

10. The gangs, their individual characters, their leadership, their lives, being blackmailed? Their deaths?

11. The role of the police, corruption, infiltration? Information? Initiatives, the law? The transition to China from British protectorate?

12. The background to the first film? Leading into the third film?
 

HOMECOMING

US, 1948, 113 minutes, Black and white.
Clark Gable, Lana Turner, Anne Baxter, John Hodiak, Ray Collins, Gladys Cooper, Cameron Mitchell, Marshall Thompson.
Directed by Mervyn Le Roy.

Homecoming is one of the several films about the veterans of World War Two coming back, trying to settle in, the effect on them as well as on families and friends and opportunities for a new life after the war. Perhaps the best known of these films was the Oscar-winning film of 1946, The Best Years of Our Lives.

This is a very glossy MGM film with Clark Gable and Lana Turner (who had appeared in Honky Tonk and Somewhere I’ll Find You in the early 40s; they were to appear in Betrayed in 1954). The film has a strong supporting cast and is photographed in strong black and white, with a score by Bronislau Kaper.

There are some war sequences, with the setting in Italy. However, the film is very much one of interiors, hospitals and homes in the United States, hospital situations in war. However, at the end, there are more war sequences as Clark Gable and Lana Turner go to Bastogne and are involved in the Battle of the Bulge.

The film offers a very fine performance by Clark Gable, older and more mature, presenting a self-absorbed and opinionated doctor, very much caught up in the American dream of success and wealth, married comfortably to Anne Baxter. He resists the overtures of a long-time friend and fellow doctor, John Hodiak, for contributing to the elimination of malaria in a part of a town. This comes back to him after his war experience, shooting off his mouth on the boat, being attacked by Lana Turner, working with her, finding a selflessness in war as well as being challenged continually by her. The film also shows the experience of falling in love in a war situation, the effect on people, as well as the spouse at home.

The film is well written, has a lot of thoughtful dialogue – and still challenges many of the American ideas of our time.

1. The 1948 setting, the war experience, telling war stories, adjustment to post-war life, for those who served, for those who welcomed the military back?

2. The stars, their films together, working well? MGM gloss? Black and white photography, the musical score?

3. The introduction to the journalist, his eye for stories, his discussions with Lee, his not getting a story? Lee then remembering?

4. The challenge to consider someone who had influenced and changed a person’s life? At the end – and his feeling the need to tell Penny the story?

5. Lee as a character, his background, his self-absorption, success, skill in surgery, hospital work? Social life, golf, dancing? Living in his own world – the American dream world? Comfortable? His relationship with Penny? Her listening in to the phone calls in his office, the gifts? Their being together – and the flashback to his mistake at the opera? Their life, Penny and her fears during the war?

6. Bob, past friendship, his cause, malaria, asking Lee for help, Lee avoiding him, Penny avoiding him? His explanations? Giving the documents, Lee ignoring them, delay? Forgetting? Monk and his initial interchange with Lee, Lee fixing his leg so that he could go to war? Encountering him as injured, the explanation of the malaria, his death and the impact on Lee?

7. On the boat, talking with Colonel Silver? Snapshot and her interventions, Lee and his being put out, the challenge, her directness? Working with her? The continued straight talk? His admiring her skill? The issue of not granting compassionate leave and her challenging him? The hard work, sixteen-hour shifts at a time? Under German attack? Moving, going to Italy, the experience of raids? The continued hospital work? With Silver?

8. Lee, his experience, talking with Snapshot, her story, her husband and causes, his going to China, his death, her son? Her commitment to work?

9. The formalities between them, the arguments, the apologies, the cup of coffee, the growing bonds, the humorous episode with the baths? Falling in love? Her calling him Useless? His real name Ulysses?

10. His continually writing to Penny, Penny discussing things with her mother, feelings of jealousy, her fears? Going for advice to Bob, talking things over? Lee and his asking her to see Monk’s father? Her visit?

11. Monk, his character, ill, the malaria? Snapshot and her outburst? Not realising how it touched Lee’s conscience?

12. The attack, Silver’s death? Silver and his character, warning Snapshot about her relationship?

13. Snapshot, her leaving, the farewell, the declaration of love?

14. Lee on leave in Paris, meeting Snapshot, the discussions? The decision to go to Bastogne, the danger?

15. Lee, his return, Penny tense, the servants at the wharf, going home, visiting Snapshot’s son? The awkwardness, talk and silence, Lee’s reticence? Going to visit Bob, their discussions, admitting the truth? The malaria issue? Penny’s mother and her acerbic responses? Penny and her frankness, the talk, the explanation of Snapshot’s death, the flashback to her injuries, the death scene and Lee’s visit? The effect on both of them?

16. The final symbolic image of the two candles lit on the table?
 

A MAN’S GOTTA DO

Australia, 2004, 100 minutes, Colour.
John Howard, Alyssa Mc Lelland, Rebecca Frith, Gyton Grantley, Rohan Nichol, Tony Barry.
Directed by Chris Kennedy.

A Man’s Gotta Do is the story of an ordinary(?) Australian family.

It was written, produced and directed by Chris Kennedy who did the same for Glass, Doing Time for Patsy Cline (his most successful film).

John Howard is the patriarch of the family, a very ocker type, involved in fishing – and a bit of standover tactics to get money on the side. Rebecca Frith is his wife, Alyssa Mc Lelland his daughter who is about to be married. However, her fiancé does not turn up and she has to cope with the disappointment. Much of her disappointment and her attitude towards her father find a place in her diary which puzzles her father.

Her father gets an assistant, Dominic, played by Gyton Grantley. He gradually falls in love with Chantelle. The father has to learn a great deal about his daughter, his daughter has to learn about her father, her mother has to come to terms with her family.

After various ups and downs, the father begins to understand his daughter (even reading part of her diary). His wife becomes pregnant, Chantelle is also pregnant as is one of her close friends. So, at the wedding, there are three pregnant women.

The film has several amusing moments. It also uses the technique of the central characters turning to camera and explaining themselves and situations. John Howard has been a very strong screen presence for many decades in Australian films. Rebecca Frith has appeared in many films as well.

The success of the film, its humanity and sense of humour, probably depend on an audience’s mood as they watch the film. There is an amusing ending with a professional photographer – and a whole range of ruined photos that she takes.

1. An entertaining Australian film? Family drama? Comedy? The Australian tone?

2. The coastal setting, the house, the town, the sea? The views? The musical score?

3. The focus on Chantelle, her diary and confiding in it? Her attitude towards her father, her mother? About to be married? The preparations, the meeting with the fiancé – and his not turning up? Her father’s absence? Her having to cope? Meeting with Dominic, the attraction, falling in love? Her pregnancy? Her discussions with Delores? Her father reading her diary? The confrontation? The final reconciliation, discussions with her father, with her mother? With Dominic? Her views as expressed to camera? The wedding, the photos?

4. Eddie, his appearance, size, rough and ready? His accent, comments on life? Unimaginative? The issue of words and feelings? His attempting to find words for them? His relationship with his daughter, not understanding her? Money matters? Sexual matters? His not liking the fiancé? His standover tactics and explanations? Acquiring Dominic as an offsider? Their work together? His attitude towards his daughter, wanting to read her diary? The tension with his wife? The discussions with the doctor? His acceptance of Dominic, the engagement? The preparation for the marriage? Reading the diary? His comments to the camera? Audiences understanding him? Humane, humorous?

5. Yvonne, busy in the house, falling out of love with Eddie? Criticising him? Her concern for her daughter? The preparation for the wedding, the expenses? Waiting to meet Rudi? The marriage off? Dealing with her husband, change of heart? Her pregnancy?

6. Dominic, the apprentice, going out with Eddie, listening to him, learning from him? Working? Time passing, Chantelle, in love? The proposal? His wanting to do other work and to leave Eddie? His talking to camera? The wedding?

7. Paul, his attentions to Chantelle, coming on too strong? Obnoxious?

8. Delores, Chantelle’s other friends, conversations?

9. The cumulative effect of the episodes? The comic touches? Ordinary touches? Humanity – and the final humour of the photos?

THE HAUNTING OF BRYAN BECKET / THE SKEPTIC

US, 2009, 89 minutes, Colour.
Tim Daly, Tom Arnold, Zoe Saldana, Edward Herrmann, Andrea Roth, Robert Prosky, Bruce Altman.
Directed by Tennyson Bardwell.

The Haunting of Bryan Beckett is a ghost story – but not a shocker. It is more of a psychological drama, indicated by the original name of the film, The Skeptic.

The film opens with the discovery of a body in an old mansion. Tim Daly portrays a very rationalist lawyer who is the nephew of the murdered woman and who thinks he will inherit the house. He goes to the house accompanied by his law partner, Tom Arnold. However, the property is being left to a psychological laboratory, presided over by Bruce Altman. Zoe Saldana portrays a psychic who collaborates with the work.

In the meantime, Bryan Beckett is wanting to have time away from his wife and his son whom he loves. He consults the head of the laboratory, expressing scepticism but gradually being drawn into possibilities of some kind of ESP, at least. He also consults the priest friend of the family, played by Robert Prosky, as well as his doctor, played by Edward Herrmann.

What emerges is the suppression of unpleasant memories, which are being stirred by his presence in the house and some seemingly strange haunting experiences. In discussions with the priest and the doctor, as well as with help from the psychic, it emerges that his mother was cruel woman, physically abusing her son – and that he was responsible, at the age of five, for putting toys at the top of the stairs, causing her to fall down and be killed.

For those interested in psychic experiences as well as psychological dramas, especially about abuse and memories, the film is quite well made. It is not exactly a horror film.

1. The impact of the film? Expectations from the titles? Haunting? Ghosts? The possibility of ghosts, hauntings, ESP? Projections from the psyche?

2. The American setting, ordinary homes, law practices, the church? The contrast with the house, the interiors? The eerier aspects of the house? The scientific and psychological laboratory? The musical score?

3. The introduction, the discovery of the body, the situation with the house? Bryan and his expectations? Discussions with his wife, his animosity towards his aunt? Discovering the truth about the will, Doctor Koven and the laboratory? His moving out, separation from his wife, farewell to his son?

4. The discussions with the priest, his aunt’s funeral? The priest and his sympathy, memories of the past, trying to explain situations to Bryan? Bryan and his return visits to the priest? His discussions with his doctor, about his own case, his memories? The final meeting with the doctor, the revelation of the truth about his mother?

5. Cassie, her role as a psychic? In the laboratory? Coming to the house, her sense of the presence of evil? Discussions with Bryan, staying? Her contribution to his understanding?

6. The revelation about his mother? The gradual reassertion of memories? His suppression of them? His mother’s cruelty, locking him in the cupboards, punishment for untidiness with the red sock? Not going to the picnic? The other situations? His gradually remembering them? The doctor and his suggestions about the toy, the top of the stairs, his mother’s fall and her death?

7. The psychological effect on Bryan? The cumulative effect – and his own falling down the stairs? The work of his mother, vengeful? Would he survive?
 

CARNAL INNOCENCE

US, 2011, 90 minutes, Colour.
Gabrielle Anwar, Colin Egglesfield, Andrew W. Walker, Jud Tylor, Ed Lauter, Brad Rowe, Shirley Jones.
Directed by Peter Markle.

Carnal Innocence is based on a popular novel by Nora Roberts. Nora Roberts has a strong following – but her novels would not make many converts for any viewer looking at this version. Innocence is the name of a town – but with a serial killer in the town, an emphasis on relationships and sexuality, it is carnal.

The film is very much a soap opera telemovie, directed by Peter Markle, who has worked mainly in television.

It is set in Mississippi, focusing on Gabrielle Anwar as a violinist who returns to her grandmother’s house. In the meantime there is a focus on the Longstreet family, especially the spoilt Tucker Longstreet (Colin Egglesfield), his disreputable brother (Brad Rowe) and his sister (Jud Tylor). There is a series of murders, especially of women who have been in some kind of relationship with Tucker Longstreet, one claiming to be pregnant by him. Her father, played by Ed Lauter, bursts out – in an over-the-top performance – attempting to kill Longstreet but is killed by Gabrielle Anwar. His slow son, Cy, is employed by Tucker and collaborates with him, warning Tucker against the attack of his father.

The settings are quite lavish, there is a recreation of the Mississippi town and a Fourth of July parade. Shirley Jones appears in some scenes as the matriarch.

The love story is completely unconvincing, the character portrayed by Gabrielle Anwar at the beginning is not likely to fall in love with Tucker Longstreet – but the screenplay requires this. Ultimately, the mad killer is revealed, there is a fight between the heroine and the killer – and then a kind of happy ever after ending.

The film can be seen as a poor example of telemovies and the soap opera approach to characters and values.

TAKE ME HOME TONIGHT

US, 2011, 97 minutes, Colour.
Topher Grace, Anna Faris, Dan Fogler, Teresa Palmer, Chris Pratt, Michael Biehn, Lucy Punch, Michelle Trachtenberg, Demetri Martin, Michael Ian Black, Angie Everhart.
Directed by Michael Dowse.

Take Me Home Tonight is a film about young adults, set in the 80s (akin to such films as Hot Tub Machine). It is a raucous kind of film about young adults, four years after their graduation, akin to the mood of films like Superbad.

This means a limited appeal to younger audiences. Older audiences might find some of the behaviour obnoxious and some of the characters uninteresting or obnoxious as well. This is particularly the case with Dan Fogler, even though he is a Tony award-winning actor, in his films he is objectionable and not particularly interesting or funny.

The star of the film is Topher Grace, executive producer of the film. He plays someone who cannot make up his mind about his future, despite the pressures from his policeman father (Michael Biehn). He works in a video store. He is well qualified, going to MIT and graduating. He becomes infatuated with Tori (Teresa Palmer) who was his idol in school. He spins a false yarn about his career, especially as a banker at Goldman Sachs. She believes him, is attracted to him, they have a sexual relationship – and then the truth is revealed. Eventually, he has to admit the truth about himself and is accepted by Tori. In the background is his twin sister, played by comedian Anna Faris, an intelligent woman who can write short stories, but who is engaged to a man of very limited vision, though genial in himself (Chris Pratt – whom Anna Faris married after this in real life). There are several other actresses in supporting roles including British Lucy Punch, Michelle Trachtenberg.

The film offers a look back at young adults in the 1980s, prior to the crash of Wall Street. The mood is buoyant and optimistic, very materialistic in outlook. However, some of the final decisions move against this materialism.

The film is of limited interest – and took four years to release. One of the problems was the cocaine sequences which were considered too much. However, Ron Howard and Brian Grazer of Imagine Entertainment worked for the release of the film eventually in 2011.

As a postscript on the career of Australian actress Teresa Palmer, this was her first film but released long after she appeared in such films as Bedtime Stories and The Sorcerer’s Apprentice and I Am Number Four. She had appeared in several Australian films and was to make Wish You Were Here, released in 2012.

THESE GLAMOR GIRLS

US, 1939, 79 minutes, Black and white.
Lew Ayres, Lana Turner, Tom Brown, Richard Carlson, Jane Bryan, Anita Louise, Marsha Hunt, Ann Rutherford, Mary Beth Hughes, Ernest Truex.
Directed by S. Sylvan Simon.

These Glamor Girls was an early starring role for Lana Turner – and she comes across very strongly as a taxi dancer mixed up with society women in New York. Lew Ayres portrays a college student, son of a very wealthy businessman, who invites Lana Turner to one of the college house parties when he is drunk. She turns up, is an embarrassment, he tries to do the right thing by her. However, this is a portrait of college where the students are very snobbish (quite a contrast to the spring break kind of movies of the 1980s).

In the range of society women there is Jane Bryan, who is poor, but hopes to marry Lew Ayres. However, she does the decent thing and draws back, because she really is in love with a poorer student working his way through college, played by Richard Carlson. Anita Louise is the arrogant and snobbish friend. Marsha Hunt is the older student, desperate for a husband. Ann Rutherford portrays a young and skittish woman, influenced by her mother, trying to reform her boyfriend. Mary Beth Hughes is also a rich young woman.

The men don't come out of the film particularly well except for Richard Carlson. There is an unnecessary comic interlude with Ernest Truex as a drunken alumnus of Harvard who mixes up the colleges.

The film is interesting as a portrait of how people saw college students in 1939. However, there is quite an implicit criticism in the police of the central characters – and a finale where people make better decisions, especially when Lew Ayres discovered his father has been involved with fraud. He then wants to make a life of his own – and with Lana Turner.

There is some sharp dialogue in the MGM style of the period – it was also the year when The Women came out and this is in some ways a minor version of that kind of film-making and focus on characters.