UNTER NACHBARN (THE GOOD NEIGHBOUR)

Germany, 2011, 96 minutes, Colour.
Maxim Mehmet, Charly Hubner, Petra Schmidt- Schaller.
Directed by Stephan Rick.

Unter Nachbarn is a well-made psychological thriller. It is set in the industrial city of Karlsruhe. David is a journalist who has relocated from Berlin to a local paper. He is ambitious, successful. When he moves into a house, given to him by a friend of his father (in gambling debt to his father), he calls on his next-door neighbour to help him with fixing the furniture and setting it up. David is played by Maxim Mehmet, Robert the neighbour by Charly Hubner. Robert is a rather large man, obviously living alone, eccentric, a male nurse, keeping to himself but watching the neighbours. He gladly responds to the invitation by David – and there are suggestions of an attraction, which lead to a fatal attraction.

David chats up a young woman at a bar, is fiddling with his CD player in the car on the way home and knocks her over. Robert and David stop, David wants everything to change, Robert urges him to leave the scene.

The film shows the consequences of the first cowardice and the first lie. David is disturbed and puzzled about what has happened and what he should do. Robert starts to take control, destroys David’s car secretly, getting rid of the evidence. He starts to control David, or attempts to. David meets the victim’s sister, is attracted to her, tries to help her, unable to tell her the truth. This leads to Robert’s jealousy and his discovering that David has been lying to him about this young woman.

The film builds up the tension between David and Robert, Robert finally turning jealously violent and confronting Vanessa. In the meantime, the police chief and his assistant have been investigating the accident and building up clues, interrogating David and Robert.

While the material might be in some ways familiar, someone leaving the scene of an accident, the victim of a fatal attraction, emotional tangles, police investigation, it all comes together quite effectively as a psychological drama with the touch of the thriller.

1. Psychological drama? Thriller? Police investigation?

2. The city of Karlsruhe, the homes, the suburbs, the industrial background, the bars, the police? Realistic? The musical score?

3. The titles – The Good Neighbour, a bland title? Between Neighbours much more accurate?

4. David, his age, background, leaving Berlin, his going to work at the paper, his being welcomed, the jobs, covering the speech and seeing the boy playing basketball, an effective story? Congratulations?

5. The house, his tour, the agent, the revelation about David’s father and the agent’s indebtedness? Settling in, borrowing tools from Robert, Robert offering to help, their working together, the beginning of the bond?

6. David inviting Robert to the bar, the Friday night, dancing, Robert’s enthusiasm? David and his chatting up Janine? Exchanging phone numbers? His number on her mobile? Leaving the bar, the discussions about the CD player and the music, David not paying attention, hitting Janine on the bike, stopping, his praying that all could change, Robert taking charge, their leaving the scene of the accident? The irony of their lies about the tram – and Vanessa discovering later that the tram was in abeyance because of repairs?

7. David as a coward, his lies, the consequences? His trying to handle the situation? Handling Robert? Robert as an accomplice, trying to protect David and himself, his infatuation? Putting David’s car in the river?

8. David at his job, the press conference, Vanessa’s presence, the police watching, his change of attitude? Talking to Robert? The fishing? The meal? At work, Vanessa and her visit, his lies to Robert, Robert bringing the basket of food to work, discovering the truth, violently scratching David’s new car?

9. Robert and his character, the fatal attraction, watching David from his windows, the growing jealousy, his warnings?

10. Vanessa, her sadness, beginning to depend on David, the meal together, the meeting, the sexual relationship? The invitation to go kayaking, Robert and his presence? His attempt to drown Vanessa? David saving her?

11. The police, the chief, his assistant, at the funeral, the investigations, the discovery of the phone number?

12. Vanessa discovering the truth, the confrontation with David?

13. The phone call, the tip-off by Robert, the police finding the car, David and Robert at the river, the hut, Vanessa and the shooting, the police arrival, their arresting David? Robert and his sadness, sitting by the river, discovering that Vanessa would survive? His drowning himself?

14. A portrait of characters, weak, cowardly? Lies, the consequences?

ARCADIA

US, 2012, 91 minutes, Colour.
John Hawkes, Ryan Simpkins, Ty Simpkins, Kendall Toole.
Directed by Olivia Silva.


Arcadia is a small independent film about a family, father and three children crossing the United States. There is a wide range of locations as they movie from state to state. However, it is the strong performances which count, especially John Hawkes as the touchy and sometimes desperate father. He had proven his acting skills in such films as Winter's Bone and The Sessions.

1. A film about family? Relationship between father and children? Absent mother?

2. The title, a suburb of Los Angeles, an ideal destination?

3. A road film? From the east coast to west coast? The range of scenery, states, terrains? The songs, musical score?

4. The basic situation? The father of gathering the children, their leaving the home, his change of a child, the absence of a mother? The explanations for her absence?

5. The children unwilling to go? The oldest and her knowing the truth? Greta, her discontent? The boy and his wanting his mother?

6. The character of Tom? Coping with his wife, her breakdowns, her being in the institution? His not wanting to tell his children? His cover-up? His love for his children? Yet irritation?

7. His manner, his bad behavior towards people, to the woman in the diner? Her ‘attitude’? Towards the people at the motels? His reaction to the police?

8. The details of the journey, the behavior of the children in the car? Greta listening to the music? the critical conversations? Greta and the phone calls?

9. The arriving at the relations’ house? The welcome? Phone calls? reassurances? Tom falling out with the relatives, his impetuous leaving?

10. The argument with Greta, leaving her on the side of the road, returning?

11. Arriving in Los Angeles, the children’s response, the new house, settling in, the promise of the pool? The inflated material for sleeping? How would they settle into the house?

12. Tom and his continuous phone calls, expectations about the job?

13. The final phone call to their mother, the background of her breakdowns, her manner towards her children, being in the institution?

14. The strength of the portraits of the father, the three children? Tense relationships, the children’s ages? Their responses?

15. A small film, but with valuable characterisations?

THE MIRACLE OF THE BELLS

U.S., 1948, 120 minutes, black and white.
Fred Mac Murray, Valli, Frank Sinatra, Lee J. Cobb, Harold Vermilyea.
Directed by Irving Pichel.


The Miracle of the Bells is a story about a press agent and gimmicks, the promoting of a movie whose star died as she finsished it. It was her first film, and the producer decides to shelve it. Fred Mac Murray is the agent, devoted to the star, brings her body back to her home town, pays for all the church bells to ring for three days and three nights. A seeming miracle occurs when two statues turn to face her coffin in the poor church before her funeral. Alida Valli is sympathetic as the actress. There is some discussion about faith, miracles, the effect miracles have on people as well as a physical explanation of what happened – the crowd for the funeral was too heavy for the foundations, built over mines, and shifted the bases of the statues.

The Miracle of the Bells has its own gimmick. If anyone wanted to see Frank Sinatra with a Roman collar, a cassock and even wearing vestments, this is the opportunity. He is Fr Paul, parish priest of a small church in the Pennsylvania town. Sinatra was around thirty when he made the film and looks like a newly-ordained priest who has come, all skinny earnestness, sweetness and light, straight from the seminary. Though he does have some moments telling off the local undertaker.

He fulfils the audience expectations of the time, a priest in the Bing Crosby vein. Sinatra does get a chance to sing, to Mac Murray in the cemetery, the translation of a Polish song.

He is common-sensed about the miracle, listens to the agent’s pitch about how people’s hearts respond to events like this, but covers it well in his brief sermon, indicating the effect of the statues’ moving but saying that explanations would be heard later. He finishes with an exhortation about goodness, that the star had brought some heaven into people’s lives.

There is respect for Protestants as he invites the agent to stay for a ceremony. Respect for the Jewish producer who says that this kind of goodness is miraculous in his religion. ‘In mine, too’, responds the priest. (Sinatra is akin to the young priest that Clint Eastwood encounters in Gran Torino.) It was after seeing this film, that critic James Agee wrote that he would be 'a founding father of the Society for Prevention of Cruelty to God'.


1. Hollywood story, the press and publicity, religious themes, blending them?

2. The 1940s? Images of the church, religion, clergy? Post war attitudes?

3. New York and the stage? Actors on tour, the Christmas meal? Hollywood, offices, film sets? Pennsylvania and the coal town? A cross section of American locations?

4. The cast, Frank Sinatra as a priest? The musical score? Songs?

5. The structure of the film, Bill’s story, Olga’s death and preparing the funeral, taking the coffin to Pennsylvania? The funeral and as a framework for the story, the flashbacks, the cumulative effect?

6. Bill, press agent, successful, his life and career? In the theatre, friends, calling on favors? Seeing Olga’s picture on the poster? Bill talking with her in the dressing room? Meeting the Chinese man, the pleasant discussion, his wisdom, the special dinner for Christmas? Bill and Hollywood? Olga as a stand-in, the tantrum of the European actress? Dinner at home, Bill’s idea, Olga and her performance as Joan of Arc? The film being shelved, his phone call to Harris, the meetings, asking Harris for the audition? The making of the film, Olga’s success, her illness, the doctor, her death, her last wishes? His love for her but never expressing it?

7. Olga, her Polish background, migration, to Pennsylvania, the coal town her, growing up, her mother’s death, her father and his music, drinking, urging her to be an actress? The poverty of his funeral? Payments? Olga as a good woman, the dance and her awkwardness, Bill getting her the new chance, her gratitude? Her performance on tour? the Chinese meal, her happiness? In Hollywood, the stand-in, Bill meeting her, the dinner, her performance as Joan, meeting Harris, his liking her, the making of the film, her performance as Joan at the stake? The dying in performance and in reality? The doctor, the disease, TB, her final wishes, the bells, the angels, the church of Saint Michael? Michael as a warrior?

8. The impact of the two scenes of Joan of Arc? In front of the English Court and the Bishops? Her death? The credibility that the film would be a success?

9. Harris, a successful producer, his work with the director? The tantrums of the European actress? His listening, his wanting some patriotism? Shelving of the film? Interview with Olga? Success of the film? Her death, his shelving the film? Bill and his asking for money? The gimmick of the bells, Harris’ disapproval, the meeting with the executives, his blaming Bill, the impact of the broadcasts? Harris going to the town? His agreeing to release the film? The funds for the hospital to combat disease in the town?

10. Orloff, meeting the train, the businessman, the details of the money, his beer hall, his taunts about Olga’s father and his popularity? Listening to the story? His continued interest in money, further costs, prestige?

11. Father Paul, Frank Sinatra? Young, nice, skinny, agreeable, his poverty, initial crusading attitude, tough on Orloff, his listening to the story, singing the song in the cemetery, the priest from St Leo’s? Being deferential? Preparing for the funeral, the statues moving, his going to the basement, seeing the explanation, Bill and his wanting him to approve the miracle? His sermon, exhorting the people, but saying they would be an explanation? And a church investigation? The neighboring priest, the discussions about money, prestige?

12. The playing of the bells, three days, three nights? Bill and the cheques? The priest from St Leo’s demanding double price? Bill and his telegraphing Harris for the money? The priest and the complaints about the ringing of the bells? Wanting the funeral at his church? The crowds coming?

13. The journalists, listening to Bill, working out what he was doing? The drinks, the discussions, the articles, success? The contact with the governor of the states, the official mourning for Olga? The broadcast? Harris and his response?

14. The miracle itself, the crowd and the floor, shifting the foundations, over the mines? The statues facing the coffin? The crowds, the response, prayer? A miracle as something spiritual for people? The rational explanation?

15. A film of the forties, religious sensibilities –and in later decades?

ANTICHRIST

Denmark, 2009, 117 minutes, Black and white, Colour.
Charlotte Gainsbourg, Willem Dafoe.
Directed by Lars Von Trier.

At Cannes 2009, the crowds lining up to see Antichrist prevented this reviewer from getting in. Which may be a good thing, seeing it after all the initial sensationalism of the press audience, the booing, the condemnatory reviews, the controversial articles which spread like wildfire about the most violent, disgusting film ever seen in Cannes, often written by journalists – as in the UK Telegraph papers – who had not seen the film. In fact, regular attendees of Cannes could probably make a quick list of more controversial and violent films with their elements of disgust (Irreversible, Enter the Void, Battle in Heaven, Sin City, Death Proof...).

Lars Von Trier has been a subject for controversy for many years (and he has encouraged it). The 1997 Breaking the Waves raised questions about the treatment of women and raised the ire of many women in the audience. Dogville and Manderlay elicited the same questions. Even his Palme d'Or winner at Cannes, Dancer in the Dark, had Bjork as a woman condemned to execution. The Idiots alienated many audiences.

This review will try to look at Antichrist a bit more objectively – but, as a personal opinion, I would say that I admire the film very much.

A psychosexual drama

The film is a psychosexual drama with a focus on psychological disturbance and therapy. Of its nature, this leads into areas that are private to individuals or to couples. Nevertheless, there is always room for case studies. Even in the traditional teaching of moral theology in the past (before the Second Vatican Council), case studies were presented in the context of marriage, validity and reasons for annulment (which took the students into some detail about marital and sexual behaviour). However, this was a focus on the word, written and spoken, rather than on the image. The immediacy of the image for senses, emotions and thinking means a stronger impact. Many audiences prefer the word rather than being exposed to the (exposed) image. Some draw conclusions that presentation of such images is wrong. This may be a characteristic of religious people (of all faiths) and - there are cultural traditions to be considered as well. The English-speaking world has a rather puritanical heritage regarding sexual issues (which led to the permissive breakouts and reactions of more recent decades). Some are disturbed by glimpses of anatomical nakedness. Catholics in some countries have been influenced by Jansenistic reticence, their own form of puritanism.

The articles devised to create and maintain controversy about Antichrist have noted several 'shocking' scenes, the implication being that 'shocking' meant 'bad'. Some images that shock may have a good effect – a presupposition of Christian anti-abortion groups who show images of aborted foetuses to make their point.

The crucial questions of 'what?' and 'how?'

This always raises the question of what is presented and how it is presented. Theoretically, there is no limit on the 'what'. Every human experience, no matter how difficult, ugly or distressing, is a legitimate subject. The question is always in the how – and that depends on sensitivities, how people are effected (well or badly) by what is presented.

The scenes mentioned in articles for shock value from Antichrist (which does have male and female nudity throughout, though the characters are husband and wife and act as husband and wife) from the sexual aspect of psychosexuality are: a glimpse of a few seconds in the prologue of a penis penetrating a vagina; the wife masturbating (perhaps 15 seconds), an ejaculation of blood (10 seconds) and the vaginal mutilation by the wife, the cutting of her clitoris (fewer than 10 seconds). Except for the first instance, the other sequences come after one hour of the film and so have a context rather that being isolated incidents or scenes which come early without much preparation.

While the images have more immediate power and effect than words (which have just been read here legitimately), the proportion of time allotted to these sequences and their placement, mainly in the second part of the film, affect the how. The audience has spent an hour or more with the couple, has got to know them, been puzzled by the wife, shared their grief at the accidental death of their son, watched the husband (a therapist) try to help his wife with psychological exercises, discovered that the wife was writing a thesis on the historical treatment of women and been collecting images and articles in a folder titled 'Gynocide'. The film relies on dreams, and the transition from dream to waking. It also draws on the complimentarity between men and women both in love and in aggression. That already should have given the audience a great deal to think about before the 'shocking' scenes.

The references to violent scenes seemed fewer in many of the reports and articles but violence occurs more provocatively than the sex. The wife, in her mood swings, in her phobias, and with her background of gynocide studies, turns against her husband and physically tortures him, drilling a hole in his lower leg and attaching a millstone. He hides in a hole which she uncovers and she brutally batters him. Of course, this is shocking but is seen as the action of a woman becoming more demented. A reviewer can note that there was far more graphic physical violence depicted in the run of slasher and so-nicknamed 'torture porn' films, like (for 2009 alone), My Bloody Valentine or The Last House on the Left which were designed as entertainments or the French Martyrs which was intended as a philosophical/religious film on the limits of torture and transcending suffering).

Von Trier's skill

What has not been discussed sufficiently in most articles on Antichrist is the skill with which Von Trier has made his film. Much has been made of his experience of depression and the writing of the film helping him to come out of it. The depression experienced by the central characters does illustrate this quite vividly and persuasively. However, much more should be said about the opening and its effect: it is shot in black and white and in slow motion with Handel's Lascia ch'io piange being sung – while the parents make love, their little son comes out of his playpen, is fascinated by his toys, goes to the window where it is snowing and falls to his death. This is superb film-making and gives a more profound perspective on what follows.

The film is divided into chapters including grief, pain and the reign of chaos. This stylisation of the contents and the development of plot and character mean a studied approach by the audience. With the husband being a therapist, much of the earlier part of the film consists of exercises that he asks his wife to do so that she can surface her fears, face her grief, face the challenge of love and the marriage. This asks for a psychologically alert response from the audience, a sympathy with the characters as well as a critical look at the methods and whether they concur with the husband's approach or not (and whether, ethically, he should be treating his wife, a point that is made a number of times).

This is the context for the graphic sex scenes that have been singled out.

Von Trier is also Danish and shows a Scandinavian sensibility which tends to be grim, frank and earthy.

Religion, myths and symbols

The other pervading aspect is the religious/mythical background that Von Trier brings to his film, drawing on dreams and the traditions of interpretation (and there are many dreams which blend into the waking action of both husband and wife). The woods where the couple have holidayed and go for this therapy is called Eden. They are a new Adam and Eve, but they are fallen and are attempting (unsuccessfully) to regain their innocence. There is a great deal of discussion about nature both in the sense of the natural world as well as of human nature. The wife says that nature is the church of Satan, that it is destructive. The devil has already been present in her life. Then we see the images of the presence of the devil in the past, especially in the destructive treatment of women, and witches, in past centuries. Husband and wife discuss this misogyny and whether women have been considered evil or saints (a frequent Von Trier subject). One hopes that the film audience is paying attention to these discussions and assessing their meaning and value rather than concentrating on the shock scenes.

Von Trier has often been interested in religious dimensions of human nature and there is a credit here for theological advice. Venturing into interpretations of Genesis and the nature of evil and Satan leads to theological questions if not answers.

Animal imagery, real and symbolic, is used all through the film, Genesis symbols, as are this new Adam and Eve in their Eden. A fox, a deer and a bird all seen to give birth. The fox says that 'chaos reigns'. The husband in hiding is threatened by young chicks.

Tragedy and pessimism

Ultimately, Von Trier's vision veers towards the tragic and the pessimistic. It is the woman who is full of guilt at the death of her child, taking on the responsibility. She projects blame and indifference on to her husband. She has some moments of healing and love then loses them. But, perhaps this is also an effect of her studies, her becoming aggressive and attempting to destroy her husband only to destroy herself. He is the one who comes out of Eden. To what? There is a final image of couples on a hill and a long shot of crowds of people streaming up the hill. Does this mean that the film, despite Von Trier's intentions, is misogynistic? Some commentators have noted that female symbol on the t of the title drawing the conclusion that woman is the antichrist. Rather, it would seem, fallen nature, the church of Satan, is our antichrist.

Antichrist is not the ugly, simplistic film that word of mouth seemed to indicate. Von Trier does not offer pat answers to the issues he raises. While one might argue about the 'how' of presenting some of the issues and images, Antichrist has a great deal to say that is worth considering.

A postscript

In Cannes, the president of the Ecumenical Jury, added a postscript to the awards. Speaking for only a minute or two, he rather ironically, even playfully, mentioned that the jury was awarding an antiprize to Antichrist, citing disapproval of Von Trier's treatment of women. This announcement was seen by journalists as something of a 'stunt'. And so it was. However, if you google, in English and French, Ecumenical Jury and Antichrist, more than 80 pages come up, mainly with a repeated story, sensationalising it and quoting Thierry Fremaux from the Festival direction, who was present at the award ceremony, as being 'furious' and, allegedly, criticising the president of the jury, director Radu Mihaleanu, of advocating censorship.

Reviews of the film in the trade magazines tended to be negative and mocked Von Trier's dedication of the film to Tarkovsky.

The articles seemed to be making a carnival out of a stunt.

TROLL HUNTER

Norway, 2011, 103 minutes, Colour.
Otto Jespersen, Robert Stoltenberg.
Directed by Andre Ovredal.

Troll Hunter is a very Norwegian film.

The film relies very much on the audience knowledge of Norwegian mythology. It is the mythology of trolls.

The film is in the tradition of the Blair Witch Project. In fact, it is much better than many of the imitation films and sequels.

A group of university students is interested in a number of killings by a bear in the mountains. They decide to investigate. The students also take a camera man. The film follows the stalking of the bears, finding the hunter, Hans, and discovering that he is a secret government investigator, searching for trolls.. After trying to escape from the students, he decides that they can join him. This leads them to many confrontations with trolls, especially in the snow clad mountains. The quest is dangerous, but a lot of footage he is filmed.

The film relies on the premise that the footage has been found and reedited. In this way, the film is a Norwegian Blair Troll Project.

The film was very popular in Norway and with critics.

1. The impact of the film for home audiences? The foreign audiences?

2. The tradition of the Blair witch project? The film footage and its being found? It’s being reedited?

3. The role of the students, their ages, experiences, the cameraman? The filming of the bears? The menace? The destruction? The discovery of Hans? Their pursuing him? His resisting? His eventually agreeing to their accompanying him?

4. The information about the trolls? The place in Norwegian tradition? The visuals and special effects? Monsters? The destruction and collapse of the trolls?

5. The great dangers, the disappearance of the girl student, the new student, the difficulties of filming?

6. The build-up to the final confrontation, the dangers for Hans, the growing menace of the trolls?

7. The sudden and mysterious ending? Hans as a government hunter? The fate of the students?

8. The total effect of the film? As entertainment? Norwegian issues? The folklore?

ALL THE WAY THROUGH EVENING

Australia, 2011,
Mimi Sterne Wolfe.
Directed by Rohan Spong.

A musical documentary.

Response to this film will depend on the age of the audience. The reason for this is that it takes us back to the 1980s-1990s and the era of HIV AIDS. And it does this through music.

Documentary maker, Rohan Spong, came across the website of Mimi Sterne Wolfe, a now elderly pianist and campaigner for human rights in New York City. She had been friendly with a musician who died from HIV AIDS in the early 1990s and decided that she would stage a memorial concert every year in his memory. She has done it for twenty years. Spong met Mimi and they became very good friends. She invited him to film her at home, at rehearsals and at the 2010 concert, which he did.

However, he realised that he did not know very much, being too young, about the impact of the mysterious virus in the 1980s and the number of deaths, especially of gay men. Mimi introduced him to a lyricist, Perry, whom he interviews at length about his friends who had died and about their music. Several of them were composers. Mimi also contacts two singers who have participated in the concerts for some years.

So, the film, very genial because of Mimi’s personality and zest, works on several levels. It is a fine tribute to Mimi and her loyalties and friendships. And she is a character! The film is also a concert of quite a number of songs, classical in their style rather than popular or pop. Some of them have music to poems of Emily Dickenson and Walter de la Mare as well as a tribute to Walt Whitman and a song from an unfinished opera, Titanic. Music lovers will find the songs worth their while.

And the film works as a reminder for those who remember what the 1980s, especially in the New York City arts circles, were like with the puzzle and sadness of HIV AIDS. For younger audiences, it may open up an era they may be unfamiliar with and be very surprised at what happened. The memories, images, verbal tributes and the music are sometimes quite moving.

FUN SIZE

US, 2012,
Victoria Justice, Jackson Nicoll, Thomas Middleditch,
Directed by Josh Schwartz.

Checking out some IMDb bloggers to find out whether they thought this slight Halloween tale funny, I was surprised at how favourable the comments were. This review won’t be one of those favourable comments.

Plot? A variation on what was a pleasingly funny night on the town (the UK title), Adventures in Babysitting. This one concerns a senior, Wren (Victoria Justice), eager to leave home and get away to college. Her widowed mother has been kicking over the traces with a boyfriend fifteen years younger or more. She goes to his party, dressed as Dorothy on the way to Oz, and finds herself alien among his fairly dumb friends and gets to know his parents better.

But Wren has a younger brother who is precocious (that was a complimentary word to substitute my reactions to his obnoxious character and presence), Albert. Wren wants to go to the party at the home of the school heartthrob but loses Albert on the way with her friend, April. The rest of the film is adventures in Albert-sitting. She is helped by a very nerdish captain of the debating team, Roosevelt who is encouraged by his two mothers. Also on the search is a libidinous friend, Peng. Actually, April could be described as libidinous as well.

Meanwhile Albert (who is pretty creepy a lot of the time) encounters a drug store clerk who loves graphic comics. He is (Thomas Middleditch). In these wary days about adult encounters with children, one automatically becomes wary of the rather infantile Fuzzy and his teaming up with Albert. Then there is a strange episode involving Jackass’s Johnny Knoxville, imprisoning Albert and threatening him with violence. (Creepy again.)

So, lots of episodes that are not as funny as intended, sometimes suspicious. Lots of ambiguous humour which may go over the heads of children (the Americans have classified it PG 13). And, if children identify with Albert, that’s a worry. While all finishes happily (how else?), Fun Size is not a film to recommend for younger audiences. Older audiences (and the oldest) will find it too light, slight and that bit unsettling.

I’LL BE SEEING YOU

US, 1944, 85 minutes, black and white.
Ginger Rogers, Joseph Cotton, Shirley Temple, Spring Byington, Tom Tully, Chill Wills, John Derek.
Directed by William Diertele.

This is a wartime romantic film. It focuses on a woman who has served three years in prison for manslaughter. It also focuses on a soldier returning from action who has neuro-psychiatric disorder. I applied by ginger Rogers and Joseph cotton. ginger Rogers gives a particularly touching performance.

The action takes place over the Christmas. Ginger Rogers as has been released for a 10 day leave. She meets Joseph cotton on a train. They exchange phone numbers. He contacts her and comes to a meal with her family.

The mother is played by Spring Byington, the father by Tom Tully. Shirley Temple is their 17 year old daughter. It is one of the few adult roles for Shirley Temple. Very popular as a little girl, she entered into politics and diplomacy in adulthood.

The title comes from a very popular song of the time, which was used 30 plus years later to great effect in the war story, Yanks.

The film is particularly emotional, important for the war efforts and morale of the time, and it is still a pleasant film now.

1. A film of the 1940s? The war atmosphere? Morale-boosting?

2. An offbeat romance? Sentiment, sentimentality?

3. The California settings, the small town, training, homes, the dance, diners? The American atmosphere?

4. The title, the popular song, its use?

5. Plausibility of the plot? Zach and he his neuro-psychiatric illness? His war experience? Mary, her life story, the sexual attack, the defending herself, going to prison, manslaughter?

6. The introduction to the two characters, in the railway station, buying magazines, Zach forgetting? In the train, reading, the empty seats, the sailor, the children, the crowds?

7. The two lies? The truth, Zach telling the truth, Mary not? The shock effect when Zach found out?

8. Mary’s story, not telling it to Zach? Will the flashbacks from she told her story to Barbara, the boss, her buying the dress, alone, the attack, the accidental death? Trial? Manslaughter? Her good behavior in prison? Her 10 day leave? Aunt Sarah and her welcoming her? Uncle Harry, genial? Barbara, 17, curious, cautious, her off Andy and Mary, apologising? The sharing the room, cupboards, her change of attitude?

9. Zach, the phone call? His coming to dinner, the welcome, enjoying the meal, the conversation, the grace, the carol? A form of therapy for him? Going out with Mary? The diner, the veteran and his story, Zach’s strong reaction? His upset, throwing the stone, leaving Mary? The phone call, the visit to the lake, his apology, explanation? Her sympathetic listening? Going to the dance? His hopes, the relapse in his room, his recovery, his almost proposing to Mary, his hearing the truth from Barbara? His leaving, his abruptness at the railway station?

10. Mary, not telling her story, her aunt’s advice? The diner, listening to the veteran and his story? Throwing the stone? The dance, her joy? Her caution in not telling Zach the truth?

11. Sarah, her homeliness, niceness, advice? Henry, the grace, the carols, the dance? The family welcoming Zach?

12. Barbara, her age, not knowing the truth, talking with Mary, regrets and her hurting her? Telling the truth to Zach, her regrets, Mary’s sadness and forgiving her?

13. Mary and her disappointment at the train, her going to jail, Zach waiting for her? The happy ending?

14. A film for the 1940s, the war? The sense of realism, morale forl the armed forces? The impact now?

A BOUT PORTANT/POINT BLANK

France, 2010, 84 minutes, Colour.
Gilles Lellouche, Roschdy Zem, Gerard Lanvin,
Directed by Fred Cavaye.

Point Blank is a very good French action thriller. And it has a very brief running time. It is set in Paris, has an opening sequence with a long chase and accident scene, has some domestic scenes with a nurse’s aide and his pregnant wife. The victim of the accident is wanted by corrupt police and he makes his escape with the help of the aide. What follows is a police investigation, chase by the corrupt police, especially in the Paris metro. There is a final confrontation, and a satisfactory solving of the case. The film boasts a very strong French cast.

1. The popularity of police action thrillers. The quality of this film? Crime, hostage taking, corrupt police, investigations?

2. The Paris settings? Streets and tunnels? The details of the metro? Train tracks? Police precincts? Warehouses and hideouts?

3. The plausibility of the plot? The credibility of the characters? Of the murder? The frame up? The role of the police? The hire of the criminals?

4. The opening chase? The pursuit? The police? The thief and his brother? Phone calls? The accident? His being taken to hospital?

5. The scenes with Samuel and his wife? His concern? The pregnancy? As role of the hospital, studies, hopes to become this? His being treated badly by the doctors? His concern for the patients, discovering the intruder? Questions by the police?

6. The threats to Samuel? The phone call? The abduction of his wife? And being imprisoned by the brother?

7. Samuel and his taking the victim? Attacking the police? Exiting the hospital? Public transport? The phone calls? His accompanying the prisoner? The attack in the street? On the run? Seeing his wife, running away? The police force, the different squads and responsibilities? Werner and his group, the pursuit of Samuel, the revelation of the truth, the businessman and his killing, his greedy son, Werner and the murder, everything recorded, on the USB, the need to recover it, the confrontation of the thief, his being taken and torturedt, Samuel and his setting the fire, the upset, the reversal of roles, the need for Samuel to be killed because he knew the truth?

8. The death of the policewoman investigator? The attempted frame up?

9. Samuel and the escape, going to the office of the murdered businessman? The search for the memory stick? Turning the tables on Werner? The questioning of Marconi, the killing despite Samuel, the set up for Werner?

10. Samuel, in the precinct, the police confused by the many calls, searching for his wife, the policewoman and for attempting to kill the wife, the rescue, police taking Samuel, his giving them the memory stick, the thief hiding the memory stick on his mobile phone? The wife and the corrupt policewomen? The attempt on her life, Samuel’s rescue. His being taken by the police. Watching the video and confronting Werner?

11. The hospital, the birth, happiness?

12. Seven years later, the new television news, the hanging of Werner? The thief and his vengeance?

13. Popular ingredients, interesting we done? Issues of crime, corrupt police, innocent victims?

MEN ARE SUCH FOOLS

US, 1938, 69 minutes, black and white.
Priscilla Lane, Wayne Morris, Humphrey Bogart, Hugh Herbert.
Directed by Busby Berkeley.

Men of Such Fools is a very slight comedy of 1938. It is screwball comedy, Warner Bros. style. It was directed by famed choreographer, Busby Berkeley.

The film is a star vehicle for Priscilla Lane. It is also star vehiclel for Wayne Morris. Lane and Morris appeared in Brother Rat and Brother Rat and a Baby in 1938 and 1940.

Priscilla Lane works in an advertising agency run by Hugh Herbert. She is quite ambitious. She gets opportunities to promote a tea and rises with promotions in her company. Morris also plays an advertising agent. However, audiences will be put off by his courting of Lane, quite a boorish, almostl stalking, and, in the light of 21st century standards, sexist. It is surprising how easily Priscilla Lane falls in love with him.

Hugh Herbert is idiosyncratic as the manager of the company. Mona Barrie effectively plays a woman of the world who advises Priscilla Lane. Also in the cast is Humphrey Bogart. He plays a light romantic lead, losing out on the girl.

The film raises issues of working wives, careers, in the light of the 1930s. At first, there is an emphasis on career and success. Then follows romance, marriage, life in the suburbs, being subordinate to the husband, tiring of this kind of life, leaving the husband.

However, this is a romantic comedy and, despite the difficulties, the husband and his success in his company, and Bogart’s ex- fiancée flirting with him, there is a quick happy ending with Lane and Morris reunited.

The film is moderately entertaining, but is more interesting in its portrayal of the career woman, marriage, possibilities for separation and divorce in the 1930s.