BARBARA

Germany, 2012, 90 minutes, Colour.
Nina Hoss.
Directed by Christian Petzold.

Non- German audiences need to know that this film is set in East Germany in 1978 – clues come later but audiences may miss them initially and be puzzled by some plot developments.

Christian Petzold has made some fine German films, a number with leading actress, Nina Hoss. Here she plays a Berlin doctor who has been disciplined and sent to work in a provincial hospital. The local medico is kind, but she is wary, especially when she is frequently subject to humiliating security checks.

She is private but has connections with a West German who is engineering her escape. In the meantime, she becomes attached to some of the patients, especially with a young prisoner and with a would-be suicide. Through a range of coincidences, she has to make a choice about whether she will make her escape to Denmark or not.

The film is really a portrait of a good woman who faces moral choices in a very restrictive society. It is carried by Nina Hoss’s performance and strong screen presence.

1. A story of East Germany, 1980, the harsh situations, restrictive? Surveillance? The desire for escape? Ordinary and functioning life?

2. The country town, the hospital, homes, the countryside? The sea?

3. The title, the focus on Barbara herself, a portrait, her age, work as a doctor, her relationship with the man from the West? Working in Berlin? Disciplined, sent to the countryside, humiliation? The continued security searching? Alone, the encounter with Andre, his work in the hospital? His reaching out to her, his giving her a lift, being informed about her background, her suspicions about him? People and their suspicions of reporting to police and officials? Her getting the bike, riding to work? Her seeing Stella, diagnosing the meningitis? The treatment, sympathy? Her riding the bike to get the money, hiding it in the forest? The visit of the lover from the West, the plan for her escape? Going to the hotel, the men at the hotel, the young girl with the other businessman, looking at the rings, hoping to escape from the East? It not being possible?

4. Mario, the attempted suicide, the memory tests, the visit of his girlfriend, leaving her the note? Barbara and her going to visit Andre, concerned about an operation? His treating the wife of the policeman? Her going to his house, the preparation of the meal? The operation and the specialist doctor? Success?

5. Stella, her work out in the fields, escaping, going to see Barbara, asking for help, Barbara treating her, making the decision, taking her to the sea – and Stella leaving in Barbara’s place?

6. Andre, his search, his disappointment that Barbara had gone?

7. Barbara, her return, with Andre? The choices of her life, altruism?

A DANGEROUS METHOD

UK/Canada, 2011, 105 minutes, Colour.
Viggo Mortensen, Michael Fassbinder, Keira Knightly, Vincent Cassel.
Directed by David Cronenberg.

A Dangerous Method by John Kerr was the title of a book about the therapy methods employed by Carl Jung and Sigmund Freud, focusing on the processes of psychoanalysis, the client talking and the therapist listening. The book was used as a basis for a play by Christopher Hampton which he called The Talking Cure.

Christopher Hampton (whose plays and films include Dangerous Liaisons, The Secret Agent, Imagining Argentina, Cheri) has written the screenplay for this film based on his play. It has been directed by David Cronenberg who, for more than thirty years, has made a wide range of films, from horror science-fiction to psychological dramas like Spider, A History of Violence and Eastern Promises.

The film has been promoted as dramatizing birth of psychoanalysis or the break between Freud and Jung. This is certainly the case, but there is much more. In fact, the attention is principally on Jung, his ideas, his work and his personal life. While Freud is present, he is seen in conjunction with his friendship for Jung and then their parting of ways. The screenplay reminds us of the differences between them, Jung from Switzerland, Freud from Austria, Jung wealthy, Freud poorer and with a large family, Jung Protestant, Freud Jewish.

It is important to realise that while the action of A Dangerous Method takes place over a ten year period to 1914, Freud was not to die until 1939, exiled from Austria to London. Jung did not die until 1961. Freud still had a great deal to achieve, but Jung’s main life work took place after the action of the film ends.

The other important characters in the film are Jung’s long-suffering and pardoning wife, Emma (Sarah Gadon), as well as Jung’s key patient, Sabina Spielrein, whom he treated, with whom he had an affair, who contributed to ‘freeing’ him from his rather strict, even repressed, persona. Another character is introduced, an eccentric psychological study who advocated a freedom from a morals-bound world, Otto Gross, played by Vincent Cassel.

One thing that should be said, is that the films looks very handsome indeed, recreating the elegant European settings pre-World War I and capitalizing on the scenic beauty of Switzerland.

What does the film have to offer on Freud and on Jung?

As played by Michael Fassbender (rather the opposite of his powerful performance as the sex addict in Shame), Jung is a dignified man, proper in dress and manner, fascinated by the human psyche and the ‘talking cure’ for his patients. He is married and beginning a family, more devoted to his wife than loving her. At this stage of his career, it is the psychoanalysis and its possibilities that interest him and so draw him to Freud, correspondence and, eventually, a visit to Vienna and a 13 hour conversation with the master. Freud respects Jung, seeing him as a kind of surrogate son or nephew.

The complication for Jung’s life is his work with the Russian, Sabina Spielrein. She is played with some force by Keira Knightly, especially in the early therapy scenes where her traumas take physical hold of her, strain, jutting chin, rigidity, and she eventually admits to masochistic feelings derived from her father’s beating her and humiliating her as a child. Nevertheless, she wants to study psychology and become a therapist (which, historically, she did, practising in Russia for almost thirty years before a round-up of Jews and Nazi execution early in World War II).

The further complication for Jung is Sabina’s transference of affections and Jung’s succumbing to her seduction and being transformed by her, worrying about professional ethics, about his wife and her pregnancies, deceiving Freud as to the truth of his relationship.

As played by Viggo Mortensen, Freud is the elder statesman of psychoanalysis, rather sure in his professional activities, his reputation and his ideas. He has a touch of the pompous. Which makes his break with Jung a matter of principle before emotion.

Students of psychology are familiar with Freud’s emphasis on more rigorous scientific methods in his approach to patients, his theories about the sexual origins of human behavior and sexuality in psychological understanding and healing, his excluding of religion and other ‘mystical’ aspects of the psyche from psychology. This is dramatised in several discussion sequences in the film and in the final correspondence. Jung is wary of the pan-sexual approach to personality. He also trusts in ‘the mystical’ and dreams which led him to pursue his work on archetypes.

Audiences not familiar with Freud and Jung except from hearsay may find the film rather difficult as they have to listen to conversations and watch therapy sessions. On the other hand, experts may find themselves arguing with the film’s treatment of particular events or particular issues and psychological niceties. However, the film is not a text book, nor a treatise, but a dramatization of a significant period (rather than their whole life’s work) in Freud’s life and formative years in the life and career of Jung.

It is not often that a mentally stimulating film like this comes along, and it is to be welcomed.

(In 1962, John Huston directed Montgomery Clift in Freud (which was sub-titled, A Secret Passion). An amusing – and more than amusing – flight of fancy had Freud treating Sherlock Holmes and Holmes learning something about detection from psychology in Nicholas Meyer’s The Seven Per Cent Solution (1976). The relationship between Jung and Sabina Spielrein was dramatized in The Soul Keeper (2002), with Iain Glenn as Jung and Emilia Fox as Sabina.)

1. A portrait of Carl Jung, Sabina Spielrein, Sigmund Freud, Emma Jung?

2. The sources for the screenplay, the letters, the books about Jung and Freud? The play, The Talking Cure (from the screenwriter)? The blend of the sources for portraits of Jung and Freud?

3. Christopher Hampton, his play? David Cronenberg, his interest in drama, horror, stories with edge?

4. The titles, The Talking Cure, Freud establishing it, as used by Jung, as experienced by Sabine? Emma not talking? The title of A Dangerous Method – what method? Whose method?

5. The Swiss locations, the lake, the homes, affluent life, the hospitals?

6. The contrast with Vienna, Freud’s home, the trains, poorer background?

7. 1904 to 1913? The beginning of the 20th century? The psychological heritage of the 19th century? Life on the continent of Europe? The Hapsburg empire? The place of the Jews and persecution? Freud’s consciousness about his Jewish background? The contrast with Jung and his wealth, protestant background? The preparation for World War One?

8. The focus on Jung, his age, in the hospital, Emma and her pregnancy, the tension between them, his taking on Sabine as a patient, their meeting, the style of his treatment, listening to her, The Talking Cure? Sitting at the back, noting her reactions? Her body language? The questions – and the insight gained?

9. Sabine and her background, her needs, the reference to Jung, Russian Jewish? Her sessions, willing and unwilling, talking, her fears, her facial tensions, becoming inarticulate? The gradual revelations about her father, his wealth, trade, cruelty? Her attitude towards humiliation? Her being put in the dark, aged four, beaten? Her liking it, the masochistic experiences – leading to ambiguity, shame, erratic behaviour? Yet her desire to study psychology?

10. Jung, the birth of the child, the further pregnancies, the building up of his family, living with Emma – polite, loving, tense? His being very objective in his judgments and expression of them, his austerity? Emma being wealthy, buying the boat, his berth on the ship to New York (in contrast with that of Freud)? A life of comfort?

11. The head of the institution, the interviews with Jung, with Sabine? Jung moving?

12. Jung’s admiration for Freud, for his methods, the correspondence, the eventual visit, Jung and his eating a lot – and the large family around the table? Jung and Freud talking for thirteen hours?

13. Freud, his age, the success of his career, his critique of other methods, the development of psychoanalysis, his theories and conclusions, his books? The Talking Cure? His scientific method, belief in science? His emphasis on sexuality – as the basis for behaviour? His listening to Jung’s dreams, interpreting them correctly? (The irony of Freud’s continuously smoking cigars, cutting off the tips – and his Jewish background?)

14. Freud and his theories, the emphasis on science, no religious themes, no mysticism? The difference from Jung? Jung and his belief in science, but going beyond, the transcendent, its being judged mysticism?

15. Jung and his dreams, their interpretation, his relationship with his wife, wanting to be free, sexually free? The beginning of the affair, his initiative, Sabine’s initiative? The effect on him, passionate, liberating? Sabine and her transference? Jung and his consciously lying to Freud, not wanting to blame himself? The effect of the affair, prolonged, the passion? The decision to break, Sabine’s reaction? Jung not wanting to be her doctor anymore, her paying him the money as a patient? The effect on Sabine?

16. Sabine, the years of studies, bringing her thesis, Jung willing to check it? The emotional tangles? The letters to Freud, Freud not believing Sabine? Sabine demanding that Jung write to Freud and tell the truth? Jung’s apology?

17. Jung’s dreams and his escaping the master? The oedipal background? Freud and Jung going to New York?

18. The frank discussions between the two, the build-up to the break, the letters and their effect? Jung and his plea for a more open approach? Freud remaining stubborn and refusing it?

19. The film, portraits of the two men? Jung not on his pedestal? Freud and his pomposity? Sabine, the success of her studies, the end of the affair, her marriage to a Russian, her return to Russia, her successful work with children and psychology? Her being rounded up with the Jews and being shot at the beginning of World War Two?

20. The film’s helping audiences to understand the different approaches, the origins of their theories, the breakthroughs? Their contribution to 21st century psychology and psychoanalysis?

21. The further information, Freud living for almost another thirty years but exiled from Vienna by the Nazis? Jung living another fifty years and developing his psychology and insights, work on archetypes? Sabine and her success?

22. An example of a film that can explore characters as well as theories?

DOLLHOUSE

Ireland, 2012, 95 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Kirsten Sheridan.

Just as well the director answered questions after the screening – to give the meaning intended for what was a deeply difficult film to sit through. The director is Kirsten Sheridan (Disco Pigs, August Rush), daughter of director, Jim Sheridan.

After the American experience of August Rush, she wanted to go back to Ireland and make a small budget film in her own way and in her own time. While she has the credit, ‘written by..’, she pointed out that she had done a basic treatment for producers and relied on the cast (most new to film) to improvise on the (very limited) information she suggested about their characters. They did not know the ending.

Why the film is difficult to watch is that it spends more than an hour looking at a group of five young adults who break into a wealthy family house and proceed to trash it and revel in the mess and the destruction. Not a pretty sight, and upsetting for those who would feel invaded and humiliated by this behaviour.

There are several plot twists, especially at the end with the birth of a baby. The director pointed out that she had no intentions of making a reference to Bethlehem and the birth of Jesus, despite the expletive at that moment. It was only after someone noted that the birth in a tent erected in the house and the boys standing in front of the mother and child that she realised that there must be something from the Irish unconscious).

Tough going but a picture of alienated youth and the loss in Ireland of ties (including the Church) that made for connections and not this kind of irresponsible, drink and drug fuelled, anti-social behaviour.

1. A slice of life in Ireland?

2. The film taking place inside the house, the range of rooms, decor, possessions? Glimpses of the sea? The use of songs?

3. Ireland in the 21st century, the values, the lack of church influence, a licentious and irresponsible approach in young people?

4. The film as improvised, the cast not knowing what was to happen, developing their own characters? Situations?

5. The time taken in showing the vandalism and the trashing of the house? Audiences responding to this behaviour?

6. The group, their age, men and women, entering the house, the raucous behaviour, hedonistic, no respect? The details of the mess? Unable to care less?

7. The group: the men, their look, the way they were dressed, the man without the teeth, their talking, language, fooling around, messing the house, the fights, drugs, drinking? Their attitudes towards each other? Denise, behaviour, fitting into this pattern?

8. Jeannie, her look, age, alone, wandering the house, touching things, changing the clothes, joining the party?

9. The photos, Jeannie in them, the group wondering about this? The irony that it was her house?

10. Robbie, coming from next door, joining in, sexual behaviour with Denise, his bashing of one of the men, Tim coming in, the young boy observing what was going on?

11. Jeannie, her moods, sick, her pregnancy, giving birth?

12. The helplessness of the group in Jeannie’s condition, one of the young men helping her, the birth of the child, the effect on Jeannie?

13. The crib effect, the tent in the house, the mother and child, the three unwise young men standing in front of it? Unintentional references to the Nativity story?

14. The parents, their arriving home, the different reactions, to the trashing of the house, the furniture and everything stuck upside down...? The father going out to look at the sea? Jeannie not wanting to stay? The reaction of the grandparents to the baby?

15. What was the audience left with, the mystery of the baby, no definite answer as to the father? The subdued attitude of the group leaving – and not meeting again? Hope with the child?

IN THE LAND OF BLOOD AND HONEY

Bosnia/US, 2011, 126 minutes, Colour.
Zana Marjanovic, Goran Kostic, Rade Srbedzija.
Directed by Angelina Jolie.

While the first half of the 1990s saw the fall of the Soviet Union and the end of apartheid in South Africa, it also saw the vicious wars in the Balkans and the genocide in Rwanda. We have been reminded of all these events, the good and the evil, in many films. This film shows us the years 1992-1995, Serbs and Bosnians, ethnic cleansing, mass murder atrocities and the siege of Sarajevo, the longest since World War II. While we have seen Savior, Welcome to Sarajevo, Grbavica and Storm and other Balkan War films, this film does not shirk the bitterness, the prejudice and the bloodshed, but it also wants to suggest ambivalences through a love story in the savagery of the war. That it cannot end happily in the 1990s is not a surprise.

The biblical image for peace is a land flowing with milk and honey. An image for war is a land flowing with blood and honey (the former abundant, the latter in short supply).

We see cruel round-ups and deportations, women forced into servicing the soldiers, cooking and sewing but also as victims of repeated rape. We see guerilla attacks, sniper shootings in the streets and the massacre at Srbvenicia.

But our principal focus is on a young woman, an artist, Ajla (Zana Marjanovic), beautiful, Muslim, who is in love before the war with a Serb policeman. When she is rounded-up with a group of women and interned, she is protected by her policeman (Goran Kostic) who is now a military leader. The screenplay voices the difficulties, the feelings of guilt, mutual recriminations as well as a deepening love. The military man is pressurized into wariness of the Muslims by his father, a commanding general (Rade Srbedzija) who resents his family’s past servitude to the Muslims, the cruelty exercised on them during World War II. We understand, while we are horrified, how he can relentlessly pursue ethnic cleansing. His scene with Ajla where she sketches his portrait and he delivers his angrily hostile speech, brings home the horrors of Balkan history, ethnic and religious bigotry.

Of course, there is the Angelina Jolie factor. She has written the screenplay and directed the film, obviously with sensitivity, especially towards the women and their abuse and pain and humiliations. They are, for her, a cause worth making a film about. The screenplay, while highly critical of the Serb attack, shows the complex issues on both sides – and the world observing but not intervening until years had passed. Not many audiences saw Angelina Jolie and Clive Owen in Beyond Borders (2003), a film too difficult for the average audience (which, unfortunately, might be the case here) which took up issues in the famine in Ethiopia in 1984, the atrocities in Cambodia and political issues in Chechnya and the work of UN agencies. But that film and this one show that Angelina Jolie is preoccupied, not just with glamour and her career, but also with the social conscience. It would be a pity to overlook this film because of any difficulty with her celebrity status.

1. The 1990s in terms of war and peace, the end of apartheid, the collapse of the Soviet Union? The contrast with the wars in the Balkans and the genocide in Rwanda? The need for memories to be retained? Dramatised?

2. The background of the Balkans wars, the Serbs, protecting Europe from the Ottoman Turks? The Bosnian Muslims and their ascendency? The subservience of the Serbs? Cruelties on both sides? Vengeance? Ethnic issues, religious issues? The speech of the general explaining the history, his family history? The television news and the overviews of the history?

3. The work of Angelina Jolie, writing and directing, her concerns, humanitarian issues, issues of women, victims and abuse? The information in the epilogue?

4. The focus on Ajla, her paintings, her sister, women in general? The sufferings of women? Crimes against women?

5. The portrait of men, harsh, soldiers, killers, laughing at their violence? Yet tenderness, caught in ambivalent situations? The final declaration by Danijel that he was a war criminal?

6. The film made in the Bosnian language, the locations, the mountains, the cities, the bombardment, Sarajevo and the siege? The musical score and its atmosphere?

7. Ajla and her painting, the end painting? Her paintings of her sister? Babysitting, love for the baby, the happiness of the family, Muslim – but not strict? Going to the dance, with Danijel? The band and the songs? The sudden bomb and the consequences?

8. The war and the Serbs, the attack, their motivation, history, ethnic cleansing, the roundups, the brutality, the murder of the baby because it cried, the women chosen for internment? Taken to the country, serving the military?

9. The nature of the servitude, cooking, sewing, the public rape? Ajla being saved by Danijel? The dormitory, the few possessions, their clothes, working, the men and their brutish behaviour, their drinking? Sexual preoccupation?

10. Ajla and Danijel, his saving her, helping her, urging her to escape, her attempt and her being bashed? Ajla with the other women, the raped woman? The elderly women, stripped and humiliated?

11. The snipers, the shooting, the guerrilla attacks? Ajla’s sister and her escape, going to the headquarters, the plans? Tarik and his meeting Ajla, her second escape? Tarik being caught, tortured, giving the information, Danijel hearing about Ajla?

12. Danijel, his police background, the family, going into the military, becoming a commander, the loyalty of his men, Darko and his pregnant wife, Petar and his brutality? The dominance of his father, his father’s speech inciting hatred, explaining the war, the family history? Danijel and his setting up of Ajla, and her painting?

13. Ajla and her room, the paints, Danijel’s portrait? The earlier interactions and her refusing to talk, her mellowing, loving Danijel, time passing, her life, listening to the men?

14. The report to Danijel’s father, his coming, demanding a sketch, his speech about family and hatred, allowing Petar in for the rape?

15. The effect on Danijel, his attacking Ajla, the sexual behaviour, killing Petar?

16. The confrontation with his father, his father’s hatred? Srebrenica and the massacre of the men and boys? Madeleine Albright and the television information? The United Nations? The Serbs meeting and rejecting the UN? President Clinton and the bombings?

17. Danijel taking Ajla to the gallery, her wonder at the paintings, fingering them? Her joy?

18. Danijel, going on the raid with the snipers, the church and its explosion – Ajla and the information for her to have her meal, indicating that he was safe? His arrival, confronting Ajla, her giving the information to the partisans, her being sorry, Danijel killing her?

19. Danijel, walking towards the United Nations soldiers, giving himself up as a war criminal?

20. The blend of war and love story? Ordinary people, in horror situations? And the significance of the title?

THE WOMAN IN BLACK

UK, 2012, 95 minutes, Colour.
Daniel Radcliffe, Ciaran Hinds, Janet Mc Teer.
Directed by James Watkins.

The novel by Joanna Hill on which this film is based was a popular ghost story. A stage version opened in London in the early 1990s and was still running over twenty years later, so there were some expectations for this screen version.

On the one hand, it capitalises on a lot of familiar scary devices that jolt the audiences out of their seats. On the other, it is a rather sombre story, a character study and a tale of cruelty and vengeance. Put this all together in a very handsomely mounted period design and you have an entertaining ghost story.

Another major drawcard, especially for younger audiences (although this film comes ten years after the first Harry Potter film) is that it stars Daniel Radcliffe as Arthur Kipps. He performs his role well, the somewhat reserved young lawyer, still grieving his wife’s death, caring for his four year old son. Of course, that stretches credibility more than a little because Radcliffe was only 21 when he made this film. Nonetheless, his performance is quite effective.

An old mansion on a spit of land, separated from the mainland at high tide, is to be sold and the estate of the owner settled. It doesn’t seem a demanding job, so Arthur Kipps is sent to this gloomy, remote village and house. The villagers want him gone, but he does receive a welcome from the wealthy Mr Daily (Ciaran Hinds). It’s during the first night that things go bump and he becomes aware of the eerie presence of a woman in black.

As the film unfolds we learn more about the woman and her dead son, her exile from the village – and the deaths of children (including the Daily’s son, with his mother (Janet Mc Teer) driven mad with grief). And, while Arthur is in the village, there are more deaths. The ghost is merciless.

A film like this depends not just on scares (it is better in not relying on scary bits) but on the sustaining of an atmosphere where the audience is caught up in fear and apprehension. To this extent, The Woman in Black is a success in maintaining concern and gloom. It builds up to a ghostly climax and finale.

1. The popularity of ghost stories? The fear, the haunting? The implicit violence? The atmosphere?

2. The early 20th century period, atmosphere, London, the offices and homes? The contrast with the countryside, the small town, the railway station, the shops, the hotel? The coast and the road? The mansion, the grounds? The musical score?

3. The mansion, the foyer, the decorations, the artwork, the stairs, rooms, corridors?

4. The sinister title? The appearance of the woman in black, as a ghost, appearing, in the garden, at windows? At the deaths of the children? Her story, her child, taken from her, her sister and brother-in-law, their negligence, the scratching out of their faces on the photo? Her wanting vengeance on the other children? The letters and cards for her son? Arthur and his searching the files? Her death? The deaths of the children, the three little girls, the bright colour, going to the windows, throwing themselves down? The little girl who swallowed lye? The drowning in the marshlands? The girl consumed by the fire? The presence of the woman? Her saying that she would never forgive?

5. Arthur, his home, the death of his wife and his grief, the opening with the razor? The flashbacks to the birth, the presentation of the boy, his wife’s death? His job, the severity of his employer? The nanny, the son, promising a happy weekend? His going to the village and the house?

6. The plan, the weekend, his travel, meeting Sam in the train, the conversation about selling the house, no locals buying it? The rain, the lift to the hotel? The hostile attitude at the hotel, his going to the attic? The carriage for the station, his paying to go to the house, the ominous words of the coach driver? The search, the documents? Seeing the woman, in the garden? His return? Visiting the lawyer, the lawyer wanting to get rid of him? The people in the village, the hostility? Sam and the invitation to dinner, Elizabeth and her grieving at the death of her son, being possessed by her son, her behaviour at the table? Going back to the house, the noises and bumps, the black crow? The documents, his return to the town?

7. His dismay at the girl and her drinking the lye, the other children? The reactions? The girl in the fire, his going to rescue her, the woman in black and the girl being consumed by the fire?

8. The arguments about the rational and the irrational? Arthur and his meeting with Elizabeth at the tomb? Her panic, Sam’s help?

9. Going to the house, his decision to raise the vehicle, to find the body of the woman in black’s son? Sam and his help, the car, the swamp? Laying the body on the bed, the hopes, the toys – that the woman would come? Sam and his fear in the house, the glimpse of his own son, locked in the room? Arthur and the attack? Their burying the son with his mother?

10. The return to the town, the fear about the boy coming to visit, wanting to send a telegram, the post office closed, going to the station? .... (**??)..... and Joseph, greeting his father, wandering onto the tracks, Arthur jumping to save his son, Sam and the nanny and the dismay?

11. Arthur and his being reunited with his wife and son? The afterlife?

12. The vengeance, the woman in black never forgiving?

13. The credibility of this kind of ghost story, the suggestions, the effect of fear?

DICTADO / DICTATION / CHILDISH GAMES

Spain, 2012, 95 minutes, Colour.
Juan Diego Botto, Barbara Lennie, Magica Perez.
Directed by Antonio Chavarrias.

A small film by festival standards. The Spanish title does not quite do justice to the themes while the English title does – ultimately revealing a deadly secret in past childish games.

Daniel is in a relationship with Laura, a fellow-teacher, who wants children. Their happy and busy life is interrupted when a childhood friend seeks out X. He is clearly demented, urging Daniel to go to see his young daughter. Daniel wants to get rid of him and recommends a visit to a psychiatrist. When the friend slits his wrists while in the bath with his daughter, Laura suggests that they attend the funeral. She then accepts care of the little girl, Julia, until a relative comes forward. She is completely happy looking after Julia.

It is not the same with Daniel. Rather, Julia keeps reminding him of the younger sister of his dead friend. Flashbacks indicate that the two boys were responsible for the death of this young sister. Daniel’s mood darkens. He drinks, feels haunted by the events of the past which are shown in more detail. This leads to quite a melodramatic ending, the results of the vicious outcomes of a guilty conscience.

Character studies with the touch of the ghostly.

1. A thriller in the Hitchcock vein? Homage to Hitchcock?

2. The settings: homes, schools, holiday home, the woods, the cliffs? Atmospheric? The tone of the musical score? Its insistent tones?

3. The title, the little girl and her dictation, her song about nouns and verbs? The English title and its being more apt?

4. The prologue, the boy and his father, his comments – the irony that it was Daniel when he was a boy?

5. Daniel as an adult, sympathetic, in his relationship with Maria? At home, going to school, their both working at the school? His interactions with the children? Entirely sympathetic? - and the audience not prepared for what was to be revealed?

6. Maria, not able to have children? Hopes for adoption?

7. Mario, his arrival at the school, wanting to talk with Daniel? The background of their past, together as boys, their parents possibly marrying? The younger sister? Daniel wanting Mario to have psychiatric treatment? Mario and his intensity?

8. Mario going home, the little girl in the bath, his getting in, slitting his wrists?

9. Daniel and Maria, their discussions, Daniel seeming innocent? Going to the funeral? Taking the little girl, until relatives came forward?

10. The flashback, the two boys, out together, playing with Clara? Daring her to go into the hole, their covering her with dirt, their killing her? Denial? The reaction of Mario’s mother? - and in later life, her continued madness?

11. With Julia at home, Maria and her love for the girl, caring for her? Daniel becoming more disturbed, suspicious of the girl, the ribbon in her hair, calling her Clare?

12. The situation getting worse at home, Daniel retreating into mental disturbance? The decision to go to the holiday house? Setting themselves up?

13. Daniel, his being obsessed with Julia? Julia, the innocent little girl – but the evocation of Clara?

14. Daniel taking Julia out into the woods, hitting Maria, her collapse, her quick recovery? Daniel threatening Julia, calling her Clare? Maria and her arrival, the struggle with Daniel, his going over the cliff?

A MOI SEULE / COMING HOME

France, 2012, 91 minutes, Colour.
Agathe Bonitzer, Reda Kateb.
Directed by Frederic Videau.

In recent years, there have a number of horrifying stories about child abductions and the Basement imprisonment of the children, principally young girls. This is one of those stories, although the director says it is his own imagination based on these stories.

It doesn’t quite begin that way, or we don’t realize that this is the situation. A moody worker returns home and lifts part of the floor. A teenage girl emerges stating that he woke her. Then she runs, and continues running, hides in a bus shelter where an old poster indicates that she has been missing for a long time.

She undergoes, somewhat unwillingly, treatment in an institution. She re-connects with her divorced parents, her mother still imagining her the girl whom she lost earlier. This gives rise to flashbacks which show us the interaction and hostilities between captor and prisoner. However, the captor does not take any sexual advantage. Rather, he keeps her as a companion, cooking, caring, testing her eyes for glasses, supervising dictation for homework. At the time of being taken, Gaelle was ten. While Vincent is a monster in taking and holding Gaelle, he does not always act monstrously, which creates a different type of tension between the two.

Gaelle flees the institution, feeling free and knowing that she can start her life again.

This film offers sketches of the characters rather than deep portraits.

1. A film about abduction and imprisonment?

2. The French locations, the town, the factory, the countryside? The institution? The train trip? The musical score?

3. The title, the focus, the English title? Gaelle and her experience? Finding a new life?

4. The introduction to Vincent, at the site, the clashes with his fellow workers? His return home, opening up the floorboards? Gaelle coming out? Her running away, his not stopping her?

5. Gaelle, running, at the bus stop, the notice about herself and being missing? Eight years? From ten to eighteen?

6. Gaelle, meeting her mother? Going to the institution? The discussions with the psychiatrist? Her own bewilderment? Looking at the other inmates? Questioning them and herself? The meetings with her father and mother, their divorce, her mother still thinking of her as when she first was taken?

7. The flashbacks, Vincent, his treatment of Gaelle? Imprisonment? The cellar? Nicely furnished? Vincent and his not molesting Gaelle? Yet being a monster in imprisoning her? Her attempts to go free? His threats? Discipline, letting her come up to the house? The food, the comfort, his coaching her in dictation? His concern about her being a companion for life?

8. The visit of his friend, the meal, discussions, drinking together? Comment about his not marrying? Gaelle’s reaction to this evening?

9. Gaelle and her wanting to leave the institution? The memories coming back?

10. The train ride, the kindly woman buying her ticket? Her going to start a new life, a sense of freedom? A new identity?

11. The film taking up the themes of European imprisonments of young girls? The mind of the abductor? The behaviour? A film of insight and sympathy?

AUJOURD’HUI

France/Senegal, 2012, 86 minutes, Colour.
Saul Williams.
Directed by Alain Gomis.

There is a prologue about death, the sense of death and death coming on. This is a film about death, taking place over one day, the last day of Satche’s life.

The setting is Senegal, the director from Senegal, filming in Dakar. The film presupposes Senegalese customs and religious beliefs and practices, the expectations of the death of a chosen one, their finally being with the gods, a sacrifice validated by animal sacrifice.

Satche is played by American musician and poet, Saul Williams.

Satche is a middle-aged man who has studied in America. Now, he wakes one morning, the last day of his life, the chosen one. He is feted in his mother’s house, elders, family and guests acclaim him as he wakes and processes through the house. A cow is slaughtered. For the rest of the day, Satche meets friends and acquaintances, reliving the happiness of his past with his friends and with his uncles and the gurus, with the man who will tend his dead body. His friends clash and he offers peace. Others condemn him for what he has not done in his life, branding him a weak and bullied man. He meets a fashionable woman who tempts him with memories of a past rejection. He takes a taxi ride but avoids the public gathering in his honour. He spends the last part of his day with his family, playing with his children while his wife who seems to be too busy to be with him, but who finally sits with him, communing with and loving him.

There are no explicit explanations of why Satche must die. Rather, we have to gauge by the overview of his life and the comments of friends what his life has meant.

1. A drama from Africa? Senegal, philosophy, religion, African lore?

2. The Senegalese locations, the city of Dakar, the homes, streets? Authentic? Musical score, African melodies and songs?

3. The initial information about death, death creeping up and pervading a person?

4. The title, Satche’s day? The initial premonition?

5. The day itself, Satche opening his eyes, waking, no words, dressing, coming out, being greeted by the family, the celebration, the ceremonial, the sacrifice of the oxen? The blood sacrifice?

6. Satche and his friends, the trip, going downtown, their arguments and his having to separate them? The happy memories? The beginning of unhappy memories?

7. Going to his uncle, seeking his advice, the elder of the family?

8. The funeral man, the preparation for the funeral?

9. The variety of friends, the type of man Satche was in the past? His going to America to study? His return?

10. The various people criticising Satche, the critique of his life?

11. Going to see the woman he once loved, turned down, her taunting and tempting?

12. His decision to avoid the public meeting and the ceremonial?

13. Going to his wife, her continuing her housework, eventually settling down, talking with him?

14. Playing with his children – and the glimpse of them ten years on and their future?

15. Satche and the assessment of his life, the good and the bad? With his wife, going to bed, his death?

16. A poetic meditation on life, lives ending, the nature of death? Facing death?

LOST IN PARADISE / HOT BOY NOI LOAN

Vietnam, 2011, 97 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Vu Gnoc Dang.

Ho Chi Minh City (Saigon in all the subtitles for this film) is hardly paradise. But to young men leaving home and venturing into the city for better jobs, better living and more money, it seems, initially, to be paradise. Needless to say, this film will show that it is not.

It has a seedy setting, the world of the prostitutes, male and female, who stand along the roads waiting for customers, mainly on motor bikes, to pick them up. While the prostitutes, on the whole, are portrayed sympathetically, their pimps are not. By the end of the film, a lot of the dialogue has been devoted to thinking through the effects of this kind of life (whether it be his fate as one of the main characters states or choice) and options made against it. A post-script states that the area we see in the film has been cleared and a supermarket built – though this only shifts the locales.

The other feature of the film is that the central characters are gay men, a new theme for Vietnamese films, but a theme familiar from Filipino and Singapore feature films. It is a story of love and its being exploited and corrupted. And, for the most part, it is a love story (with an emotional soundtrack and songs accompanying it), obviously making a case for men to be able to come out and be accepted and not be caught up in the prostitution business.

But, for long stretches of the film, we are treated to a different story altogether (and the two strands never meet). A mentally impaired collector of recyclables, befriends a woman on the streets and is harassed by her pimps. But, he is given a duck egg which he tends, very tenderly, until it hatches and then rears the ducklling. We spend a great deal of time with the man and his duck – a nice and compassionate story.

The film is well crafted and photographed with an emotional appeal in its comic story and in its tragic story.

1. A Vietnam story? An Asian story? A city story? Hopes, struggles, corruption? Contemporary?

2. A film of gay sensibilities, characters, coming out, family expectations, relationships, learning, corruption, prostitution, fate and choice?

3. Ho Chi Minh City, using the landmarks? Homes, shops, old markets, the recycling centre, the river, the old houseboat, the streets? The ordinary and the seedy atmosphere?

4. The musical score – romantic, the songs, the love story?

5. The credits, the young man exercising in the park, the focus on his body? The young stranger, resting on the seat? Responding to the invitation, going to the apartment, agreement at the price, paying, having a shower, being robbed? His taking the TV and thelandlady sending him off? His disillusionment?

6. The two and the robbery, sharing up the clothes and the money, Lam, his being sent to buy the sandwich, the other man taking all the money? Abandoning Lam? In view of their relationship?

7. Khoi’s story? From Na Trang, wanting to have a new life, the truth about his sexual orientation and his family, finding work, as a labourer, sleeping in the streets, his fall and his injury?

8. Lam's story? Coming to the city, being taken up by his friend, the customer and the threesome, his turning to prostitution, on the street, his friend on the street and their talk, the customers on their bikes? The friend and his being bashed? Lam helping him? The old lover and his pursuit, the phone calls, the temptation? His seeing Khoi in the street, returning the money and the clothes, wanting to help? The empathy between the two after initial suspicion? Khoi moving in? The relationship? Khoi and his testing Lam about his jobs, to give up the prostitution, to work with him in the bookshop? Lam unable to? The lover coming back, Lam stabbing his foot? Khoi and his work, his desperation about Lam and his job, deciding to go on the street himself, going with the man on the bike, then coming home, trying to teach Lam a lesson about feelings? Khoi deciding to leave? Lam wanting to get more money, setting up the robberies, eventually his being bashed? Lying bare on the ground?

9. The film’s discussions about prostitution, personal lives, compartmentalising lives? The emphasis on choice and not being passive to fate?

10. The story of the girl on the street, her pimps, their riding by, their demands?

11. Cuoi, elderly, fat, his sitting with the girl, his mental impairment, the of the pimps? His collecting stuff and taking it to the recycling centre? The duck egg, his happiness in getting it, tending the egg, it hatching, caring for the duck, his joy? The lady at the recycling centre sharing his joy, giving advice about the duck? The girl and her advice about how to feed it? The duck joining the other ducks on the river? His grief? Buying another duck – and then deciding to return it? The original duck coming back, his joy? The girl, coming to the boat, the pimps and their attack, her violence against them, the deaths, bashing Cuoi, her putting the corpses in the river, her confessing? And the story of Cuoi going to visit her in jail?

12. The two strands of the story – and their not meeting?

13. Khoi, going home, studying for his exams? The possibility of a different life – after being lost in the alleged Paradise?

EXTREMELY LOUD AND INCREDIBLY CLOSE

US, 2011, 129 minutes, Colour.
Tom Hanks, Sandra Bullock, Thomas Horn, Max von Sydow, Viola Davis, Jeffrey Wright, John Goodman, Zoe Caldwell.
Directed by Stephen Daldry.

Even a decade or more after September 11th 2001, the images and events are still firmly implanted in many people’s memories, some having to process the shock and the grief, especially for friends and relatives whose bodies have never been recovered. It was traumatic for Americans who judged they were under attack. It stepped up the war on terror (though this is not an element in this film). This is the story of one family and a young boy’s love and attachment to his father who was killed while atr a meeting in one of the twin towers.

There have been a number of films about September 11th, including Paul Greengrass’ United 93 and Oliver Stone’s World Trade Centre. It has featured as a theme in such popular films as Remember Me. This film makes the events very personal.

The title comes from a book that the young boy, Oskar Schell, makes for his mother, a life memory culminating in what he calls the ‘worst day’.

Because we know very soon that Oskar’s father, Tom, has died in the collapse of the buildings, it is necessary for the actor in that role to make a quick and lasting impact before his death since he will be seen in only the flashbacks. Tom is played by Tom Hanks which is a wise choice for the audience to respond strongly to him. On the other hand, Oskar is so attached to his father that he neglects his mother, even wishing that she had died instead of his father. Again, a strong piece of casting is needed for the mother to make an impact even though she is put in the background until the final part of the film. She is played by Sandra Bullock, another wise piece of casting. She has some very emotionally demanding scenes with Oskar which she plays very well – though the revelation of how she has protected him since his father’s death comes as a surprise (some might say that it seems too far-fetched).

But, the film belongs to young Thomas Horn who is in almost every scene. While a lot of his communication with the audience is in constant voiceover, his performance is very strong indeed. He tells a character that he was once tested for Aspergers. It may well be that he is an Aspergers’ character, full of exact, detailed information which he rattles off, statistics, scientific information, blunt opinions, phrased very directly. His expression of emotion is very limited, lavished on his father and then his memory of his father.

When he accidentally finds a key with ‘Black’ written on an envelope, he decides to find the lock that the key will open. His father had encouraged games of wit and intelligence, expeditions which would make Oskar think but also communicate with people, something he dreads. Oskar devises a scheme for visiting every person named Black in the New York phone books. It is an obsession but forms the core of the film, Oskar meeting people and listening to their stories. Another family favourite is his grandmother (Zoe Caldwell). Through her, he discovers an eccentric old man (Max von Sydow) who rents from his grandmother. He is invited to accompany Oskar on his visits – and it is through the old man that Oskar learns about people, life and overcoming his fears.

The supporting cast includes John Goodman the concierge of the apartment block, and Viola Davis and Jeffrey Wright who play a crucial role in discovering where the key belongs – and another father and son issue, this time one of hostility. While Oskar cannot talk with his mother, it is the old man and Jeffrey Wright who enable him to spill forth his story, pouring it out in hurried detail and relief.

Direction is by Stephen Daldry (Billy Elliott, The Hours, The Reader). His four films, including this one have all received Oscar nominations for Best Film. The film is very American in sensibility about family and relationships and some audiences will find it too emotional. And, of course, it has to be forcefully American in sensibility in dealing with respect for the victims and their families of 9/11.

1. The title? Evocative? The focus on 9/11? Oskar’s book? Giving it to his mother, her looking through it with tenderness and in detail?

2. The adaptation of a popular novel? The use of the voice-over, Oskar’s perspective on life and his family, on 9/11? The situations and characters? New York City? 2001, September 11th, the television footage, a year later?

3. The New York locations, apartments, Central Park, Brooklyn, Queens, Manhattan? The range of the neighbourhoods, the range of people’s lives and occupations? Americana?

4. Oskar’s viewpoint, his age, precocious, his appearance, his talking about Asperger’s syndrome? His talk, manner, reciting facts, intense detail, introspective, restraining his emotions, his personal reserve?

5. Tom and Oskar, Tom as a loving father, loving his wife? His background as a jeweller, his imagining what he would have been had he not been a jeweller, an engineer, scientist? His wife, in the background, yet a strong personality, keeping the books? Tom as inventive, creating games for his son, quests, explorations, clues, interrogating his son, his characteristic shrug, at home, at Central Park and his story of the swing and the leap? The quality of his life?

6. His wife, Sandra Bullock in the role, in the background for Oskar in the early part of the film, her love for Tom, her grief at his death?

7. 9/11, Tom going to the meeting, the phone calls, the gradual revelation of what was happening, Tom leaving the message, seeking Oskar? Oskar unable to listen to the sixth message? His wife, at work, the phone call, the final communication, trying to keep him on the phone?

8. Oskar, at school, his entanglements with the concierge, the insults? Oskar coming home, the phone calls, seeing the news on the television, his fear and panic? His later regrets and feelings of guilt?

9. A year passing, his not coping, his keeping his mother at a distance, communicating with his grandmother via the walkie-talkie? Going into his father’s cupboard, reaching out for his camera, the vase dropping, the smashing, the key coming out, the envelope with ‘Black’ written on the back?

10. Oskar setting himself up for a further quest, to find the lock for the key? The concierge and giving him all the New York phone books? His telling lies – and counting them as he lied throughout the day? His being methodical, the lists, the files, the cross-references, the addresses, the boroughs? Lying to his mother about where he was going?

11. His visits, the range of people that he met, the man who hugged him intensely, the hostile woman who refused to answer, the pianist, the girls with the horses and his having a ride, the big family and the sketch of him? Meeting, talking, awkward, the collages of his visits to other characters? His failing in his quest?

12. The visit to the sad woman, her husband shouting, leaving? Her sadness? Her care for Oskar? A strong character? The later contact, the woman helping Oskar find her husband, his visiting the office, finding out about the key, the story of the vase, his father buying it as a gift for his mother? A revelation about his father but not what he was seeking? William Black and his own father, the clashes? The key as a gift from his father, his son’s inheritance? Oskar and his being able to confess to a stranger, asking forgiveness?

13. His concern about his grandmother, the discussions with his mother? The mysterious character of the renter? Oskar and his signalling his grandmother, her being absent, discovering the renter? The clash, the renter not being able to speak, writing notes, yes and no on each hand? The connection between Oskar and the renter?

14. The old man, his age, his presence in the apartment block, grandmother’s explanations? Oskar inviting the old man to accompany him on his quest? Accepting it? His becoming a grandfather figure? The irony of Oskar working out that he was his grandfather? Oskar’s conditions, rules, timing, his fear of going into the subway, wearing the mask, the old man’s demands, expectations, overcoming Oskar’s fears, Oskar not wanting to cross the bridge, feeling it unsteady? The old man leaving, notes, arrows and sense of direction? The effect on Oskar? Changing?

15. The renter in the bar, the notes, his life story? In Germany, the deaths of his family? His not speaking? His marrying his wife, leaving?

16. Oskar’s mother trying to reach out to him, his whispering that he loved her under the door? Yet the argument, talking about his father, the memories, wishing that his mother had died in the explosion? The revelation that she had worked out what he was doing, was following him, meeting all the people and preparing them for Oskar’s visits, the advice that she gave? Seeing all the visits again in this different perspective?

17. The gift of the book to his mother? His being able to express his love for her? His going to Central Park, going to the swing – would he do the same leap as his father?

18. Themes of grief, pain? The sequence of the funeral with the empty coffin and Oskar taking it literally? His theories about space for people to be buried, burying up, burying down? His not believing in miracles? His focus on facts? And yet his discovering the truth in his quest?

19. The focus of 9/11 and its repercussions for ordinary people? Families, children?