RETREAT

UK, 2011, 90 minutes, Colour.
Thandie Newton, Cillian Murphy, Jamie Bell, Jimmie Yuill.
Directed by Carl Tibbetts.

Probably best not to walk into this one or hire or download it without knowing something about it. It begins one way and develops in quite another, with some twists along the way. It tells the story of a husband and wife with problems, going back to an idyllic island retreat where they once were happy, to find some closeness and love. Then it turns into a contagion action thriller with echoes of the end of the world. Retreat for reflection, then a retreat from the infected world.

The location photography of sea and island are beautiful and, for a while, we are treated to a domestic drama. She is writing a memoir, regretting that her husband did not take the birth (abortion?) of their now dead child seriously, he trying his limited best to rectify the relationship. If an audience began watching the attempts at reconciliation and the activities of two isolated people, they might think it was going to go on and on and become tedious. The couple is played very well by fine actors, Thandie Newton, as a miserable and despondent but finding some inner strength, and Cillian Murphy, who was in a similarly themed 28 Days Later, matching her as a pleasant but less fortitudinal husband.

Then Jamie Bell turns up. Who is he? How did he become so badly injured? Is he truly military? What is his babble about a world contagion and the need to barricade themselves into the isolated house? Should he be believed? Or is he mad and making the whole thing up?

Husband and wife do not take kindly to this eruption into their lives. They spend the rest of the film, reacting against the intruder, she especially, he more compliant. Doubts begin because there is little activity outside the house. Are they caught as hostages in a potential siege? Jamie Bell has chosen a career of character rather than leading roles and is quite dominating in this one.

Actually, the developments are not quite what might have been anticipated, with some unexpected twists and a downbeat ending. Interesting but not essential.

1. The variety of genres, the change in the middle of the film? The effect? Expectations?

2. The titles, the couple on retreat, their retreat from the virus?

3. The visuals of the island, beauty, the sea, the forest, the house, the interiors and exteriors? The musical score?

4. The introduction to Kate and Martin, Doug and his ferrying them to the island, his cheerful talk, the house, communication? The register and their resolution in 2002 to come again? The nature of this return? The prospect of self-discovery and reconciliation? Tough drama?

5. Kate, upset, children, her pregnancy, the hospital, Martin absent? Her tensions, reactions, harsh with Martin, yet loving him? Writing her story? The meals, the talk? Martin, his character, quieter, his hopes, his activities on the island, jogging? Communications? The generator, the blackout, the prospects for a reconciliation?

6. Jack, his arrival, the couple watching him, his collapse, their tending him, the military uniform, their care, his waking? His injuries? His story, the contagion, spread throughout the world, the isolation, boarding up the house, the windows (but not the skylight)? His control of the couple, the meals? The generator – and his not fixing it (but actually fixing it)?

7. Kate, her violent reaction to Jack? Martin believing him? The gun, taking it and hiding it? Kate and the developing tension? Martin and his acceptance? Compliance? Jack and his despotic behaviour?

8. Jack locking the couple in the room, Martin getting out through the skylight? Discovering Doug and his wife dead? Kate, her attempt to get the gun, speaking nicely to Jack? His reaction? Jack outwitting the couple? Their turning the tables on him?

9. Jack and his story, the test case for the virus, his wife and her death, his fears, the virus inside him, wanting to control?

10. Martin, becoming ill, the blood, the virus, his death? Kate’s reaction?

11. Kate, the rifle, confronting Jack, the discussion, shooting him?

12. Kate, her escape, the helicopter appearing, her being shot?

13. The downbeat ending? A drama of characters? The science fiction overtones – the variation on the contagion theme?

JOURNEY 2: THE MYSTERIOUS ISLAND

US, 2012, 94 minutes, Colour.
Dwayne Johnson, Michael Caine, Josh Hutcherson, Luis Guzman, Vanessa Hudgens, Kristin Davis.
Directed by Brad Peyton.

Did we see Journey 1? Yes, we did. In fact the first journey was to the centre of the earth (with Brendan Fraser). Young Sean (Josh Hutcherson) had gone with his uncle (Fraser) on a 3D expedition adapted from Jules Verne’s novel. Here is Sean again, more devoted than ever to Verne as well as to his scalawag explorer grandfather who sends him a coded message that indicates he has found Verne’s Mysterious Island (in fact, this was Verne’s sequel to 20,000 Leagues Under the Sea) and wants Sean to come. So, this is the journey 2 the island! It is in the Pacific, off Palau.

The trouble is that Sean now has a stepfather whom he resents (‘legal guardian’), Hank, an ex Navy man, played by Dwayne Johnson, tough but also sending his image up (and singing ‘It’s a Wonderful World’). Hank tries to bond with Sean and off they go. They hire an old helicopter piloted by Luis Guzman doing the funny schtick, Sean insisting because he has seen the teenage daughter, Vanessa Hudgins, no shy violet whose ambition is to go to college.

This is rather old-fashioned film-making and storytelling, not unlike those 1970s adventures, with exotic locations and frightening creatures, like Valley of the Gwangi or People that Time Forgot. It was produced by Walden Studios, that family friendly company who like moral stories like their Bridge to Terabithia or the Narnia films. Nothing to offend any family audience here.

After an attack by giant birds, they are rescued by Grandpa. He is played by Michael Caine in yo-ho-ho frame of mind, all grins and enjoying himself as he comes up to age 80. And, sounding just like Michael Caine has for almost fifty years.

The rest is adventures on the island, some menacing insects, everyone riding through the air on giant bumble bees – and then the discovery that this is really Atlantis and that it is sinking fast. Will they be able to get to the underwater cave to re-start Captain Nemo’s Nautilus and escape? You might like to guess!

Filmed in 3D, it has its exciting moments. But, basically, this is a wholesome adventure story, family values and bonding, a cheerful show where there are dangers but not for too long and some ready solutions to the problems that keep cropping up. Undemandingly entertaining for family audiences.

1. A family adventure? Old-fashioned in style, action, fantasy? Simple, crises – not too difficult to cope with?

2. The popularity of Jules Verne, his imagination? The range of adventures? Grandfather and the voice-over, the Vernians and their knowledge of Verne’s books? Drawing on them for the adventure and for survival?

3. Ordinary US, homes, the bike ride, the crash? The ending back home – school, college, birthdays and family?

4. Hawaii standing in for Palau, for the island, the tropical beauty, ruggedness? The musical score?

5. The creatures, the pursuit? The giant bears and the ride? Spiders and insects? The special effects, the sets, artificial and real? Action and stunt work? The Nautilus?

6. The title, the Andersons, the uncle and his adventure to the centre of the earth, Sean and his presence, his being contacted by his grandfather?

7. Sean, the ride, the intrusion? His being caught, the police, Hank as his legal guardian rather than stepfather? Resentful? His mother, trying to cope? Hank at home, Sean in his room, the code, Hank talking with him, the decoding, the situation – and wanting to go to the island?

8. Arriving in Palau, Sean condescending, talking with the broken English, his offer for the helicopter, people refusing? Gabato and his offer? Kailani and the attraction for Sean? Their going in the helicopter, the ride?

9. The crash, the island, the puzzle, the creatures and the chase, the logs and their destruction?

10. Grandfather, the invitation, the plan, wanting Sean on (**or is it ‘and’? Not clear) the island, working the logs, saving them from the birds?

11. Sean, his age, his angers, rebellious, his cause with his grandfather? The code, the attraction to Kailani? Dealing with Hank, relying on him, the bond? Change of attitude? His awkwardness with Kailani, Hank’s advice about the pecks, the kiss – and that helping? Sean changing?

12. Dwayne Johnson as Hank, sending himself up, the navy background, codes? The bonding, going to Palau, his skills, singing It’s a Wonderful World? Sean and Hank and the Nautilus, diving, getting the engine going, the electric eel and the generator?

13. Michael Caine as Alexander, his adventures, being away from home, his house and all his inventions, calling Hank Henry? Changing his attitude? Glad to see Sean? Sean and his injury, Hank singing the song? Alexander and his skills? Helping Kailani, her father wanting to get the gold for his daughter, their taking him back?

14. Kailani, her age, tough, with her dad, wanting to go to college, her attitudes towards Sean, stand-off, encouraging him? Her love for her father?

15. Gabato, the jokes, the comedy, wanting the gold, for Kailani and college? The end and his being an entrepreneur?

16. The birds, the bees, the spiders, the Nautilus?

17. The happy ending – and Alexander turning up with another gift – the journey to the moon?

18. The success of the adapting of Verne? Combining Mysterious Island, Twenty Thousand Leagues Under the Sea?

19. Combining Verne with the myth of Atlantis, Atlantis sinking, rapidly?

20. A satisfying film for all the family – no objections?

EVERYTHING MUST GO

US, 2010, 97 minutes, Colour.
Will Ferrell, Christopher Jordan Wallace, Rebecca Hall, Michael Pena, Stephen Root, Laura Dern.
Directed by Dan Rush.

Unheralded and sent straight to DVD release in Australia. What a pity. And, yet, after seeing it, it is clear that most audiences would find it too serious, something of a downer (though it is not without hope) and not the kind of film they expect or want to see Will Ferrell in. A pity because it is a humane film about actual situations that people find themselves in.

Will Ferrell has shown he can do comedy, sometimes broad, sometimes crass, sometimes hilarious – think Ron Burgundy or Ricky Bobby. But, he did somewhat serious very effectively in Stranger Than Fiction. While there are many sardonic remarks, his character here is very serious, a middle-aged man who has lost his wife, job, house and a great deal of his self-respect, an alcoholic who doesn’t seem to care and who can’t be persuaded to care.

The opening of the film emphasises this as we see him in action (and in inaction). Locked out of his house, he sets up on his lawn with his possessions, and sits and drinks beer. His sponsor, a detective (Michael Pena) gives him three days legal leeway to sell his possessions strewn over his front lawn or be arrested.

But, despite himself and his lack of effort, all is not lost. Best of all he encounters a young boy whose mother is caring for a neighbour down the street and rides around on his bike. They talk, strike up a deal for looking out for the possessions – and then a partnership as Nick decides that the sale will go ahead.

In fact, a lot of the film is about the sale, the people, bargain hunting, what can go and what not, despite the title that everything must go. When most of it has gone, Nick does have a chance to think more positively about the future.

There are effective scenes of interaction with his neighbours, a rather boorish man next door (Stephen Root), a pregnant photographer moving in across the road (Rebecca Hall) and a visit to a high school friend from the past (Laura Dern). The encounters with the two women, especially Nick’s unwarranted insulting of the photographer, provide quite moving scenes.

However, it is in the subtlety of his growing friendship with the boy, the boy acting his age but also showing a better adult sense than Nick (and better at conducting the sale). The boy is played by Christopher Jordan Wallace, the son of the late rapper, Biggie Smalls (and played his father as a boy in the biopic, Notorious).

A satisfying look at the troubles of an ordinary man, some friendship and solidarity and an encouragement that people can change for the better.

1. A Raymond Carver story? The tone of his stories? Human nature, wry observations?

2. The title? The emphasis on the sale? Carver’s story, Why Don't You Dance?

3. The Arizona town, the landscapes and the desert, the business world, carparks and supermarkets, shops? The street, homes? Police precinct? Ordinary, audiences identifying with situations and characters? The musical score?

4. Will Ferrell as Nick, serious, comic, sardonic? The crisis and his alienating people? Becoming desperate, emotionally? In denial? His offending people? His friends? The prospect of the sale?

5. Nick at the opening, his job, the interview, the list of offences, his being fired, the gift of the knife, putting the knife in the tyre – and the boss later recounting the story and the possibility of his being rehired? His skill in sales? The boxes of possessions, buying all the beer, his car, the house and his being locked out, sitting on the lawn, his possessions on the lawn, sitting and drinking, the yobs outside the shop, the confrontation? His decision to tough out the situation, his vulnerability? His wife leaving him – and the phone calls and not answering?

6. His sitting and drinking, the neighbour and the criticism, the police and the interrogation? His recommending Frank? Frank turning up, the discussion about his being a sponsor, the drinking, his wife leaving him? Frank offering him three days for a garage sale but then he would have to be arrested? The options, not entering the house? Going to the supermarket, his card being refused? His wife’s decisions about the money and the cards?

7. Kenny, riding the bike, circling Nick, the story about his mother looking after the old person, his watching the goods, the deal about the beef jerky, Nick riding the pushbike? The decision about the sale? Kenny and his interest, the book about sales, his learning, quoting the rules of sales? Looking at the possessions, his skill in selling? His interest in baseball coaching, not good at sports, his embarrassment and the insults in the changing room? His charming people – and giving them bargains?

8. Nick and the sale, the man with the fifty cents, returning and Nick giving him the chair for his TV, his embracing Nick? Nick sleeping the night on the lawn?

9. The discussions with Frank, eventually going to the station, his anger with Frank because of his wife’s staying at Frank’s house, Frank and his telling him the truth?

10. Samantha, Nick seeing her, conversation, her story, photographer from New York, her husband’s job, moving, her pregnancy? The attraction? Nick making moves, Samantha backing off? His drinking and abusing Samantha, the type of girl who would just do what her husband demanded...? Her being affronted? His apology, the gift, going out for the meal with Kenny? A reconciliation? Her husband turning up – and her future?

11. Looking up the old school album, the comments, Delilah’s photo? Finding her address, going to visit, the awkwardness, her inviting him in? Her children? Her story, to California, the commercial with Brad Pitt, her husband leaving her? Coming home? A good woman, the disappointments in life, her empathy with Nick? The offer of continued friendship?

12. Elliot, his sexual relationship with his wife? Nick giving him the box of Playboys?

13. The end of the film – and the screenplay offering a glimpse of all the central characters and where they were at – indicating where they would go?

14. Nick, the experience of the crisis? His capacity for reform or not? For making decisions for a fruitful future?
 

APOLLO 18

US, 2011, 86 minutes, Colour.
Warren Christie, Ryan Robbins, Lloyd Owen.
Directed by Gonzalo Lopez- Gallego.

Moon expeditions have made for some excellent films, especially Ron Howard’s Apollo 13. This brief film is not in the same league. It is a modest (though a very long final credits indicates that a great number of people worked on it, especially for the effects).

But, the original moon landing and other space journeys have been fodder for conspiracy theorists. Even back in the 1970s, writers concocted the entertaining Capricorn One where it claimed that the whole thing was faked and filmed on a set. Recently, Duncan Jones’ Moon made audiences wondering what was going on up there.

This time, we are in Blair Witch film-making territory, that genre where fiction is disguised as fact. This is a kind of Lunar Paranormal Activity. We are told that there was a secret moon voyage after the US terminated the Apollo series with Apollo 17 in the early 1970s. Then it is claimed that a lot of footage from that time has turned up and this film has been edited from it. It seems there is no limit to the variations on this alleged cinema verite.

So, we are introduced to three genial astronauts, their training and mission. Most of the footage is of them in the shuttle, exploring the moon, making strange discoveries there of wrecked vehicles – and they wonder whether the Russians didn’t secretly arrive on the moon. But, there is a dose of Alien and infection, so we now know what really happened - and the secrets of the American government to preserve secrecy and the cover story of the disappearance of the astronauts.

If you like this kind of thing, here it is. If not, it will be a little tedious and repetitious, and making a lot of challenges to the imagination. The special effects artists have spent a lot of time making the footage look as if it is real rather than computer-generated, which means that they are avoiding spectacle and aiming for visual ordinariness. Which may please the science and technology buffs but makes the rest of us look forward to the next high-powered, high budget thriller!

1. Audience interest in moon exploration, landings? The American history? Conspiracy theories?

2. The plausibility of this plot – or implausibility?

3. The film presenting fiction as fact? The look of the footage, its credibility, the style of photography, the information, dates and places? Issues of secrecy and cover-ups? The role of the government?

4. The visuals, beginning with the ordinary American family, barbeque? Training? The transition to the voyage, the spacecraft? The moon, the surface of the moon? Space? The visual effects for the intrusion of the alien?

5. The introduction, the information about moon landings, the Apollo voyages? Finishing with Apollo 17?

6. The astronauts, their characters, American style, family, the request for them to go to the moon, the secrecy?

7. The picture of the flight, the characters of the astronauts, their interactions, contact with the US?

8. The moon, the surface, audiences familiar with the moon’s surface from documentaries? The walk, finding the prints, the abandoned craft, wariness? The theory that the Russians had reached the moon? Speculations with headquarters in the US?

9. The aliens theory, the effect, stranded, the infiltration into the bodies of the astronauts, the speculations, communication with headquarters?

10. The decision to go home, jubilation, rescuing the stranded astronaut, the discussions with headquarters, the medical situation, the men talking amongst themselves, the authorities and the lies?

11. The attempt for rescue, the warnings from headquarters, the destruction of the spacecraft and the men?

12. The nature of the cover-up, the information given about what is said to have happened to the astronauts?

13. Audiences believing this kind of story, information, speculation? The genre and its style?

TRESPASS

US, 2011, 88 minutes, Colour.
Nicolas Cage, Nicole Kidman, Ben Mendelsohn, Cam Gigandet, Dash Mihok.
Directed by Joel Schumacher.


Thugs invading a home, trying to rob it and keeping the family hostage is not a new idea for a thriller. William Wyler directed a classic of this genre in the 1950s, The Desperate Hours, with Humphrey Bogart and Fredric March. It was remade in 1990 with Anthony Hopkins and Mickey Rourke. So, here it is again.

The director is Joel Schumacher, a director the critics love to mock for his highly colourful and emotional films (even his version of The Phantom of the Opera). Fans decry his two Batman films, Batman Forever and Batman and Robin, as spoiling, almost ruining, the franchise. Watching Trespass, we realise they may have more than a point.

This time the couple is played by Nicolas Cage and Nicole Kidman, fairly upmarket casting. Cage gets the chance to be more reticent than usual as a bespectacled businessman whose diamonds and cash are the target for the trespass of his home. Nicole Kidman now has a teenage daughter but looks as regal as ever. Australian Ben Mendelssohn, who has not appeared in many Hollywood films which makes us wonder why he chose this one, is the leader of the gang, and he does not miss an opportunity to snarl. Cam Gigandet plays his brother, a more complex character. There is also a teenage daughter who is having problems about going out and parental permission.

The film opens almost over the top, with the establishing of the relationship between the couple, the behaviour of the daughter and the loud and smashing intrusion of the gang. Once you are over the top, where can you go except to hysteria? That is the direction Trespass takes, lots of bullying and brutality, lots of shouting, cursing and screams – and the audience wanting to turn the volume down.

However, there are a few surprising twists in the plot, especially concerning the dealings of the businessman and what is in his safe, about one of the thugs and his relationship with the wife, the reaction of the security company, the use of her wits by the daughter.

Trespass means to go on to private property illegally. It also means a sin and an offence. Both are relevant for this melodramatic and over-heightened thriller.

1. The title, the tone, invasion of property and land, the gang and their particular trespasses and motives, trespass as sin – and each of the central characters?

2. A film in emotional overdrive, the moments of hysteria?

3. The cast, cast against type?

4. The mansion, the interiors, the grounds, the road, the party? The musical score?

5. The introduction to Kyle, Nicolas Cage, the businessman, his appearance, the glasses? Busy, the phone, the deals, his relationship with Sarah, with Avery and her wanting to go out? His having to leave, Sarah upset because she had prepared the dinner? The diamonds deals? The new house, Sarah’s design, building? His office, the safe?

6. The introduction to Sarah, Nicole Kidman, her appearance, her cooking the meal, being the mother of a teenager, pleasant, her hopes, not allowing her daughter to go out? Leaving her meal at the door?

7. Avery, her age, her dress, her father’s comment, wanting permission to go, the refusal, the argument, sullen, antagonism towards her parents? Her girlfriend, getting out the window, going to the party, the drugs, the young man coming on to her, her seeing through him, calling a taxi? Kendra and doing the drugs?

8. The police, at the door, security guards? The disguise of the criminals, the invasion of the house, their knowledge about Kyle and the whole family, the presuppositions about money and diamonds? Their masks, shouting, the brutality in throwing people around? The girl present – on drugs, her dependence on Elias? The hysterical response, loud, yelling? Elias and the black on his fingers – avoiding fingerprints? The pressures, Jonah and his knowledge, looking, his not wanting the family to be hurt? The big man, his threats? The girl and her over-the-top reactions?

9. The situation, smashing, the story about the mother’s kidney, the lies? Kyle and his refusal to open the safe, despite the attacks and torture? His story, explanations about identifying diamonds and their being difficult to sell, buying time, expecting to be killed? His love for Sarah? The final revelation that there were no diamonds, the empty safe, the necklace being a fake, his not having any money? His concern for Sarah and Avery?

10. Jonah, the flashbacks, working as a security guard, the pool, getting the information, the attraction towards Sarah? The video and their embrace, its use? Audiences presuming infidelity? Later seeing the flashback and Sarah’s rejection of Jonah? Her attempts to be free? Jonah and his shooting the security guard – and the motive? Drugs, his relationship with Elias, the care for each other, Elias using him?

11. Elias, his fingers, the flashbacks, the debts, his motivations, the big man and the threats? Using Jonah and the relationship with Sarah? His domination of the big intruder? Listening, his mask off, wanting Sarah to apologise about her behaviour? The threats to everyone? The needle, the injection – and Kyle injecting the big man? Holding the group, his death? Jonah killing him?

12. The tough gangster, big, the issue of the money, the isolation, his being injected, his death?

13. Avery getting back into the house, the alarm, seeing her parents? The attack of the men? The brutality? Her getting free, getting into the car? The woman, the driving, the threats, her crashing the car? Her return to the house?

14. The call to the security firm, the phone calls, the gang taking over, the threats? The woman persuaded by Avery that it was a joke? The later arrival of the security guard, the nature of security? His being shot?

15. The cigarette lighter, Kyle getting free, Avery getting free? Moving to the outer room, the violence, the discovery of all the money?

16. The gasoline, setting the place alight, Jonah and his being burnt? The money going up in flames? Kyle and Sarah reconciled?

17. The escape, everything going up in smoke – but the family together? Their future?

18. The film bringing home the reality of burglary and home invasion? The rather over-the-top treatment and behaviour of the characters?

MARTHA, MARCY, MAY, MARLENE

US, 2011, 102 minutes, Colour.
Elizabeth Olsen, Sarah Paulson, Hugh Dancy, John Hawkes, Brady Corbet.
Directed by Sean Durkin.

The tongue-twisting alliterative title is an indicator of the identity problems that Martha is having. She was Martha originally. Who has she become?

Many commentators have brought up Charles Manson and his family as a reference for this film. They are probably right. However, writer-director, Sean Durkin, has stated that he was more interested in the story of someone who had escaped from an enclosed group like the Manson family. That is who Martha is – an escapee. We learn this almost immediately as we are led into the commune, isolated, agricultural, dependent on a charismatic leader, and extremely sexist, with the women eating together after the men. And sexist in sexual exploitation as well. Early one morning, Martha runs away. Martha is played with feeling and convincing irritation to her family and to the audience by Elizabeth Olsen.

She has lived in the commune for two years without contact with her family, subservient to Patrick, the scrawny, rather non-descript-looking leader (John Hawkes eerily charming, controlling and ruthless). She rings her sister who comes to get her and Martha begins some kind of rehabilitation. But, the film poses the problem of whether she can ever be truly healed. Is she too emotionally wounded, too mentally unstable.

This is clear as Martha lives with her sister, Lucy (Sarah Paulson) and her upwardly mobile husband (Hugh Dancy) who suffers Martha’s presence only out of loyalty to his wife.

Martha is erratic in behaviour, offensive in attitude, wearing her benefactors’ patience very thin. But, incidents lead to memories and the film is continually reverting back to the commune and Martha’s life there, work, pleasing Patrick, dealing with the other men, with the other women, more work, petty jealousies, sexual expectations from Patrick. Late in the film, there is a chilling episode where the group intrude into a house, terrorise the owner, burglarise and kill without compunction.

Amidst Martha’s memories are dreams and possible hallucinations which show the precarious nature of Martha’s recovery.

The film does not take us beyond this initial stage. We are left wondering how Martha will cope after two years of oppressive experience. But, the dangers of the sect and the cult, the control of the leader and the damage to the members are dramatised with intensity.
1. The focus on a group, a cult, leadership, submission and membership? The memories of the Manson Family and their atrocities?

2. Independent film-making, the small budget, the cast?

3. An American experience, the ethos of cults and leadership, the contrast with mainstream life, capitalism? Affluence versus such communal groups? The role of a cult, leaders, the bonds, the effect and consequences? Moral and amoral?

4. The title, the different names, Martha’s identity? Her place in the family? Her place in the cult? Pretence? Patrick singing Marcy’s song to Martha – and the eerie atmosphere? The song Marlene during the final credits? Both composed by Jackson C. Franks?

5. The credits, the detail of the farm, the work? Meals? The men eating, then the women eating? The dormitories – and the women on the floor?

6. The early sequence of Martha waking up in the night, getting out of the house, escaping through the woods, Watts following her, at the diner, the meal, the kind of food she was eating? Talk with Watts? His letting her go? Phoning Lucy, talking?

7. Lucy coming to pick Martha up, the enigma, the two years without contact? Lucy and Ted and their lives? Taking Martha home? The house by the lake? Lucy offering to help her sister? Their kindness, the room, Martha and her sleeping, eating, behaving erratically? Lucy and Ted dealing with the erratic behaviour? Trying to live their own lives? In the house, Martha’s comments about it? the background of Lucy and Ted and their jobs, income, the planning for the baby?

8. The screenplay and its coping with Martha’s confusion, what was happening in her present, the intrusions of the past, memories or dreams, both? Comparisons? Lucy compared with the women at the camp? Ted and the comparisons with Patrick? The build-up in Marcie’s increasing memories, the final revelation? How well did the film define her character, amorphous, being shaped? Her needs? Her mental and emotional breakdown?

9. The cumulative effect of the past, the role of Patrick, his personality, charm, sinister? His relationship with the women, the initiation with drugs, sex? The babies in the commune? Caring for them? The background of the detail of work, farming? The preparation of the meals, eating? The women seeing themselves as chosen? Their reactions amongst themselves, friendship, antagonism, rivalry? Sexuality as manipulation, weapon? Patrick as a person, the nature of his leadership, charismatic, yet quiet, his song, and vindictive?

10. The characters of the women, what was required of them, the behaviour, the work?

11. The contrast with the men, the differences, dedication, the exploitation?

12. The final test, the intrusion into the house, the man and his possessions, under threat, his fear, defence? The robbery – and the build-up to the killing, Patrick and his commands? The pulling of the gun? Power and submission?

13. The character of Lucy, the past, in the family, her care for her sister, their interactions when girls? Her bewilderment about Martha’s disappearance? Offering to help? Psychological, physical? The importance of the sequences of conversation between them – the scene at the lake, Ted preparing the meal?

14. Ted, his love for Lucy, willing to accept Martha, becoming increasingly irritated, Martha’s intrusions, the nude swimming, her clothing at parties, her antisocial behaviour? Coming into the bedroom? Ted wanting her out of the house?

15. Martha, coping with her moods, the swimming, the faux pas, coming into Lucy’s and Ted’s room, her memories and dreams, confusion, being provocative? Her reaction to Ted and Lucy’s responses?

16. The names, their use, the songs? The final phone call and Martha identifying as Marlene? Her identity, the open-ended finale? Her future?

17. A particularly American experience? Cults, communes, power, submission, exploitation and the consequences?

THE WC

Australia, 2011, 90 minutes, Colour.
Tim Constantine, Wayne Cooper, Daniel Wu, Ange Arabatzis, Jenna Rothwell, Dianne Frey.
Directed by Kostas Metaxas.

No, not that WC, nor any toilet humour to speak of. This WC is Wayne Cooper, the British-born fashion designer who came to Australia in the 1980s, educated himself and became a power to be reckoned with. Not that you would necessarily think this while watching The WC.

Fairly soon into it, you start thinking that this can’t be for real. And it isn’t. We are in mockumentary territory here – until I read afterwards that writer-director, Kostas Metaxas called it a ‘dramady’. Whether you think it’s funny will depend on your taste and sense of humour and the ridiculous. And what reviewer can predict that!

A confession. I had a vague idea that Wayne Cooper was real but was not sure until I googled him after the film. What he says about himself in a 2001 interview (filmed by Metaxas) seems accurate enough. And it is cut into the action throughout the whole film. The ten years between that interview and Cooper’s appearance in the film as himself (a somewhat fictionalised self) highlight that we can change a lot in ten years.

The plot is rather corny and meant to be. It also has a lot of puns – disguised as alleged sayings of Confucius, and I just remembered one which was a bit toilet-humourish. One I did like, so test yourselves. What is a person who goes back and forth over the ocean without washing? A dirty double-crosser! So, there you are.

The characters. The main one is Stanley Finkelsteinenburger from Tasmania who creates an over-qualified CV, gets an appointment and a job in Sydney with Cooper, The WC. Actually, dirty double-crosser fits in with the plot where Stanley, calling himself Sidney London professionally, is pressured to commit fraud on Wayne by some eccentric Chinese (who offers the Confucius sayings). Stanley is to get WC a spot at a London fashion show (all this happens off-screen, presumably for budget reasons) which strains the credibility. And there are a lot of other odd characters with funny names that come up on screen plus Stanley’s mother and his old girlfriend.

It’s all amiable enough, some smiles and laughs, not demanding at all. But, the director says these are not real people – though they are the equivalent of types you would meet in this fashion and pseudo-fashion world.
1. The mockumentary? The dramamentary?

2. How inventive, Wayne Cooper and what might have been? The invention of types around Cooper?

3. The Tasmanian setting, Sydney, Melbourne? The Australian tone?

4. Wayne Cooper and fashion, his actual story, as recounted in the 2001 interview, his 2009 show, the invention of the London story? Reality and parody?

5. The interspersing of the film with clips from the 2001 interview, Wayne Cooper’s own story from England, fashion, education, influence, ideas?

6. Interspersing the sequences of the 2009 fashion show, the reality of Cooper’s success?

7. Australian humour, spoof and parody, jokes and puns, the Confucius sayings? Impact for Australians? Non-Australians?

8. The name Stanley Finkelsteinenberger, his life, relationship with his mother, training the little children to dance, his reputation as being tyrannical, in the shop with his mother, the death of his father – and his mother revealing that he was still alive? His girlfriend, going to the mainland, reports of her death? His hopes to move away, the elaborate cv and his lies, the international training and experience? The phone call, the invitation to the appointment, his leaving home – and his mother happy about this?

9. The interview, the Chinese woman, the plot, the connections with the Chinese trade industry, especially Willy Wong? The plot for Wayne Cooper’s signature, the true cv, their hold over Stanley, his calling himself Sydney London? Wayne sending him to Melbourne, his meeting with Ping Ling Lee/Joshua Lieberman? The irony of the three companies Cooper dealt with and their all being handled by the same person, the overseas contacts, the voices, the impersonations?

10. The meeting with Willy Wong, his alleged qualifications, his martial arts performance? His assistant? The Confucius sayings and puns, the innuendo? The plot, the blackmail, his seeking advice, the decision to refuse the offer, his being exposed eventually to Wayne?

11. Bling, the jewels, ultimately not supplying them?

12. The jeweller’s shop, the girls gossiping – and giving the audience information about Stanley and his background?

13. The meeting with Ping Ling Lee, the revelation of the workings of the fashion industry?

14. Shirley, flirting at the other table, coming across, her life story, Stanley thinking she was dead, her request for him to help her?

15. Wayne Cooper himself, the plan for the show in London, the preparations, Stanley and his work, the phone calls, the arrangements – but everything happening off-screen and the audience having to supply all the details? Straining credibility?

16. The show, the celebrities, Mr and Mrs Sir Roger Moore? The various exhibitions, the models on the catwalk, the designers taking a bow?

17. The journalists, the interview with Wayne Cooper, his being very direct with her? Her chat with Stanley? Her work in London?

18. The phone call, Willy Wong exposing the truth, Wayne Cooper’s reaction?

19. Stanley back home, the television interview with Wayne Cooper – and the irony of Stanley’s father reappearing, described as Wayne Cooper’s uncle – and his mother seeing it? Shirley seeing it?

20. Shirley going to the beach, talking with Stanley, offering him a job – and the happy future?

UMUT (HOPE)

Turkey, 1970, 100 minutes, Black and white.
Yilmaz Guney, Gulsen Alniacik.
Directed by Ilmaz Guney.

Hope is one of the earlier films of celebrated Turkish director Yilmaz Guney who began filming, in the neorealistic style, in the 1960s. After his semi-autobiographical film, Yol, in 1982, he died at the age of forty-seven in 1984.

The film is set in a Turkish village at the end of the 1960s, focusing on the cart drivers in the city, especially a middle-aged man called Cabbar, who has an old cart, an impoverished family, is in debt. In a car accident, his horse is killed. The driver of the car persuades the police that his version of what happened is correct and Cabbar leaves the police station without anything. At home, he has lively children, an elderly mother. His wife of sixteen years is sometimes shrewish and angry.

He decides to sell his goods in order to buy another horse but his cart is confiscated and sold to repay debtors. Meanwhile, a friend has a scheme to find buried treasure between two bridges on a local river. A holy man is consulted, claims to know where the treasure is, holds ceremonies, using Cabbar’s sons to try to see in a basin of water where the treasure is.

The film is realistic, photographed in the Italian neorealist style in black and white. In some ways it is reminiscent of Bicycle Thieves, sometimes in the relationship between father and son. At moments there are surrealistic scenes when characters are photographed reflected in vases or other objects.

When the group goes searching for the treasure, the film resembles The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, the search taking its toll on Cabbar until he is mad, digging with frenzy, upset that he has left his family at home with little money. In the meantime, the holy man keeps offering platitudinous reassurances.

The film offers scenes of poverty in Turkey, criticisms of the government, comments on the superstitions of the poor, the ironic title referring to their mad hopes. It refers to the frustrating of those hopes as well.

1. Classic Turkish film? The director and his perspective? The director performing as the central character?

2. The 1960s and 70s, Turkey, the town, the countryside?

3. The black and white photography, the neorealistic influences, come surrealist touches? The score?

4. The title, its ironies?

5. The introduction to the town, the carts, the cabs, the passengers at the station, their choices, the hard work, the old-fashioned cart, the horses and the possibility of their dying? The focus on the poor and their needs?

6. Cabbar and his group, no-one choosing his cart, the argument about a price? His lottery tickets, not being able to read, wanting the numbers checked, buying the newspaper, his difficulty in recognising the numbers? The extent of his debts?

7. His family, his wife of sixteen years, unhappy, shrewish, buying goods but not having the money, her reaction to the children and their playing up? The old mother, sitting, her meals?

8. The children, the girl at school, the money for the books, her helping her father read the numbers, her failing the exam, her mother’s exasperation? The little boy, washing the dog in the basin, his playing, crying? The girl and the young boy, together, playing, the boy with the bikes and pushing others off, their spending the salt money on riding the bike, the mother and her reactions, chasing and hitting her son? His father shielding him? The tensions, the times of peace, the meals, the sleep?

9. Cabbar and his putting his cart in the shade, the accident, the death of the horse, the assertions of the driver, at a police station, the driver and his giving the police cigarettes, the police and their comment on the government, antagonistic towards Cabbar, his humbly standing, not receiving any justice?

10. His plan to buy another horse, his hopes, his visits to those who had employed him, seeing their comfortable lives, the swimming pools, the wealth, the reasons given for not giving him a loan? The creditors taking the cart and selling it and dividing the money? The wide range of debtors? His following the cart with the dead horse into the countryside?

11. Having the drink, with his friend, the talk about the treasure, the insights of the holy man, visiting him?

12. The desperation, wanting to sell the gun, selling all his goods, the money, looking at the cinema advertisements, the thief pursuing him, the fight, getting his money back?

13. The plan to rob the rich, using the gun, Cabbar reluctantly agreeing? Going to the house, the foreigner, his taking no notice of the gun, fighting back?

14. Going to the holy man, bringing him to the house, looking into the water, the boys and their frustration at looking what was there, Cabbar seeing the reflection of the shoes, his taking it as a sign that he should dig? Frantically digging, Hassan digging, the futility?

15. The decision to go, the money, leaving the forty lira for his wife and promising to be back in ten days? Their buying the equipment, riding the donkeys, searching for the tree, finding the dead tree, the ritual with the stones, their swimming and cleansing in the river, the digging, frustration? Moving to another tree, the time passing? The friend buying the supplies? The loss of money? The long time passing?

16. Cabbar becoming mad, his obsession with the treasure, worried about his family with little money, the holy man and his aphorisms? The stones, thinking the treasure was in the snake, the death of the snake? Cabbar and his moving in circles? Frantic digging? The final image of him? No hope?

17. The images of society, poverty, desperation? Religion and superstition? A film of its period – and the changes in the succeeding decades?

UMAT (HOPE)

Turkey, 1970, 100 minutes, Black and white.
Yilmaz Guney, Gulsen Alniacik.
Directed by Ilmaz Guney.

Hope is one of the earlier films of celebrated Turkish director Yilmaz Guney who began filming, in the neorealistic style, in the 1960s. After his semi-autobiographical film, Yol, in 1982, he died at the age of forty-seven in 1984.

The film is set in a Turkish village at the end of the 1960s, focusing on the cart drivers in the city, especially a middle-aged man called Cabbar, who has an old cart, an impoverished family, is in debt. In a car accident, his horse is killed. The driver of the car persuades the police that his version of what happened is correct and Cabbar leaves the police station without anything. At home, he has lively children, an elderly mother. His wife of sixteen years is sometimes shrewish and angry.

He decides to sell his goods in order to buy another horse but his cart is confiscated and sold to repay debtors. Meanwhile, a friend has a scheme to find buried treasure between two bridges on a local river. A holy man is consulted, claims to know where the treasure is, holds ceremonies, using Cabbar’s sons to try to see in a basin of water where the treasure is.

The film is realistic, photographed in the Italian neorealist style in black and white. In some ways it is reminiscent of Bicycle Thieves, sometimes in the relationship between father and son. At moments there are surrealistic scenes when characters are photographed reflected in vases or other objects.

When the group goes searching for the treasure, the film resembles The Treasure of the Sierra Madre, the search taking its toll on Cabbar until he is mad, digging with frenzy, upset that he has left his family at home with little money. In the meantime, the holy man keeps offering platitudinous reassurances.

The film offers scenes of poverty in Turkey, criticisms of the government, comments on the superstitions of the poor, the ironic title referring to their mad hopes. It refers to the frustrating of those hopes as well.

1. Classic Turkish film? The director and his perspective? The director performing as the central character?

2. The 1960s and 70s, Turkey, the town, the countryside?

3. The black and white photography, the neorealistic influences, come surrealist touches? The score?

4. The title, its ironies?

5. The introduction to the town, the carts, the cabs, the passengers at the station, their choices, the hard work, the old-fashioned cart, the horses and the possibility of their dying? The focus on the poor and their needs?

6. Cabbar and his group, no-one choosing his cart, the argument about a price? His lottery tickets, not being able to read, wanting the numbers checked, buying the newspaper, his difficulty in recognising the numbers? The extent of his debts?

7. His family, his wife of sixteen years, unhappy, shrewish, buying goods but not having the money, her reaction to the children and their playing up? The old mother, sitting, her meals?

8. The children, the girl at school, the money for the books, her helping her father read the numbers, her failing the exam, her mother’s exasperation? The little boy, washing the dog in the basin, his playing, crying? The girl and the young boy, together, playing, the boy with the bikes and pushing others off, their spending the salt money on riding the bike, the mother and her reactions, chasing and hitting her son? His father shielding him? The tensions, the times of peace, the meals, the sleep?

9. Cabbar and his putting his cart in the shade, the accident, the death of the horse, the assertions of the driver, at a police station, the driver and his giving the police cigarettes, the police and their comment on the government, antagonistic towards Cabbar, his humbly standing, not receiving any justice?

10. His plan to buy another horse, his hopes, his visits to those who had employed him, seeing their comfortable lives, the swimming pools, the wealth, the reasons given for not giving him a loan? The creditors taking the cart and selling it and dividing the money? The wide range of debtors? His following the cart with the dead horse into the countryside?

11. Having the drink, with his friend, the talk about the treasure, the insights of the holy man, visiting him?

12. The desperation, wanting to sell the gun, selling all his goods, the money, looking at the cinema advertisements, the thief pursuing him, the fight, getting his money back?

13. The plan to rob the rich, using the gun, Cabbar reluctantly agreeing? Going to the house, the foreigner, his taking no notice of the gun, fighting back?

14. Going to the holy man, bringing him to the house, looking into the water, the boys and their frustration at looking what was there, Cabbar seeing the reflection of the shoes, his taking it as a sign that he should dig? Frantically digging, Hassan digging, the futility?

15. The decision to go, the money, leaving the forty lira for his wife and promising to be back in ten days? Their buying the equipment, riding the donkeys, searching for the tree, finding the dead tree, the ritual with the stones, their swimming and cleansing in the river, the digging, frustration? Moving to another tree, the time passing? The friend buying the supplies? The loss of money? The long time passing?

16. Cabbar becoming mad, his obsession with the treasure, worried about his family with little money, the holy man and his aphorisms? The stones, thinking the treasure was in the snake, the death of the snake? Cabbar and his moving in circles? Frantic digging? The final image of him? No hope?

17. The images of society, poverty, desperation? Religion and superstition? A film of its period – and the changes in the succeeding decades?

WASHINGTON MELODRAMA

US, 1941, 80 minutes, Black and white.
Frank Morgan, Ann Rutherford, Kent Taylor, Dan Dailey, Lee Bowman, Fay Holden, Virginia Grey, Anne Gwynne, Sara Haden.
Directed by S. Sylvan Simon.

Washington Melodrama is an MGM programmer of 1941 – with the theme of aid to war victims prior to America’s entry into World War Two.

The film is a supporting feature but has a very strong cast, Frank Morgan with a different kind of serious role, Ann Rutherford as a forthright campaigner for her father, Dan Dailey as the villain.

The film was directed by S. Sylvan Simon, director of many entertaining films at MGM, but who died in 1950 at the age of forty.

The film focuses on life in Washington DC, rich entrepreneurs, thugs who run clubs and lean on girls to flirt with older men and get their money.

Fay Holden was Andy Hardy’s mother and appears in a much more sophisticated role here. His aunt, Sara Haden, also appears in a brief role.

1. An entertaining melodrama? Innocent victim? Framed? Newspaper campaigns? Justice?

2. Black and white photography, the Washington DC atmosphere? The world of the wealthy, the world of charities, nightclubs, apartments? The police? The musical score?

3. The story of Calvin Claymore, as played by Frank Morgan? His work for the charity? His wife and daughter in South America? His preparing to testify? The hostility of Hal Thorne and his newspaper? The irony of Thorne wanting to marry Claymore’s daughter, Laurie? His meeting with Whit King? The dalliance with Mary Morgan, showing her the town? Her infatuation with him? Her death, the association with him, the shirts? The evidence and the police? The role of Hal Thorne? The role of Laurie, campaigning for her father? His wife and her worry about scandal? The moral predicament, Claymore and his decision to tell the police the truth?

4. Hal Thorne, his role at the newspaper, his campaigns? His love for Laurie? The exposes, his reporters? His reliance on Ronnie, getting him to go to the club, find out what was happening, reporting back? Ronnie as unreliable, playboy, drinking?

5. Laurie and her mother returning from South America? Laurie and the situation? Her love for Hal, her love for her father? Upbraiding her mother for disloyalty and suspicion? Her decision to find out the truth, pretending to be French, with Ronnie, with Hal’s blessing? At the club, the encounters with Whit King? Going to his apartment? Getting the evidence? Her being unmasked? The confrontation with King? Vindicated?

6. Ronnie, man about town, unreliable, his being confused at the club, trying to find Laurie?

7. Whit King, running the club, his connections? Money deals, his running Mary Morgan? Anger with her, the punch? His killing her? The setup to blame Claymore? His infatuation with Laurie as a Frenchwoman? His relationship with Teddy, his double-dealings with her? The final confrontation, the shooting, her confessing?

8. The melodrama, the police, the predicament for Calvin Claymore, going to testify?

9. The resolution, the moral issues?