RAY ARGYLL



You worked as a cinematographer. Was this where you began in the film industry?

It probably started with making my own films, on Super 8 and then eventually on 16mm, so I really did everything. That was back in the days of the Experimental Film Fund. It was very easy to do it then - well, I shouldn't say 'easy' - it wasn't very fashionable, film, and it was a very different sort of business than it is now and you needed to be very resourceful. I learned by just doing it and experience.

Then you made some films with Ian Pringle?

Yes. I'd made a few 16mm films and then went off to film school and during that time I shot the first film for Ian - and it just happened that I was doing camerawork. I'd always enjoyed it, I always really liked camerawork. I then went on and edited a couple of his films too, as I did with Brian Mc Kenzie, so I sort of split time between cinematography and editing.

Ian Pringle's films were features and Brian Mc Kenzie's a mixture of both documentary and features?

I've done a lot of work with Brian. Ian is very much into features and drama and very atmospheric pieces, which is really challenging because often it's not stuff I'd necessarily do myself, but it's wonderful to work with. Ian and I, when we found our way of working together, it was that we really trusted each other and that worked well.

With Brian, it took a long time too. I think it does take a long time when you're working with people. I probably found the same as a director and producer. You take a while to find people, to find out how to work best, but when you do and you trust one another, it will be the way you get the best out of a situation. Brian has been great over the years because he's forced - perhaps I shouldn't say 'forced' - the films he's made, particularly the documentaries and they have been very challenging. You've been thrown in there with a whole range of people and you've had to cope; and you're working with real people, particularly with his style of documentary. They dictate what happens in a feature or a drama.

I think I've just about worked on all of them, every documentary that Brian has done. He does them over a long period of time - years. I'll Be Home for Christmas was probably the first one I worked on. Homeless men - it's gruelling in some ways, but I think it's terrific. The film gets done eventually, and I say eventually because I know Brian, 6 or 8 months into the project, will often be despairing that he hasn't actually found the essence of what he's trying to do. But he does, it's there. It sometimes just takes a lot of time. With that film I did a bit of filming, I did a bit of sound work, I think I helped in the editing room. With the other documentaries I did some cinematography, some editing but not so much sound.

How did you make the transition from editing and cinematography to directing? What was the genesis of Return Home?

I had the script for seven years or so and worked on it. I always seem to take a long time. I've always kept doing my own work, mixing it up with doing various other things for Ian and Brian and Mary Callahan and all those people. I guess the story was just based on some people I knew.

What drew you to writing, since you were so hands-on with the other aspects of film-making?

It all begins with doing your own stuff. When I was a teenager, I'd always written, not very well. I'd always been writing and making my own films, a few on the Experimental Film and TV Fund. I sort of worked as a freelance while doing my own stuff on grants. But that was in the old days where people just put it together whichever way they could. You learnt on the job. There were things I'd written and I'd always got together with actors. In the early days they were just friends and we'd work the scripts out together. So in terms of writing and directing, I've always been fairly collaborative. I guess I never felt my writing was so good that it didn't need some sort of collaboration. And actors are the best people to work with. I've found that in just about everything I've done.

With Return Home, would you have been writing with actors in mind, say, Frankie J. Holden and Ben Mendelsohn?

No, because I took seven years or so from when I started writing. At the Berlin Festival I remember saying Ben was probably in nappies when I wrote it. He wasn't, obviously! But no, find I don't write with actors in mind. I guess some people do. You might have someone in mind, but it always changes. And an actor will always make the character into something anyway. You welcome that contribution to develop it a little bit further. Often you choose an actor who's going to do something really interesting with the part and develop it rather than just read it exactly as it's written.

The writing in Return Home and Eight Ball is naturalistic. It sounds authentic and Australian. That's a gift and your actors have the capacity to speak it and dramatise it well.

Yes, often the best stuff comes from rehearsals and workshops because people are relaxed. They haven't got the pressure of the film crew there. I can do a certain amount. I'm happy doing a certain amount of the work, but I can't take it much further beyond that because you're limited by your own life experience. I've met a lot of people and done a lot of things, but when people bring their own elements to it, that's what you pick up on and say, 'That's good,' and I put it straight in the script. If you're doing research, if someone coins a phrase a particular way, it can just capture something that you're after. I guess these are the sorts of things you want. A lot of the really nice moments in Return Home and Eight Ball are like that. I wouldn't say they're accidents. We've put the time into rehearsals and come up with this material. The same with earlier scripts where I'd been workshopping ideas.

I remember us talking about the pressures of a bigger budget and more money and so forth and how that was a restriction in some ways and something you had to learn to cope with. You had to learn to cope with those problems.

You mentioned the importance of landscapes and your feel for the countryside, even a preference for the countryside to the cities.

Yes. It's funny, I don't think of working in the backyard or something as a bit harder. I've always enjoyed working in South Australia. It's got a lot of elements that I find I feel very comfortable with. Likewise some of the country areas. Tasmania I think is another place; maybe Western Australia, although I've never worked there. It's away from Melbourne or Sydney. I know there are areas of Melbourne and Sydney that are really interesting. It's just that you've got to get in there but sometimes it's easier to transport yourself to another place. Maybe it's easier to be objective or maybe it's easier to observe things when you come fresh to a place. I certainly found that with South Australia. It does have a unique landscape. There are differences between suburban Adelaide and suburban Brisbane or Melbourne or Sydney, but I guess basically there are similar themes running through all those areas.

Another element is the quality of ordinary relationships in the family and the home and relationships between the generations. In Return Home you capture a lot of the Australian values of the home and the family, in a family of battlers.

Yes, the family theme. Sometimes you can look at your early work and you realise that you're repeating yourself in some ways. But, really, you can dig into any family and find the most fascinating stuff. It's funny, one uses the term 'ordinary', but in fact there's no such thing. When you scratch around, there's all sorts of interesting conflicts and seeing how conflicts are resolved, how people work through those day-to-day difficulties and what values people have in the end. I guess that's what's always interested me. Obviously this is where I live and work and the particular values within an Australian family situation is what interests me and what I try and bring out.

I think it was basically that in Return Home they were very decent people that you could like and respect. The other interesting thing you said the other day was about the younger generation. We were talking about Frankie J. Holden and his influence on the Ben character and you were talking about whether the younger generation really is lost or not.

I seem to have noticed recently that people are very happy to talk about how they would fix the world, how they would fix things for the young people and all the problems the young people have. They say the reason they have the problems is because of a loss of this and a loss of that. I think there's a lot of truth in those things, but when you actually get down and spend time with young people - not that I have recently because my kids are very young, but I've got nephew and niece-in-laws that I spend quite a bit of time with - it just seems that they do have a fairly mature perspective on what's happening. They're actually coping with the incredible pace of change in the world better than some of the older generation. I mean, in some ways they're not coping. But it seems easy from the outside to look at what the problems are and have solutions; I think a lot of the time people are suggesting solutions that are right for their generation or their social arena, whereas for young people, I guess they've got to discover it for themselves. I reckon a lot of them are doing pretty well. They're actually coping well and coming up with interesting ways of resolving those issues.

You have said that they aren't as articulate as they might be. It isn't that they are lost, that they are just inarticulate.

Yes. I'm struggling with getting articulate about things now, and I'm 40. A lot of the kids I've worked with over the 15, 20 years I've been doing films have got really good values, they really are quite focused. They just lack sometimes the verbal skills to articulate and express themselves very clearly. Some of them can, but I guess it just comes with maturity. You can't replace wisdom with anything; it comes with years. You can see it there, it will develop. It's great watching them grow up - most of the time.

With Eight Ball the production money was more readily available than it was for the previous film, but that that had its repercussions on how Eight Ball turned out.

Yes, but in the end it's a problem that you have to take responsibility for yourself. I have to say I spent too much time and put too much energy into making everybody else happy and doing the right thing by everybody else instead of doing the right thing by myself. There's a point where you need to actually focus on what is there. There were many elements of the storytelling that I could have focused on and developed, rather than just dropping and replacing them with something new, and it may have helped. The romance between the main character and his girlfriend - there was a great desire on the part of quite a few of the people who were financing it, to develop this and to make it a strong element. It's not a real strength of mine, and I did all that, but at the expense of other elements that were probably more in tune with the story that I originally had in mind. I developed those things but in the editing room we probably cut it down to what it was in the original script.

You sounded as if you were very interested in the ex-prisoner's story and his relationships?

Yes, I was. I liked the whole thing with the big fish and the character of Charlie developing it all. But I guess that how I got those two stories to work together was a big call and it was hard when the balance fell out, trying to chase through that romance bit, and it took quite a while before the story of the other character picked up. Here was a guy who had just got out of prison and was trying to resolve things with his son and stepsister, a very interesting family relationship. I felt in many ways that this part was quite successful.

Perhaps your ambition with Eight Ball was a bit like the architect with the fish; that everybody else thought the fish should have been different and more colourful or whatever.

That's true. But that's mainly in hindsight. You can always say there are similarities between the characters and the stories you're telling and your own experiences. But there was a certain amount of frustration and a certain amount of inevitability about trying to create something that was commercially appealing in one person's mind where in fact it might not have had the integrity.

You did some television work, episodes of Sea Change?

I haven't been working much in the last six years or so. I've got young kids, so I haven't been taking on many jobs. I've had plenty of scripts, and occasionally scripts come through but they're entirely different to the sort of thing I would normally do. It surprises me when people send them. But I suppose that's good; they think that you might be able to do it. I often think it's just a matter of finance, people trying to finance a project and just trying to get a group of good names that fit together nicely on a bit of paper so that it helps the financing, but you're going to have to put a lot of your life into it.

Until this recent job, I haven't actually felt much attraction to television. There are a few things I would like to have done that just didn't happen, a couple of shows that would have been great, but I didn't get opportunities to work on them. I did one episose of Raw FM and that was the first TV drama I'd done. It was very interesting. It was a great cast and it was probably the first time I'd felt attracted to something.

I had a lot of trouble because I was a co-writer on that. I had a lot of trouble working out what was right for me and what was right for the TV show, because you're talking about a whole series. It's a very good discipline to learn and to apply yourself and be true to what you wanted to do and the characters you wanted to create and also true to what the broader picture is.

When Sea Change came along, it was a co-production with Artist Services and I'd liked their work before. The scripts were just terrific. It really was something. I've loved Ballykissangel and Northern Exposure and that sort of show. There haven't been many of them and there certainly haven't been many in Australia. This was right down that alley, so you could say it was timing and I justg sort of fell into it. They also gave me the opportunity to be involved in the setting up of the series, the casting and all of the rehearsals which, of course, is the main thing I'm interested in. It's the process of developing something and working with actors away from the set, developing character and so forth. So it was just terrific. It was very hard work. You have to deliver a lot of drama in a very short amount of time, screen time per day. It was hard going first, because you had to get it all up and running, but I really enjoyed the process.

You directed episodes 3 and 4 first to help get the cast into it so that when the first two episodes were filmed they would be used to their roles.

Yes. Originally they were going to do 1 and 2 first and I was very happy to do that because those scripts were good. All the scripts I've read have been terrific and I think the quality of the show is very good. But apparently in the past they've done this, where the first episodes they actually shoot are not the first ones that will be seen. They can get the cast warmed up so they're a little bit more relaxed and comfortable with their characters by the time they get to episodes 1 and 2. Particularly on episode 1. A lot will always rest on that episode. If the actors are really punching the stuff out, then it helps get an audience. I don't know if it works or not. I like to think that episode 3 and 4 are dramatically as good, as rewarding for an audience as any of them will be. You will find that the styles differ from time to time, but I think the cast were so in love with their characters that that is what will come through. I felt my job was to try and help all of that come together in whatever way I could.

Interview: 13th March 1998

MARIO ANDREACCHIO



Your main focus in film-making and television has been on children's films?

It's been primarily children's films - I like to call them family films because what I do with a lot of the films is I try and hit three levels. Of course, it's got to appeal to the kids and be relevant to them. It's then also got to appeal to the parents in some way so that they can get something out of it, but then there's the grandparents as well.

What makes this style of film-making very difficult is not only do you have those three generations that you have to appeal to, but you also then have to appeal to the three generations in other countries. So you're dealing with an enormous variation in taste and style and attitudes, which then, in the end, means that you have to resort to the universal themes because they're looking at what is it that we all have in common rather than what it is it that actually separates us.

How does that work for Napoleon and The Real Mc Caw? What's for the children, what's for the parents and what's for the grandparents?

In both of them there's an adventure story. Both are driven by a sense of adventure, a sense of exploration, a sense of a child going out of an environment that it knows into an environment that it doesn't know. And, along the way, the central character actually tests itself - tests itself against the major elements, both physical and ethical, and they finally get to a point where - usually I like to set my climactic scenes in the midst of a flood. You'll notice in Napoleon and in The Real McCaw?, as well as Captain Johnno, the major climactic scene happens in the middle of a flood and there's redemption and cleansing and rediscovering.

That imagery of the flood - where does it come from in your experience? Is it religious, psychological, both?

It's actually both, because I trained as a psychologist and I did a major research project looking at the development of storytelling, and I applied motivational theory to storytelling. I looked at the Bible, the Bhagavad Ghita, the Koran, ancient Greek tragedies, Roman tales and modern cinema and television. I got a perspective on the development of storytelling. And one of the things that I noticed really strongly was the use of water. Most of the major religions of the world are desert religions and water has a really strong meaning. And that's percolated through our thinking, the whole use of water and the cleansing effect of water.

I also believe that having parasites in the Sydney water system is actually going right to the root of fundamental psychology, because water is supposed to represent purity and cleansing and to have it impure is quite amazing.

You symbolise water in the sea in the three films, you've chosen the harbour and the open sea?

That's right. In a major scene in Napoleon there's a flash-flood and the dog gets whisked away. But then within the flood, he actually finds himself. The same with The Real McCaw?. There's wind and water and it's right in the midst of that environment. Thematically, I think that it touches all the different generations because it touches kids but it touches buttons within adults and grandparents as well.

You're a family man yourself?

Three boys. That's how I've lost so much hair.

You've focused on boys in the films as well?

Yes, I have, but my next movie is called Sally Marshall is not an Alien and it is actually all girls. I specifically went for that film because it did have girl characters. It's the same sort of thing; it's looking at really fundamental ethical questions in an entertaining medium. I think it's really important that, while there is such a huge amount of family material, there's very little family material that has an Australian voice. And that's really what I'm on about.

Speaking of voices - talking animals and talking birds. What's the attraction of the animals?

Well, animals have been around in storytelling since Aesop's Fables. There's something about an animal representing a human character that immediately reduces all the complexities of this human character to very simple, very accessible and very understandable terms. We can see and we can project so much of ourselves onto an animal. Anybody who has a pet can do that. I found that the use and the symbolic use of animals is, in fact, extremely appealing.

You won an Emmy for Captain Johnno. How significant was your contribution to the movement of Children's Television and Film in the '80s and '90s?

Reasonably significant because, with a film like Captain Johnno, we moved away from the idea that kids' films need to be froth and bubble. Captain Johnno is actually quite a serious film. Lots of people said to me, "Kids aren't going to watch this. Kids aren't going to relate to this. They want fun." And it proved them all wrong. In fact, I think there's such a need that kids have to have some strong moral pillars or ethical pillars around the place, so they can get a sense as to where they stand, that when they see films like Captain Johnno, they gravitate to them like bees to a honeypot.

I did that and I did Sky Trackers. I also did Lift Off. They were all attempts to try to add something or contribute on a level that went beyond what was being done at the time. Then I got to a point where I thought, well, rather than going with other people's ideas and other people's scripts, why not become involved in myself and have a lot more control, rather than always getting to the situation where you've got to go through explaining the storytelling, what you're trying to do and so on.

Relationships are important in your films. Part of yourr ethical consideration seems to be the family as in The Real McCaw?

Absolutely. It doesn't look at family in an analytical way, but it's really trying to look at those instinctive human emotions that push and pull people. We need to see that represented and we need to acknowledge that it is a conflict we all have. We need to see how some people resolve it, that this is what we're all striving for and how important it is - then I think we've achieved something. When I look at the fact that I'm still getting letters from kids around the world who have seen Napoleon ten, fifteen times, it makes me realise what an impact cinema can have. And I just hope that I can contribute in some small way.

The Dreaming and Fair Game - where did they come from?

Fair Game came out of a situation where we were wanting to make a movie that was a B-grade video suspense thriller. I wanted to treat it like comic book violence - it was always like a comic book study of violence. What amazed me and the thing I found quite disappointing was that it started to become a cult film in some parts of the world and people were taking it seriously. And that, for me, became a real turning point. I thought, if people are taking this seriously, then I don't think I can make this sort of material.

Some reviews said it was misogynistic and sexist. Did you see it that way or was this more of the comic book style?

Yes, it was very much comic book. It wasn't really saying anything. It had references to other movies and it was more like an experience. In the end it's the woman that wins out: it's a growth in strength of a woman who's being harassed by these three guys.

But then I went on to The Dreaming, which was originally a script that was tackling, quite strongly, the issue of the past treatment of aborigines, the white-black conflict. Unfortunately, there was a time when the script was changed right in front of me and I was subject to other people saying, "No, you can't make that film, you've got to make this film". So, when you're in that position where you're starting out and where nobody trusts you, nobody really has total faith in your vision because you haven't actually got a track record. Then they take the prominent position.

You would have been able to make some statements about Aboriginal problems?

Absolutely, yes. But it's that trial and error process you go through. It's finding where you actually stand and why you want to make the sort of films that you do.

The South Australian perspective pervades a lot of your work.

Yes, very much so. I was born in South Australia in Leigh Creek, a coalmining town. I think one of the good things about Adelaide that I've found - because I actually lived in Sydney for nearly four and a half years - is that in Adelaide I can have an individual voice. You've got to find your own voice. For instance, a film like Priscilla could never be made out of Adelaide. That's a Sydney type of film, whereas you look at a film like Napoleon, it's looking at the Australian landscape and Australian characters from a completely different point. That, to me, is what characterises Adelaide.

Out of Adelaide - well, what have you had over the past five years? You've had Bad Boy Bubby, you've had The Quiet Room, you've had Shine, you've had Napoleon - it's an environment that actually encourages individuality, which is the thing I really love about the place.



20th September 1998

ARTHUR CHRISTMAS

UK, 2011, 97 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: James Mc Avoy, Hugh Laurie, Jim Broadbent, Imelda Staunton, Ashley Jensen, Marc Wootton, Laura Linney, Eva Longoria, Michael Palin, Sanjeev Bhaskar, Robbie Coltrane, Joan Cusack.
Directed by Sarah Smith.

We remember the Aardman Studios for their wonderful animation short films, especially those with Wallace and Gromit. More recently they have made feature films, Chicken Run and The Curse of the Were- Rabbit. This time, they have been shrewder in picking their target audience, children, younger children who delight in Santa stories whether they believe in him or not. And the parents and grandparents who take the children along will enjoy Arthur Christmas as well. And it was filmed in 3D.

So, who is Arthur Christmas? He is the younger son of the current Santa Claus. As with the Australian-French? co-production, Santa’s Apprentice (which has many similarities with this film), Santa’s job is only a temporary position (say, 70 years or so). However, the North Pole has been transformed into an extraordinarily well-equipped computer technology production (and wrapping) line (remember Elf and Fred Claus). It is all under the control of Santa’s older son, the imposing body-builder look-alike, Stephen. The film reminds us that the presents have to be delivered worldwide in a short space of time. The computer programming, with the help of a space-ship ultra-speed sleigh and a bevy of elves who deliver parcels, makes this a beyond-Pentagon success story.

But, the little girl who writes a letter to Santa at the opening of the film, through an unobserved glitch, does not receive her present. Potential disaster. Stephen doesn’t worry. The statistic doesn’t affect his success rate – and it is only one child. Santa is complacent and goes to bed. It is only the geeky Arthur (certainly no body-builder) who causes mayhem wherever he clumsily goes, who sets out to deliver the parcel, with the help of the grumpy and selfish Gransanta and some very old reindeers and a sleigh called Eve. Needless to say, they get lost and have all kinds of adventures, even being chased by lions in Africa straight out of The Lion King.

Plenty of activity to keep the young attentive. And an excellent voice cast to amuse everyone. James McAvoy? (who is a little weedy-looking in real life) gets us on side for Arthur. Jim Broadbent yo-ho-hos to great effect as Santa (with Imelda Staunton as his practical wife, Margaret). Lots of fun is had with Stephen (and at his expense and comeuppance) since he is voiced characteristically by Hugh Laurie. Old Gransanta is Bill Nighy.

So, it’s a Santa story for the IT 21st century.

1. An entertaining Christmas story? For the whole family?

2. The British background, Aardman Studios? Characters, style of drawing, design, voices? 3D?

3. The target audience, children, those who believe in Santa Claus, adults?

4. The opening with Gwen’s letter, children’s belief in Santa Claus, the gifts?

5. Arthur, answering the letters, nice, in his department, awkward, his gaffes, mishaps, entering the main room and his pratfalls, disturbing everyone? Comedy? Ousted – people running him down or taking pity on him?

6. The contrast with Stephen, the older brother, the Superman look, his skill in IT, commands, the elves and their work, the S1 spaceship, its size, delivering all the presents, the proper timing on Christmas morning, the information for the technology? Stephen and his character, military style? Not a people person?

7. Santa, getting old, seventy trips, supervising the work of the elves, his entry into the homes? Deliveries, getting home? The touch of the pomposity? The toast to success? His wanting to continue rather than hand over? His love for Margaret, their domestic life?

8. The deliveries, starting in Denmark, the coordination, the gifts, the sleeping children – and not wanting them to be awake? The alarm with the child awake, the difficulty with the toys, the batteries? Success? Getting around the world in the short time?

9. The accident, the bike falling, being swept up, being found, the crisis with one gift not delivered?

10. Stephen, the handling of the crisis, his refusing to go, thinking it was only one child? Hardhearted?

11. Santa, going to bed, pomposity, his wife urging him up?

12. Grandsanta? His age, his career as Santa Claus, pre-information technology, the sleigh, the reindeer, his memories, of the war, the Cuban missile crisis, the sleigh called Eve? His vanity?

13. Arthur, his concern, trying to find any way to deliver the present to Gwen?

14. Bryony, elf, her skill in wrapping, her supporting Arthur? Going on the trip?

15. Arthur and his grandfather, persuading him to take Eve, the reindeer? His landing in Idaho – and the American thinking it was UFO, reporting them? The reindeer on his service station, making up for the reindeer that was lost? Going to Toronto, to Mexico, to the wrong house? Going to Africa, the pursuit by the lions? The crash? Cuba? Arthur’s attitude, his grandfather’s attitude? The fire, taking the boat, rowing? Arthur and his worry, the capture, going to the United Kingdom?

16. The elves, the meltdown? Crisis in the works, wanting to give up, their scurrying about? Saved at the last moment?

17. Santa, waking, his discussions with Stephen, with Margaret? His being shamed into supporting Arthur?

18. Stephen, his change of heart, mistakenly going to Mexico, everybody arriving in Cornwall?

19. The success of the mission? Arthur, cycling, in the town, Gwen and her waking, keeping her asleep? The gift? The elves cheering with the success?

20. Gwen, her parents, the delight in the gift? Santa, Grandsanta and everybody happy?

21. Arthur being acclaimed as the true Santa?

22. The happy ever after? The continuity of Santa Claus and his gifts? The streamlining of the deliveries? A Christmas entertainment for a 21st century audience, and technologically-trained children?

BREAKING DAWN PART 1

US, 2011, 117 minutes, Colour.
Kristen Stewart, Robert Pattinson, Taylor Lautner, Billy Burke, Sarah Clarke, Ashley Greene, Jackson Rathbone, Peter Facinelli, Elizabeth Reaser, Nikki Reed, Maggie Grace, Michael Sheen.
Directed by Bill Condon.

Bella declares ‘undying love’ for Edward. She would have to, wouldn’t she? After all, that is the fate of vampires even if they are nice like Edward and the Cullen familyand have inserted themselves quietly into each of their contemporary worlds. But, we do have an initial confession of a secret by Edward when he was sowing his wild fangs in the 1930s (and going to see such films as Bride of Frankenstein, which could serve as something of an image of Bella and her marriage).

The fourth film in the Twilight Saga needs no help from reviewers (and certainly not from so many negative reviews from those who feel themselves above such stories for its niche teenage audience – and their mothers, perhaps). It got its money back in the first few days of its American release.

The undying love, wedding preparation, wedding, reception (and a visit from Jacob who is initially upset with the wedding because of his love for Bella), honeymoon in Brazil, take up the first half of the film – all rather lavish to entertain the fans. Bella’s mother and father turn up and, though she has a frightening nightmare about the ceremony, Bella is happy in marrying Edward.

Complications come with her pregnancy, life threatening, which has the Cullen family anxious, Edward anguishing and trying to help his wife. Again, Jacob arrives, this time to defend Bella because his werewolf family is hostile to the Cullens and attack them. A chance to move from the quiet romanticism of the wedding to some snarling, howling and brawling.

Not knowing the story, I was more than a bit surprised to discover what happens to Bella with the birth of her baby – and then guessed what was really happening, via some special effects of her interior, blood stream and heart, which is the final shock image of Part I so that we will be eager to see Part 2 – what undying love really means.

Kristen Stewart and Robert Pattinson have become Bella and Edward incarnate and everyone seems to be pleased to see them again. And Taylor Lautner is Jacob (shirt off in the first minute or so but then looking very respectable).

Those tempted to rush for the exit as soon as there is any hint of a credit will miss a preview of the sequel which gives a different tone to what we have seen in this film. Michael Sheen as the dastardly vampire leader of earlier films makes a campy violent appearance, setting up some melodrama for the finale as dawn finally breaks.

There have been different directors for each of the films so far. This time it is writer Bill Condon whose previous films include the interesting Gods and Monsters and Kinsey as well as the musical Dreamgirls.

1. Audience expectations from the series, characters, plot, the wedding, pregnancy and birth?

2. The title, the progress from Twilight through New Moon, Eclipse to Dawn? The musical score – the lyrics?

3. The long wedding sequence, leading to the honeymoon, to the pregnancy, to the birth, Bella’s death?

4. The intercutting of the vampire-werewolf clashes and battles?

5. The forests, the vampires, the homes, ordinary?

6. The contrasts with the werewolves, the forests, the huts?

7. Edward and Bella, their past, audience hopes, Jacob and his friendship with the two? The wedding prospects?

8. The invitations, the reintroduction of the characters, Bella’s parents, Jacob and his angry reaction to the invitation?

9. The preparations for the wedding, Bella’s hair, makeup, her parents’ arrival, the dress? Edward and his support?

10. Bella’s nightmare of the wedding, the deaths?

11. Edward, the background of his secret, the Bride of Frankenstein, his killing the murderers? The transition to his happiness for the wedding? The reception, the speeches, dancing? The visit of Jacob, the discussions with him, his moods, departure?

12. Brazil, the beauty of the tropics, the night swimming, the sexual encounter, the concerns of Edward for Bella?

13. Bella’s pregnancy, the different reactions, the dangers for her health, the concern?

14. Jacob, at the wedding, with the group of werewolves, with his father, the hostilities?

15. Jacob, Seth and the others, cut off from the group? Jacob’s character, his misleading the werewolves? Protecting Bella?

16. The birth, its difficulties, the caesarean? Bella dying?

17. Jacob, his reaction, his attack on Edward? Yet protecting Bella, fighting the wolves, his change of heart at seeing the baby?

18. Edward, his desperation? Rosalie and the other women, minding the baby? Edward’s biting Bella, hopes for reviving her? The special effects for her bloodstream, the heart?

19. The build-up in Bella’s death, the sudden awakening? Her eyes? Vampire forever?

20. The final credits, the introduction of the vampire court, the prelude for part 2?

THE 41-YEAR-OLD VIRGIN WHO KNOCKED UP SARAH MARSHALL AND FELT SUPERBAD ABOUT IT

US, 2010, 82 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Craig Moss.

This film offers a satire, spoof of several of Judd Apatow films. While the title is amusing, the film immediately launches into bad taste and disgusting jokes. One of the difficulties with this kind of joke is the parody of the original (and the original being better than the parody) and not having a context for some of the bodily function jokes as well as the sex jokes.

Audiences who are interested in spoofs will notice a lot of parallels with the original films – the waxing sequence from The 40 Year Old Virgin, the adventures of the two young fellows in Superbad.

The film also has a number of amusing parallels with the original characters, especially in the appearances of the actors. Steven Sims is very much a parallel to Jonah Hill. Austin Michael Scott does a Michael Cera. There is also a parallel with Seth Rogan.

The film was co-written by Brad Kaaya and director Craig Moss. It has a certain exuberance about it – but relies very much on the bad taste jokes and the disgusting element.

The film serves as a curiosity item of how parodies saw the comedies of Judd Apatow of the first decade of the 21st century.

NAVY BLUE AND GOLD

US, 1937, 94 minutes, Black and white.
Robert Young, James Stewart, Florence Rice, Billie Burke, Lionel Barrymore, Tom Brown, Samuel S. Hinds, Paul Kelly, Barnett Parker, Minor Watson.
Directed by Sam Wood.

Navy Blue and Gold is a patriotic film which came out just before the outbreak of World War Two. It shows the strength of the navy, recruitment and training in the 1930s – and the preparations for World War Two.

The film is a story of three friends who grew up together, from different backgrounds. Robert Young plays the would-be playboy who sees the navy just as a stepping stone to a rich wife and a career. James Stewart, on the other hand, is an earnest young man whose father has been dishonourably discharged from the navy and who wants to vindicate his father. Tom Brown is the son of rich parents and Florence Rice is his sister. She, of course, is the cause of some rivalry between Robert Young and James Stewart.

Lionel Barrymore also has a good role as the elder statesman from the navy, the initial player of American football and the coach. For those who like American football, this is a great bonus for the film.

After establishing the characters of the three young men, it shows them joining the navy, their different backgrounds, the training and hard work, their skill at football, their success in the navy teams. However, when Robert Young becomes assertive, there is a tension between the three friends. Tom Brown, because of his small stature, is bullied by a lot of the men. However, it is James Stewart who has the dramatic role, listening to the recounting of a story about his father and then rising to defend his father, risking his navy career.

The film was directed by Sam Wood who was to direct a number of significant films in the 30s and 40s including Goodbye Mr Chips, Kings Row, For Whom the Bell Tolls.

1. A film of the 1930s? The armed forces? The navy, recruitment, training? Sport? The combination of these themes, patriotically?

2. The black and white photography, the scenes before the 1930s, the young boys, their growing up? The 1930s, the navy academy? Colleges, football, matches, commentators? The musical score?

3. The title, the visuals of the navy, the parades, the ethos? The atmosphere of the 1930s? World War Two to come?

4. The three boys, the different personalities, their different backgrounds, rich and poor, together, their plans?

5. Their growing up, their early twenties, the developing personalities, the relationships between the three?

6. The background of the navy, joining, the scenes of training, the officers?

7. Football, the importance, the crowds at the matches, the training, the coaches, the tactics? The personalities of the coaches and their interactions with the men?

8. Each of the three, their life, the involvement in sport? Roger, his love for Patricia? Richard and his care for his sister? Small, bullied? John, rather shy, earnest, his attraction towards Patricia?

9. The character of Roger, his assertion, vanity, his attitudes and behaviour, his disappointing his friends, the coach, his being left off the team? The crisis? His coming to his senses, being humiliated? His helping John? His giving up Patricia?

10. Captain Dawes? His role, interest in the men, his intervention, his covering up for Roger? Enabling him to resume play? His support of the group?

11. The decisions, the matches, the commentators?

12. The play without Roger, his arrogance, his selling out? The others, experiencing the change? The loss of the matches without Roger? Without the other two?

13. John, his background, listening to the story about his father, his father’s honour, his protest, defending his father? The discussions with the naval officers? Their decision for him?

14. Romance, sport, military training, people having moral changes and decisions? An edifying film from the 1930s?

SOMEWHERE IN THE NIGHT

US, 1946, 110 minutes, Black and white.
John Hodiak, Nancy Guild, Lloyd Nolan, Richard Conte, Josephine Hutchinson, Fritz Kortner, Margo Woode, Sheldon Leonard.
Directed by Joseph L. Mankiewicz.

Somewhere in the Night is the second film directed by writer Joseph L. Mankiewicz. He made Dragonwyck in the same year. He was to go on to win Academy Awards for direction and screenplay in successive years, 1949 for A Letter to Three Wives and 1950 for All About Eve. Other films in his long career include Julius Caesar, Guys and Dolls and the Burton- Taylor Cleopatra.

This is a film noir, a post-World War Two setting, a portrait of a man with amnesia. As he goes on his quest to find his identity, he is given the name of a criminal. Gradually he realises that he is the same man.

The plotting is quite complex, the man searching comes across a number of underworld characters as well as the manager of a series of nightclubs (played by Richard Conte). He is also helped by a singer, Nancy Guild. Lloyd Nolan plays an agreeable detective with some comments about why detectives wear their hats all the time – with the finale of the film as he realises that he has to have his hat on to use his gun. There is a small interlude with Josephine Hutchinson, very effective in terms of emotion as well as the hero’s identity.

The film is quite effective in the presentation of amnesia and the quest for finding one’s true self.

1. The film noir in 1946, in retrospect?

2. Joseph L. Mankiewicz, his writing career, direction?

3. The title, evocative? Meaning?

4. Amnesia, the explanation, medical, psychological? The quest and discovery?

5. George Taylor, his war heroism, the Purple Heart? His injuries, the interior voice and his subjectivity, looking out, unable to speak, watching the doctors and nurses and their comments? His puzzle about George Taylor?

6. His recovery, the various officers, his discharge, the address and his following it up?

7. The nature of his search, going to the address, the hotel, people not knowing him? Cravat (**?) and the identity, the letter? Going to the bank, the withdrawal? The wariness of the teller? His going to the bar, the encounter with the bartender, the phone call? His being picked up by Anzelmo and his henchman? His going into Chris’s room, asking her to shield him? His being bashed, returning to Chris?

8. Mel, the owner of the nightclubs, pleasant personality, willing to help, calling Kendall, the meal and the discussion, the issue of identity? His contacts, helping out? The gradual revelation of the truth, pulling the gun, his threats?

9. Chris, the singer, her relationship with Mel, her being upset with George, yet helping him out, the attraction? Lending her car, the meal with Kendall, her singing in the nightclub, going with George to find the money, going to the shelter and giving the money over, the revelation of Mel’s guilt?

10. George, with Anzelmo, Kendall and his giving him the address, discovering Phyllis and her husband? The explanation of her contact? With Anzelmo? Phyllis and her giving him hints of where to go next?

11. The situation, the Nazi money, the case, Mel and his getting the money, the shooting, the issue of Cravat? Conroy and his witnessing the case?

12. Conroy, George going to see Elizabeth, her hurt and her explanations? Going to the institution, seeing Conroy, his giving the information? The man following him – and Conroy’s death?

13. The finding of the case, the money, handing it over at the shelter, giving it for Kendall?

14. Kendall, the information, his patient following through, his coming to the shelter, the encounter with George and Chris, the comment about hats, films getting it right, having the hat on so that you could use a gun?

15. The Cravat story, the private eye, his career, the money, his disappearance into the army? Recovering his identity – and his future?

SHADOW OF THE THIN MAN

US, 1941, 97 minutes, Black and white.
William Powell, Myrna Loy, Barry Nelson, Donna Reed, Sam Levene, Alan Baxter, Henry O’ Neill, Stella Adler, Joseph Anthony, Louise Beavers.
Directed by W.S. Van Dyke.

Shadow of the Thin Man was the fourth of the Thin Man films. The Thin Man was very popular in 1935, with Nick and Nora Charles, a married couple, he a kind of dilettante private eye, solving mysteries. They were based on characters by novel Dashiell Hammet.

Further films included After the Thin Man and Another Thin Man. In 1944 there was The Thin Man Goes Home and the final Thin Man film, The Song of the Thin Man in 1947. The characters were part of the entertaining comedy, Murder by Death.

William Powell is as always debonair as Nick Charles. Myrna Loy, who had played with Powell in many films, is his devoted wife, promoting his abilities as a detective. There is a good supporting cast including Barry Nelson as a reporter, Donna Reed as a secretary, Sam Levine as a policeman who needs advice from Nick Charles. Stella Adler appears as a vamp. Joseph Anthony is one of the gangsters – and he became one of Broadway’s best directors and made a number of films including The Rainmaker, The Matchmaker, Korea and All in a Night’s Work. Louise Beevers is the Charles family maid.

The film is set at the racetrack, the death of a jockey, the death of a double-dealing journalist, the death of a suspicious character who haunts the track. As with the other films, there are developments in the characters and the possibilities of guilt, with the whole cast gathering together for an explanation by Nick Charles. As with some of the other films, it is the seemingly most respectable character who is the villain.

The first four films were directed by W.S. Van Dyke. He was a prolific director of many MGM films during the 30s and early 40s.

1. The popularity of the series? The characters, comedy, the mystery?

2. MGM production values, black and white photography, the score, the cast?

3. Nick and Nora Charles, William Powell and Myrna Loy and their style? Their son, his age, in the family? Astor? The characters and their behaviour?

4. The introduction, Nick in the park with his son, pretending to read the story, the races, his son’s frank answers? Sensing the drink? Nora, Stella, the routines at home, the cocktails?

5. Going to the races, speeding, the police and the escort, the squads, the murder?

6. Lieutenant Abrams, the police, Abrams’ double-takes, in charge, yet always seeking advice?

7. The major, his concern, civic sense? Stephens and Macy and their rackets?

8. The death of the jockey, the witnesses, the jockey giving testimony, Paul and the reporters?

9. Rainbow, his contacts, on the track, involvement, his death?

10. Whitey, the reporter, wanting information from Paul? Contact with Macy? Claire Porter? Her relationship with Stephens? Her being blackmailed by Whitey? Taking the jewellery? His death?

11. Macy, his character, sleazy? Stephens, respectability? Claire?

12. Paul, journalist, the setup, his release?

13. Molly, her work for Stephens, giving the information, her relationship with Paul? Evidence?

14. The various murders, Nick and his following clues? Gathering everyone together including the seller of the tickets?

15. The probing of the characters, people talking, giving information, phoning the janitor, the clues about Rainbow’s apartment?

16. The confrontation of the major, the truth, Nora’s intervention and heroism? Solving the mystery?

PASSION OF MIND

US, 2000, 105 minutes, Colour.
Demi Moore, William Fichtner, Stellan Skarsgard, Sinead Cusack, Joss Ackland, Peter Riegert.
Directed by Alain Berliner.

Passion of Mind is a romantic film – with strong psychological themes.

The film is a star vehicle for Demi Moore. She portrays two women – or, rather, one woman who lives two lives. On the one hand she is a woman with two children, a widow in France, seeing a psychiatrist. On the other hand, she is a businesswoman in New York City, who is seeing an accountant as well as a psychiatrist. She falls in love in both worlds. Each of the psychiatrists is aware of her life in the other world – and she also reveals this to each of the men.

The thesis of the film is that she is living one life and dreaming another. However, she does not know which is which. And, for a long time in the film, the audience is not certain. However, gradually it emerges that she has created the French world, that it is the memory of her past, her children are in mirror images of herself, her psychiatrist is really her mother, the man she falls in love with, her father. In New York, she is much more businesslike, but comes to life in her relationship with the accountant.

The two men are played by William Fichtner in New York and Stellan Skarsgard in France. Peter Riegert is the New York psychiatrist, Sinead Cusack the French psychiatrist who eventually is revealed as the presence of her mother.

Those who want realism in their films may find this film irritating or bewildering. However, those with a romantic cast of mind may enjoy it, with good performances by Demi Moore, and the psychological explanations.

It was co-written by Ronald Bass, prolific American author of such films as Rainman, The Joy Luck Club. It was directed by the Belgian Alain Berliner who had made the sensitive film about the cross-dressing little boy, Ma Vie en Rose.

1. The title, the explanation? Marie and Marti? And the psychological condition?

2. The Belgian director, his perspective, the French setting, the American settings? The beauty of the French countryside? The businesslike atmosphere of New York City?

3. The film as a star vehicle for Demi Moore? The other casting?

4. Did the psychological condition have any plausibility? Too vivid in real lives? The different names? Relationships, work, the men, the children, the psychiatrists? Each life real and presented as real?

5. The audience response to each world? Which world did the audience think was real? Which the dream? Did the screenplay supply sufficient clues?

6. Marie in France, the widow, her two children, her writing the stories, storing them? The psychiatrist, talking with her, chatting about the beauty of the spring and summer, her life, meeting William, the bad review of his book, his continued writing, courting her, their discussions, the relationship, the affair, the effect? The role of the daughters?

7. New York, Marty as the business type, her room, the bust, at work, money issues and the agency, the meeting with Aaron and the talks, his being entirely different in his approach to life and work? Inviting her to Central Park? Thirty minutes? The bond between the two, falling in love, the outings, the bath sequence, sharing? The therapist in New York, his scepticism, the rules of psychotherapy?

8. The fact that Marie and Marty told the people in each world about the other? The effect on the therapists? On William, on Aaron? Jealousy? Puzzlement? Concern?

9. William and Aaron as characters, gentle, pleasant, communicating? The comment of each on the other?

10. Marie’s stories, her daughters revealing them, giving them to William, precipitating the crisis?

11. William disappearing? Her mother disappearing? Father and mother figures?

12. Marty’s past in France, the two children being embodiments of her at different ages, realising that her therapist was her mother, discussing things with her?

13. The mother, her talk, help, always being present?

14. The psychological aspects of the children being facets of herself, her mother, the father figure? Their disappearing and the resolution?

15. The United States being the real world, Aaron being the true love, her return to normal life?
 

NEVER SAY GOODBYE

US, 1946, 97 minutes, Black and white.
Errol Flynn, Eleanor Parker, Lucile Watson, S.Z. Sakall, Forrest Tucker, Peggy Knudsen, Hattie Mc Daniel, Patti Brady.
Directed by James V. Kern.

Never Say Goodbye is a slight romantic comedy – or divorce comedy – from the immediate post-war period. The film gives an opportunity for Errol Flynn to do some comedy, sing a little, impersonate actors including Humphrey Bogart. Eleanor Parker plays his ex-wife, dominated by her mother, played by Lucile Watson. S.Z. Sakall does his usual turn and getting his words mixed up as a restaurateur. Forrest Tucker plays a marine that the daughter of Errol Flynn and Eleanor Parker (Patti Brady, a precocious performance) has corresponded with and sent her mother’s photo to him. When he turns up unexpectedly, he provides an opportunity for Eleanor Parker to taunt Errol Flynn. In the meantime there are some screwball comedy mix-ups, especially because of one of Errol Flynn’s models, played by Peggy Knudsen. Hattie McDaniel? plays the family servant. There is an emphasis on the morality of divorced husbands and wives making every effort to get back together again, especially for the sake of the children.

1. A Warner Bros romantic comedy? Screwball touches? The tone of 1946? The post-war period?

2. Black and white photography, New York, apartments and homes, restaurants? The musical score?

3. The plausibility of the plot? The ex-husband and wife? The dominating mother-in-law? The little girl spending six months with each parent? The pressures on the daughter? The possibilities of reconciliation?

4. Errol Flynn in a comic role? Phil, his love for Ellen? His clash with Mrs Hamilton? His work as an artist, the models posing? His sketches and pictures around the city? In the restaurant? The woman wanting an autograph? His dating Nancy? His wanting Ellen back? The meetings, the buying of the coats for Phillippa? The misunderstandings? The outings, the dinner and Nancy’s arrival, his trying to cover everything, with Luigi and the phone calls? The friend with the pregnant wife – and his turning up? The holiday in Connecticut, and Nancy turning up again? The friend spilling the beans? His decision to be Santa Claus, his clashes with Rex, the attorney? Becoming Santa Claus – and his deceiving the family? His other impersonations – especially Humphrey Bogart? The encounter with Wickie? His pretending to be the brother-in-law, Uncle Phil? The clashes with Wickie, Wickie and his friendship? Wickie as helping everybody to get together again? The happy ending?

5. Ellen, her love for Phil, for her daughter? The six months? Her dominating mother? Her jealousy of Nancy? Happy to go out with Phil, the dinner, the phone calls, the discovery of the truth? Clashes with Luigi? The possibility of Connecticut and her finding out the truth? Her reaction to Phil as Santa Claus? Meeting Wickie, going out, dancing, pretending that Phil was her brother-in-law? The altercation with the cabbie, Phil staying the night? Having the midnight snack with Wickie? Wickie and the discovery of the truth, helping them?

6. Flip, her age, her love for her father, for her mother? The six-month stays? Each buying the coat? Her wanting them to reconcile? Her letters to Wickie, sending her mother’s photo, Phil’s suggestion? The outings with father and mother? With Cozy? Wickie’s arrival, her happiness? Santa Claus – and Phil being Santa Claus? The reconciliation?

7. Mrs Hamilton, her looking down on Phil, engineering the divorce, dominating Ellen? Ellen defying her mother? Flip with her grandmother? The Christmas episode, her wanting Rex to marry Ellen, the misunderstandings with Santa Claus?

8. Luigi, S.Z. Sakall’s comic style, mixing up words? Coping with the visitors, the deception and the phone calls, Nancy finding him out? His collaborating with Wickie for a happy ending?

9. Wickie, his work as a marine, in the jungle, his attraction towards Ellen, friendship towards Flip? Genial, the outings, meeting Phil at the bar? Uncle Phil? Helping him at night? The discovery of the truth – the reconciliation?

10. Rex, the attorney, comic style, his escapades as Santa Claus and failure?

11. Cozy, the black maid? Hattie Mc Daniel and her performances?

12. The style of Warner Bros comedies in the mid-40s?