MOONLIGHTING

UK, 1982, 97 minutes, Colour.
Jeremy Irons, Eugene Lipinski.
Directed by Jerzy Skolimowski.

Moonlighting was produced soon after military upheaval in Poland and the emergence of the Solidarity movement. It was written and directed by Jerzy Skolimowski, a Polish director who was trained, like many others including Polanski, at the Lodz Film Academy. However, a critic of the Communist Party, he spent most of his time outside the country. He has been able to make films over a period of forty-plus years, though spasmodically, not having directed a film between 1991 and 2006. his films in Poland include Barrier (1966), but he was better known for his work in England including Deep End, King, Queen, Knave, The Shout in England, The Light Ship (1986) in the United States. He also appeared as an actor in quite a range of films including Deep End, White Knights, Big Shots, Mars Attacks and Before Night Falls.

The film is tightly written (and won the screenplay award at Cannes in 1982). The focus is on a group of Polish workers in London illegally to do work for their boss. Jeremy Irons as Nowack, is the only one who can speak English. He has control over the men, manages their lives. Some have seen him as a symbol of the Polish government, more than a touch paranoid, deceiving the people who worked for them, trying to maintain control. It is a very fine performance early in Jeremy Irons’ screen career which had begun with The French Lieutenant’s Woman and his television appearances in Brideshead Revisited.

The film is interesting in the light of changes in Poland during the 1980s, especially with the emergence of the Solidarity movement – leading, ultimately, to the overthrow of the Soviet empire.

1.The quality of the film, production qualities, acclaim and awards?

2.The impact of the film, universally? For Polish audiences watching it in the 1980s? In retrospect? For a British audience? The different levels on which the film worked, narrative, symbolic, message, political critique?

3.The London settings, Heathrow, the taxis, houses and landlords, issues of legal papers, neighbours, supermarkets, shops and streets? Christmas and New Year atmosphere? The feel of London? Audiences identifying with the situation and characters?

4.The performances, Jeremy Irons? Many of the other workers being Polish workers living in London (legally)? Skolimowski and his films, directing, writing? The musical score and its mood?

5.Britain in 1981, the Thatcher era? Ordinary life, material things being plentiful? Deals, a sense of freedom? People with money? Neighbours, petty aspects, surveillance? Communication and freedom?

6.The contrast with Poland, its place in the eastern bloc, lifestyles and poverty in Poland, lack of freedoms? The socialist ethos and controls? Workers being transported from one culture to another? Solidarity emerging and it significance?

7.The various levels on which the film worked: a story about work and relationships, a story about migrants and paranoia, shoplifting as a symbol? The Solidarity movement? As embodied by these workers? The influence of Russia and its communism on Poland and its ethos?

8.The Polish analogy, the job, Nowack in charge? His limits and talents? The work in itself? Nowack keeping control, his rules, the men shut in? The money benefits, the money running short? Phone calls, British television? The supermarket, Nowack trying to get past the checkouts? His not giving the men information about what was happening in Poland, pretences, changing watches? His accounting for the absent boss? His own personal concern about his wife, that the boss was having an affair with his wife? Enmity and rebellion, but the Christmas embrace? Collapse? The boss winning and the men angry?

9.Migrant workers, their lifestyle, mode of entry into England, Heathrow? Rules and language? Illegal presence? What the difficulties could mean, the danger of making mistakes? The landlord and his attitude? Garbage? Way of relating, tensions, loneliness and paranoia, a spirit of defiance?

10.The work itself, the situation, the collage of the work itself, making progress, mistakes, the rubbish? Their professionalism and success?

11.How the British were viewed? Heathrow, the landlord and his welcome, curiosity, the garbage, attitude towards communists? The supermarket friendliness, people watching? The Wrangler girls, the neighbour, the paper boy, the shop trade, the vagrant, Aquascutum? A view of the British, in detail? Cats and dogs!

12.The shoplifting, the woman, the others, supervision and technique, the girl and the comments, the need for shoplifting, learning, planning, the detail, emotional? Nowack and his trying to get the turkey out? Clothes, caught?

13.The Polish characters, the hostess, the boss and Tina Turner, the phones, television, the notices, letters?

14.Nowack and his voice-over, permeating the film, illustrating his character, his attitudes? Giving information, his tone, the feel? His self-image, the translation, his dilemmas? His dealing with different characters, the plans, telling the men or not about what was happening? In himself, his talents, arrival, schoolmaster, the answers, the timetable at work, his expertise, water and the electric shock? Shopping, accounts and plans, phone calls? Anna and her needs, for example the television? Wrangler, the neighbour? The shops, the bike, the girl, the news and concealment, growing concern? The church, Christmas and the tree, locking the men in? The Solidarity movement, the influence on Nowack? The details of the bath, sleeping and waking, eating? The church and confession? The men rebelling, the lockout? The spree, the ending? The achievement?

15.The three workmen, their characters and appearance, different, skills, language and lack of it, following orders? Eating, working, the television, bath, the electric shock, church, phone calls? Simple men, tricked? The ending?

16.The film’s attention to detail, the streets of London, the shops, the black man and the phone, the Chinese, the shops and music? The naturalistic treatment? The symbolic treatment?

17.Religion, Catholicism, belief, confession?

18.The film as a character study, a social observation study? A parable about government – with reference to Poland and the 1980s?

MURDER IS EASY

US, 1982, 100 minutes, Colour.
Bill Bixby, Lesley- Anne Down, Olivia de Havilland, Helen Hayes, Patrick Allen, Shane Bryant, Freddie Jones, Leigh Lawson, Jonathan Pryce, Timothy West.
Directed by Claude Whatham.

Murder is Easy is an adaptation of the Agatha Christie novel of the same name. While the novel is still set in England, the central character has become an American for American television audiences. He is played by Bill Bixby, better known for his role in the series The Incredible Hulk.

There is a very strong supporting cast led by Lesley- Anne Down with veterans Olivia de Havilland and Helen Hayes. The rest of the cast is a vintage British supporting cast ranging from Timothy West to Jonathan Price and an early screen role.

Direction is by Claude Whatham who has worked mainly in television but made the feature films That’ll Be The Day and Swallows and Amazons in the 1970s and travelled to Australia to direct the Judy Davis- John Hargreaves film, Hoodwink in 1981.

1.The popularity of Agatha Christie, her writing? Her characters? The nature of her mysteries? The tradition of the novels, the tradition of screen adaptations?

2.The qualities of this telemovie, the use of the English countryside, the strong cast, the creation of mood?

3.The convolutions of the plot, the development of the characters, indication of clues? Luke Williams as hero, mathematician and author, an American? Computer work? His meeting Miss Fullerton?, the train journey, getting the information? His being intrigued? His character, curiosity? Deaths?

4.His going to the village, meeting the people in the village, friendship, work? The encounter with Bridget Conway? Falling in love? The nature of the investigation, probing characters? The confrontation with Honoria? The ending and his being the hero?

5.Bridget, her fiancé, the money issue, her relating to Luke, her suspicions, the investigation, becoming the heroine?

6.Honoria, her nice manner, the Olivia de Havilland style, her place in the village, involvement, relationship with Lavinia? The stories? Lord Easterfield and his story? The reverse? The final confrontation?

7.Honoria, the possibilities?

8.The range of characters in the village, the performance by the classic English cast? Suspicious types? The nature of the puzzle? Solution? Motivation?

THE MAGIC TOYSHOP

UK, 1987, 107 minutes, Colour.
Caroline Milmoe, Tom Bell, Lorcan Cranitch, Patricia Carrigan, Kilian Mc Kenna.
Directed by David Wheatley.

The Magic Toyshop is an adaptation by Angela Carter herself of her novel. Angela Carter delves into the dark side of human experience, exploring different myths. In film history, she emerged with her screenplay based on her novel, The Company of Wolves, directed by Neil Jordan in 1984. It was a magical interpretation, lavishly set, of werewolf stories.

This film is about a man who has the power to bring toys to life – exercising control over them, controlling his family even more strictly. Tom Bell appears as the strict uncle and Caroline Milmoe as his wife. The director, David Wheatley, worked almost exclusively in directing television films and television episodes of series.

1.The work of Angela Carter? Her imagination?

2.The blend of reality and fantasy? Normal and abnormal?

3.The title and the special effects? The puppet, Melanie and her moods? Melanie in herself: sexuality, fantasy, Jonathan? The ships, the photo, the shop, the puppets, Leda, the beach? Jonathan going to sea? Margaret and her brother? Philip and the burning?

4.The structure and its effect? The different parts, the combination to a whole? The symbols and links?

5.The situation of the characters, the shop? Melanie the focus, her self-image, sexuality, fifteen etc? The children and the nanny? Childish – the meal, the ships? The photo? The death and the impact?

6.The toyshop and the ballet, reality or not? The role of the puppeteer? The situation? Philip and stern, the patriarch? Margaret and the collar? Finn and his brother? The station, meeting, the table and discipline, the shop, work, the puppets and the knife, Leda and the rehearsal, the performance? The reaction? Going out, the return? The overtones of incest? The chisel, the menace, the burning? The guy? Character, symbol? The ending?

7.Margaret, the Irish background? The colour red? Nice? Mute? Prim and applauding? Free and laughing? Throwing the collar? The incest? Victoria saved?

8.The brothers, the violin and its place, incestuous relationships? The fiddle and leaving? The Irish, Melanie, the puppet and the fall, the injury, agony? The rehearsal, sex and innocence, Guy and the ending?

9.Melanie in herself, sexual status, myths and paintings? Child, at home? Work in the shop? Laughter, the brothers? Leda and the beach, Jonathan going away? The fire? Her innocence, her future?

10.Jonathan, as a boy, the ship, the model, going away? Victoria and nice? With Margaret?

11.Portrait of an English family, the bonds within the family – but subverting the image and reality of the family? The use of tales and myths to achieve this? Recreating a portrait of the family? The relevance of the portrait, the critique? Its meaning?

CHATRANJ KE KHILARI (THE CHESS PLAYERS)

India, 1977, 129 minutes, Colour.
Sanjeev Kumar, Saeed Jaffri, Richard Attenborough, Amjad Khan.
Directed by Satyajit Ray.

The Chess Players is an impressive political satire on 19th century India. It is the work of Satyajit Ray, the doyen of Indian film-makers. He made his impact during the 1950s with his Abu trilogy, continued to make fine and acclaimed films during the 1960s. During the 1970s he moved to bigger-budget films and the use of colour including The Middleman, Distant Thunder, The Elephant God. He continued his work right through until his death in the early 1990s.

Ray’s films are the opposite of Bollywood entertainments. They are beautifully crafted, show an intelligence and an appreciation of history and values.

This film focuses on Lucknow in 1856, just before the Indian mutiny. The king of the province is a poet and is oblivious to what is going on around him. Two of his friends play chess incessantly, ignoring all the political realities and the danger of war and uprising. Into this situation comes the British general, played by Richard Attenborough, who is to persuade the king to allow his kingdom to be annexed. There are complications with the British East India Company (which was to lose control of India after the mutiny) and the preparations for the consolidation of India as part of the British Empire.

The film looks beautiful, recreates its period – but is continually alerting audiences to the lack of vision in the Indian politics, the ignoring of realities as well as the brutal ambitions of the British and empire.

1.A film of India? About India? Entertaining? With insight?

2.Satyajit Ray’s film career, the contribution of this film? The visuals? Lucknow in 1856? Locations and atmosphere? Costumes and décor? The beauty of India? Royalty, nobles, the people? Ordinary way of life, cockfights? The military? The insertion of songs and dances? Animation? Ray’s own score?

3.The focus on the chess players, the two men and their continually playing? Their obsession with the game? The game as a symbol of ignoring reality? Using one’s wits but ignoring where the wits ought to be activated? The battle and theory? Ingenuity? The playing of the game and passion? The game versus reality? The players and their experience of the British taking over, Lucknow? The history of India at that period? From the perspective of contemporary India?

4.The situation in the 1850s? Animation, Dalhousie? The kingdom? Wealth and style? The king and his poetry? The crown and the exhibition? The British and empire? The British and their non-comprehension of the realities of India? Diplomacy, formalities, the military? Ordinary people? The upper classes, their lifestyle, domestic regimes, games? Hindus and Muslims, prayer? In the situation of rebellions and mutinies?

5.The characters of the two players, the opening of the film? Their friendship? Their attitudes of leisure? The games, smoking the hookah? Food? Their ignoring of their wives? The wives and their behaviour, stealing, throwing tantrums, having affairs, making up stories? The houses, their ignoring their duties of hospitality? The visit by the dying lawyer and his set? Their having to move? Continually playing, using vegetables as the chess pieces? Moving to other places? Missing the takeover? Angers and rivalries? The shooting, the humiliation, the reconciliation? Gentle Indians? A symbol of what was happening at the time?

6.The picture of the king, his history, his relationship with his mother? His obsession with dance, poetry, beauty, prayer? The officials and the rumours of what was happening? His council and the meetings? The visit of General Outram? The exercise of diplomacy, the ceremonies, bearing everything with dignity? The crown, the transition? His mother’s audience?

7.The picture of General Outram? His role representing the British? His presence, his comments on the king, unfavourable? His assessment of the situation? Scot and obtuse? Checking with the officer? His observation of the customs, prayer? Honour and the treaties? Issues of mismanagement? Pretexts, strategy? The king’s mother and her audience? The mockery and formalities? The kiss, the crown – and ultimate success?

8.The boy and the Muslim background, the temple? Food, seeing the British? Helping, talking? The new generation?

9.The glimpses of the townspeople, characters, way of life, the experience of the king, of the British?

10.The military takeover, the presentation of the British military, its discipline, formalities? The ambitions of empire? The experience of war?

11.An Indian reflection on Indian history – its shortcomings, its sufferings?

THE COUNT OF MONTE CRISTO

US, 1934, 113 minutes, Black and white.
Robert Donat, Elissa Landi, Louis Calhern, Sidney Blackmer, Raymond Walburn, O.V. Heggie, Irene Hervey.
Directed by Rowland V. Lee.

The Count of Monte Cristo is a classic telling of Alexandre Dumas’ popular story. It was filmed several times after this including a television version with Richard Chamberlain and a lavish version with Jim Caviezel and Guy Pearce.

The film is famous for its presentation of the young naval officer who has to take a message to Napoleon, is framed by his enemies and spends twenty years in the harbour at Marseilles in the Chateau d'If. With the help of the Abbe Faria, he tunnels out of the chateau and finds a treasure on the island of Monte Cristo. Recuperated and wealthy, he then reappears to wreak vengeance on his enemies. In the meantime, his fiancée has been forced to marry his rival.

This is not a particularly swashbuckling version of the story, rather a focusing on the issues and themes as well as character. Robert Donat is persuasive as Edmond Dantes who becomes the Count of Monte Cristo. He was to appear in many British films including his Oscar-winning Goodbye Mr Chips. Louis Calhern was at the beginning a career of villains and character actors and Elissa Landi was a popular lead of the time.

The film was directed by Rowland V. Lee who made quite a number of these films including The Son of Monte Cristo as well as Tower of London, The Son of Frankenstein and Captain Kidd.

1.A classic version of a classic novel? The popularity of Alexandre Dumas and his son? Their stories? A film of the 1930s – early sound film-making?

2.The techniques of the 30s, the black and white photography, the re-creation of the 19th century? The period, the chateau, the wealthy world of the count? The musical score?

3.The popularity of the Dumas stories? French history? The Dumas stories of The Three Musketeers, The Man in the Iron Mask, The Corsican Brothers and The Count of Monte Cristo being made into films – and shaping popular imagination about French history.

4.The Napoleonic era, Napoleon and his conquests, those loyal to Napoleon? The clash with the monarchy? The rebellion against Napoleon? Issues of power? Imprisonment? The history of France at the beginning of the 19th century?

5.Robert Donat as Edmond Dantes? Edmond Dantes as an everyman figure? His life on the ship, his age? Summoned by the captain? The message and its delivery? Going to Marseilles? His becoming victim of a plot? His love for Mercedes, Mercedes and de Villefort’s father? The intrigues with Mondego? Danglas and the finance? Conspiring against him? His not having a trial? His being sent to Chateau d'If? His disappearance? The death certificate?

6.Edmond Dantes as a prisoner on the Chateau d'If? The nature of the prison, his cell? The guards and their taunting him? Isolation, the meals? The chains? The passing of time, the passing of the years? The contact with the Abbe Faria? Their talking? Dantes and his being educated by the abbe? Learning, wisdom? The long period of digging? The passing of the years, his age? The transformation in Edmond? His desire for vengeance?

7.The character of the abbe, his imprisonment, his learning? The good influence on Edmond? His death? Edmond substituting for him and the coffin going out of the chateau, his escape? The meticulous detail of the escape, the suspense?

8.The possibility of a new life after twenty years, the sailors and friends? His travelling to Monte Cristo, the information about the treasure, his discovering it? His wealth, growing reputation, household and servants, getting the dossiers, planning his revenge?

9.The character of de Villefort, his power? The king and the honours? His father? The encounter with Edmond? The law, the court, the denunciation?

10.The confrontation with Mondego, the duel?

11.Danglas, the banker, the count and his manipulation of Danglas’ financial ruin?

12.His going to the court, the reunion with Mercedes? Her suffering over the years? The son?

13.The revenge – and what had he achieved? The film’s message about brooding, planning revenge, vengeance? The achievement of vengeance? The possibility of destroying one’s own life? Hopes for the future?

UN COMPLICATO INTRIGO DI DONNE, VICOLI E DELITTI (CAMORRA)

Italy, 1986, 115 minutes, Colour.
Angela Molina, Harvey Keitel.
Directed by Lina Wertmuller.

Camorra is yet another film about the Mafia. However, it was filmed in Naples and was directed by an Italian director.

Lina Wertmuller had a strong reputation during the 1970s and 1980s with such social-minded films as All Screwed Up, Swept Away, Seven Beauties, A Night Full of Rain and Blood Feud. She is a strong director, her films not pulling any punches. Over the decades she looked at many aspects of Italian society, corruption as well as portraits of Italian characters and temperament. This serves her well in exploring the world of the Mafia.

She used international stars of the period, Angela Molina from Spain and Harvey Keitel from the United States. The film was successful in winning awards both at the Berlin film festival as well as at a number of award ceremonies in Italy itself.

1.The Italian settings? The Italian south? Naples? The images of the city, of the countryside?

2.The location photography, setting up moods? The neighbourhoods in Naples? The homes, the streets? The musical score, the songs, the dancing?

3.The very Italian style of the film? Its being called operatic? The international stars?

4.Audience knowledge of the Mafia traditions? The status of the Mafia in Italy? The foundation, the purpose, in Sicily, in southern Italy? The codes that it lived by? The crime and drugs of the 1980s? The transition to drug crime? The role of the police – and corruption? Politicians? People? The film with a message about the Mafia?

5.A feminine perspective on the film, from the writer-director, the central focus on Annunziata? Her being the focus of the film, the nature of her life, within this context? Her child? Toto? The apartment? Sexual relationships? The dead man, the mystery, the police? Sharing with Toto? The boss? Franco and his relationship? The son? The nature of the investigations? The abduction and death? The re-creation of the killing? The son taking over? Toto’s death? Anger, Franco and the clashes? The role of drugs? Dealing? The women in this context? The truth? Franco’s death, Annunziata’s solidarity?

6.The film’s focus on the role and place of women in this kind of society, men, children? A drug world? Exploitation? Decision making? Violence? The boss, wives and mistresses, killings? The wife and her shooting her husband?

7.The children, the victims of this way of life, victims of drugs? Defiance? Vengeance?

8.Franco and his character, Harvey Keitel’s presence and performance? Relationship? The deals, with Annunziata, with the bosses? Greed and violence? Love? The investigations? The funerals, the celebrations? The build-up the ending, the confrontation and his death?

9.Toto and his story, the rape, the prostitute, the dancer? Sofia? As Neapolitan characters? His interactions with Annunziata? Help, chase, the death?

10.The patriarch, and his son? The Mafia, eyes? Music? The investigation? The truth, angers? Getting rid of drugs?

11.The world of Mafia business, the pressures, the practical details of the drug trade? The cruelty of the men? Vicious, the abductions, lies and deaths?

12.The role of the police, integrity, the possibilities for corruption? Matching violence with violence?

13.A glimpse into Italian society, the 19th century, the transition of Mafia codes to contemporary gangsterism? Corruption, justice? The traditions? The stance of the film?

CHAMPIONS

UK, 1984, 106 minutes, Colour.
John Hurt, Kirstie Alley, Ben Johnson, Edward Woodward, Alison Stedman, Judy Parfitt, Anne Bell.
Directed by John Irvin.

Champions is based on the autobiography by jockey Bob Champion. Champion had had great success in racing but was diagnosed during the 1970s with cancer. The film shows his struggle with the disease – but shows great determination in combating the illness. Ultimately, Champion did overcome his cancer and resumed his racing career, even winning the Grand National in 1981. The film was made in the immediate aftermath of that success.

The film works well as a film about illness but it also has the power and the courage of somebody confronting the illness.

John Hurt is excellent in the role of Bob Champion. For more than forty years, Hurt has given a number of extraordinary performances ranging from A Man For All Seasons, Heaven’s Gate, Midnight Express to more recent performances like The Proposition and his priest in Shooting Dogs.

There is a good supporting cast of British and American actors led by Kirstie Alley.

The film was directed by John Irvin, a rather eclectic director who has made quite a number of interesting films of different styles including the television series Tinker, Tailor, Soldier, Spy and the films Ghost Story, Dogs of War, Turtle Diary, Hamburger Hill as well as Widow’s Peak and A Month By The Lake. He also directed a Robin Hood film at the same time as the Kevin Costner version. His version starred Patrick Bergin.

1.Interesting film? Enjoyable? Its concerns, its message? Successfully communicating the experience of illness? Struggle, endeavour, achievement? The British story? Universal appeal?

2.The film as a true story, the impact of true stories? Winning out against many odds? A portrait of courage? The ending? The audience experiencing the struggle of Bob Champion, the emotional response?

3.The style of the film, the opening, the horses, training, the races, steeplechase races? The visuals, the editing? The drama of the jockey, his ordinariness? The British setting? The hospital and the experiences in hospital? Treatment? England, the comparison with the American interlude? The musical score?

4.The racing background and audience interest? Bob Champion and his career? Demonstrating his various skills? The presentation of owners, trainers, jockeys, the scenes of training, the races? The atmosphere of the racecourse? Authentic? The pressures on those involved in the racing game?

5.The American interludes, the comparisons with British races, British racetracks? The contribution to Bob Champion’s career and appreciation of him?

6.John Hurt as Bob Champion? The scenes of success? The relationship with Barbara? The issue of the lump? Hospital, the rapid development? Interviews and tests, the operation? The wards and the way these were filmed? Life in the hospital, the hospital staff? Issues of options and choices? Hopes? Limited time? The clarity of the choices for Bob Champion? The chemotherapy, its effect, his appearance? The duration of the therapy, in and out, weak, sick? The drips? The contents of the drips? Growing depression? His weariness, hair falling out etc? The uncertainties for his future?

7.The experience of the cancer? Thin, in and out of treatment, his sister and her help? At home, the difficulties, the bathroom? His nieces and the riding? The cattle? The emergency and the calling of the police?

8.Jo and her visit, sharing with him, her support? The races, going to the United States? The hotel, the proposition? Bob’s proposal, sharing the joy, the wedding? Plans for training?

9.The background of the hospital, the portrait of the doctors, the nurses, the interest and help? Handling the situation? Going to the races?

10.Bob and the temptations to give up? The visit to the children? The rocking horse? His getting better?

11.The good news, exercise? The fact of his recovery, riding and success? The support of Josh Gifford?

CONFESSIONS OF A TRICK BABY

US, 1999, 97 minutes, Colour.
Natasha Lyonne, Maria Celedonio, David Allan Grier, Vincent Gallo, Max Perlich, Michael T. Weiss, John Landis.
Directed by Matthew Bright.

Confessions of a Trick Baby was written and directed by Matthew Bright – who seems to have something of a corner on ugly stories. He directed the very interesting Freeway with Kiefer Sutherland and Rhys Witherspoon, a variation on the Red Riding Hood story. He also directed a film about the serial killer Ted Bundy.

This film is quite repellent in its way. It is a portrait of a young girl, played by Natasha Lyonne (who had quite some problems in her own life as well as those on screen). She is sentenced to a long jail term and is put in a cell with a young Mexican woman, played by Maria Celedonio.

The scenes in prison are what is expected from an exploitation women’s prison film, fights, crass language and stories. Many of the characters also suffer from bulimia and this is portrayed in a graphic way.

When the two girls escape from prison, they go on something of a violent spree, especially since the Mexican girl psychotic and has killed her family and many other people. Eventually they get to Mexico where Natasha Lyonne’s character sets herself up as a prostitute and again is aggressive and violent.

The bizarre aspect of the film is meeting Sister Gomez in Mexico who seems to have had a good influence on the Mexican girl as a child – but turns out to be Vincent Gallo, turns out to be a man, turns out to be an exploiter who videotaped sexual activity and sold the tapes. He is eventually killed – quite brutally. In this aspect the film is more imaginative, Gallo made up to look like a witch – and finally being burnt in an oven, with Bright giving a contemporary twist to the Hansel and Gretel fairy tale.

Those who like the film see it as having mordant wit, an offbeat take on contemporary society.

THIEF LORD

Germany, 2005, 98 minutes, Colour.
Aaron Johnson, Jasper Harris, Rollo Weeks, Alice Connor, Jim Carter, Carolyn Goodall, Alexei Sayle, Vanessa Redgrave.
Directed by Richard Claus.

A German production, filmed in Luxembourg and Venice, with a mainly British cast. It is based on a popular book for children by Cornelia Funke.

Whether the film follows the book, I cannot say. As a film, it is quite peculiar. The action is set in a very naturalistic Venice (taking full advantage of the beauty of the city) but the action is that of magic realism. Here the two do not quite gel – perhaps a more magical city would have kept the whole thing more in the realm of the imagination.

A youngster escapes an orphanage, picks up his six year old brother from guardians and they escape to Venice where they join a gang of rather well-mannered thieves who are given a commission to find a large wing broken from a merry-go-round and sell it to a Count. They do. However, the oldest boy and leader, Thief Lord, wants to ride the merry-go-round which has powers to make you older or younger.

Again, the film is peculiar because the children act in a naturalistic fashion – even if what they do is odd and far-fetched. It is the adults who clown around and are caricatures. Maybe that is how the children see them. Jim Carter is a private detective in the employ of the guardians who changes sides. Alexei Sayle is a dodgy shyster. Vanessa Redgrave turns up as a nun to explain the magic merry-go-round – in a habit that should have got the costume designer sacked so unreal does it seem. The cheery thing is that Caroline Goodall is the other star – she is genial, kind and a jolly-good-show kind of mother-figure.

Box-office may have been best in Germany.

1. A popular book in Germany? The adaptation for the screen? For what audience – adults, children?

2. The Venice settings, the naturalistic presentation of the canals, the palazzos, the islands and the lagoons? The beauty of Venice? As a setting for this story? The musical score?

3. The opening: the focus on orphans, Prosper and his running away from the orphanage, going to collect Beau? The conflict with the aunt and uncle? The escape to Venice? The meeting up with the group of children? The friendship of the thief lord?

4. The presentation of the children – naturalistic, more than a touch precocious? The credibility of the group of thieves? Their missions in Venice? Their homes, the orphanages? Their bonding together? The contrast with the presentation of the adults – as caricatured? As seen from a child’s point of view?

5. Scipio as the thief lord? His clashes with his father, the wealthy background? The junior Robin Hood type! The other members of the group and Prosper and Bo fitting in? Hornet? The age of the children, their bonding together?

6. The mission, the getting of the wing for the merry-go-round? The selling of the wing? The count and his buying? The change of money? Finding it was counterfeit?

7. The pursuit of the children by Victor, his commission from the couple, reporting back to them? His trekking and following? The encounter with Ida? With Barbarossa? His coming out of the children’s side, being sacked? Being with the children, with Ida, the pursuit of the count, the merry-go-round – and the happy ending?

8. Ida, cheerful, not caricatured? Photographer? Encountering the children? Her possessing the wing? On the side of the children, supporting them, the orphanage? With them at the end of the mission? A future with the children?

9. Barbarossa, the money deals, his interactions with the children? Double-dealing? Greed? His going to the island, going on the merry-go-round, his reverting to the little child – and his character as a child, the older voice, his being adopted by the couple?

10. The nuns, the old-fashioned habit, Vanessa Redgrave and her performance as the sister with the information about the magic? The other sisters?

11. The conte and the contessa, their wanting the wing, their having the merry-go-round, their secret island? Their wanting to revert to children? Their doing so? The confrontation with the group?

12. Scipio, his wanting to become adult, going on the merry-go-round, the transformation? His still being the leader of the group?

13. The credibility of the blend of magic with the very natural and realistic settings and characterisations?

JUVENTUDE EM MARCHE

Portugal, 2006, 154 minutes, Colour.
Ventura Vanda Duarte, Beatriz Duarte, Gustavo Sumpta.
Directed by Pedro Costa.

This is a work of cinema art. However, art does not have the same impact on all audiences. For those whose sensibility leads them to stay in the sensing present, appreciating what is up there on the screen, this film could be a rewarding contemplation of characters speaking their minds and their lives. For those of a more intuitive sensibility, whose attention is less immediately focused, this could be an ordeal, requiring a fixed patience that may not seem justified.

Acknowledgement must be given to the director’s skill in working for 15months with minimal artifice, digital camera and a series of very long takes with fixed camera. An old man whose wife leaves him wanders his neighbourhood talking but mainly listening to the problems of a group of people he sees as his children.

This could work well as theatre where the live actor is the centre of attention rather than cinema where one is too conscious of performance. It is also the stuff of radio drama where the imagination creates the person as one listens. At worst this is like being in public transport, forced to listen to loud one-sided mobile phone conversations that intrude and one can’t escape from.

1. Response to the style of the film? The long takes? The performance in front of the camera? Dialogue? A work of art for some? Endurance for others?

2. The work of the director, his painstaking efforts, the camera shots, the long takes, the fixed camera? The lack of artificial colour, make-up? The naturalism?

3. The title – the focus on old people, the next generation? Youth or not?

4. The cumulative effect of Ventura and his visits to the various people? His interactions with them?

5. The prologue, his wife and her monologue, her experiences, her marriage, Ventura, leaving? The effect on Ventura himself, his returning to it?

6. Ventura as a person, age, experience? His marriage? His relationship with his wife? The shock of her leaving? His seeing the people in the quarter as his children? The visits from one to the other? The discussions? His own attitudes, his compassion for the people? Eating with them, listening to them? The cumulative effect?

7. The people that Ventura met – especially Vanda, her relationship to her child, drug addiction? Her husband? As a character, her emotionality? Her husband, the garage, his coming up for meals?

8. Beatriz, the different house, her different problems? Ventura and his being welcomed?

9. The other characters in the quarter, relationship to Ventura, outpourings to him?

10. The atmosphere of the quarter, a slum in Lisbon, dark, grim? The world of these people – and a world needing compassion? Problems, relationships, drugs? Isolation, loneliness and alienation?