KUNG FU HUSTLE

Hong Kong, 2004, 98 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Stephen Chow.

This is the kind of entertainment that does not need much review. Hong Kong actor-director, Stephen Chow, made a soccer comedy in 2001 which tickled the funny bones of audiences around the world with its madcap group of would be soccer-players who are trained in meditative ways to become champions, Shaolin Soccer.

Now his avowed intention is to become a martial arts screen hero before he is too old. And what a result. Never mind the story – about gangsters and oppression of the poor in 1934 and the need for a hero. It is the action, stunt work and effects that are everything. Paying homage to everything from Bruce Lee to Jackie Chan, from Crouching Tiger to everything else (or borrowing from them), he has concocted a comedy action show which is often very funny, very slapstick – and it won the Hong Kong awards for 2004.

1. Stephen Chow’s reputation in Hong Kong and China, martial arts, comedy, children’s television presenter? His other films?

2. Shanghai setting, the 1940s? The tenements, the buildings, the streets? Authentic atmosphere – colourful, like film sets? The musical score and songs?

3. The title – the focus on martial arts, the con-men, the indication of comedy?

4. A funny film, exciting? The action, the combination of all the elements into a satisfying entertainment?

5. The gangsters, the Axe Gang? Their ruthlessness? Gangsters? The irony of their song-and-dance routines? The use of weapons – and the black costumes (echoes of The Matrix)? The attack on the people in the tenement, Pigsty Alley? The heroes attacking them – the labourer, the chef, the tailor? The reaction of the Axe Gang, the magically powered musicians, the destruction of the warriors? The attack of the landlady and her husband – martial arts champions? The Axe Gang and the encounters with Singh and his offsider, his breaking into the asylum, getting out the Beast? The confrontation with the landlord and the landlady? The effect on Singh, his being beaten? His powers being unleashed, the confrontation finally with the Axe Gang and the victory?

6. Singh, the thief, his sidekick, his being fat? Their wanting to be champions? Their being mean? The attack on the tenement? (And the flashbacks and the children urinating on Singh, the humiliation, the explanation of why he was so aggressive.) Singh and his escapade with the Beast, the fight, his hitting the Beast, his being bashed? The irony of his powers, the transformation? His relationship with the blind girl, knowing her from the past, love, his being unworthy, the transformation making him an appropriate romantic hero? His ascending to the Buddha, the extraordinary epiphany, transformation? His return, the Palm Move? His defeat of the Axe Gang, his being acclaimed by the people in Pigsty Alley? The girl, the reconciliation, the sweet shop? The happy ending? The picture of his sidekick, the comedy about his being fat yet the warrior?

7. The landlord and the landlady, the landlady as a harridan, the husband henpecked? The comedy of their lives in Pigsty Alley? The defeat of the warriors, their having to come out of hiding and retirement? The landlady and her comedy, her skills, the husband? Their success?

8. The three warriors, their work, seeing them as labourer, chef, tailor? The fights, the pathos of their defeats?

9. The blind girl, the memories of childhood, her not responding to Singh, learning more about him, his transformation and the happy ending?

10. The special effects, the stunt work? Bigger, better, more exciting than before? The contrast between the gangster styles of films of the 30s with the styles of the musicals of the period? Continuing the variations on the traditions of the Hong Kong martial arts film?

KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

US, 2005, 145 minutes, Colour.
Orlando Bloom, Jeremy Irons, Liam Neeson, Ghassan Massoud, Marton Csokas, Eva Green, David Thewliss, Brendan Gleeson, Jon Finch, Kevin Mc Kidd, Michael Sheen, Ulrich Thomson
Directed by Ridley Scott

Ridley Scott has made a sweeping movie epic of knights and chivalry, of bloodthirsty battles, of wars between Christians and Muslims, of a dream and a short-lived attempt at multi-religious peace, the Kingdom of God. It is set in the 1180s, between the second and the third crusades, the reign of Baldwin IV in the city whose name denotes peace, Jerusalem.

The history of Christendom has been a history of war. God’s name and God’s will were invoked to justify wars, even ‘holy wars’, many of which were sheer aggression, others of which were in defence of people’s rights. ‘God’s will’ has often been invoked, sometimes by both sides in a conflict, as motivation and justification for the battle. What passed for ‘God’s will’ was often merely the whim of a leader.

The crusades of the Middle Ages have been a sign of contradiction, some seeing them as an assertion of the rights of the church against ‘infidels’, sanctioned and blessed by popes and saints, others describing them as a bloodthirsty opportunity for land and power aggrandisement. Some Muslim scholars have said that, at the time, they were on the periphery of Muslim consciousness and the same until last century because more significant Islamic history was happening during the 12th and 13th centuries to the east of Palestine. In recent decades, they have offered an opportunity for discussion between Muslims and Christians.

It is suggested that while Baldwin IV ruled in the Latin kingdom in Jerusalem, the setting of this movie, there was an attempt at mutual peace between Christians, Muslims and Jews, an attempt at creating the Kingdom of Heaven.

Scott and his screenwriter, William Monahan, with their western cultural backgrounds, have tried to be scrupulous in not being provocatively aggressive towards Islam. Since their perspective is that of the Crusaders, they opt for presenting the young Balian of Ibelin (Orlando Bloom) as the hero of the venture and adventure. He is written as a parallel to a 21st century Everyman, a seeker who has suffered the death of wife and child and a priest’s damnation of his wife as a suicide, who has sinned in anger in killing the priest, who feels himself bereft of God’s presence and joins his father’s crusade to Jerusalem as a means for finding redemption. He believes that Jerusalem is a sacred place of redemption.

Balian, the Everyman, does not immediately re-discover God. During his crusading journey he does become aware of his authentic humanity and tries to act with integrity, especially in the face of greedy and ambitious Christian barons who recklessly provoke war with the Saracens to find glory and possessions.
Advised by his father and his Hospitaller chaplain to make an oath to ‘be without fear in the face of your enemies. Speak the truth, even if it leads to your death. Safeguard the helpless and do no wrong’. Right action according to conscience is to be his moral norm. Balian is presented as a kind of contemporary secular saint for the audience. He is motivated by a spirituality rather than a religion (which is represented by a fanatical priest, a worldly and cowardly bishop as well as the wise Hospitaller).

It is always a matter of regret when official representatives of the church appear in such a bad light, but it would be foolish to deny that many such characters have lived in every era, wielding a destructive influence. The secular saint and the ecclesiastical villain can be seen as a constant and creative challenge to the believer.

Before Kingdom of Heaven was released, it was the subject of both praise and critique, often sight unseen. Relationships between Islam and Christianity make for good copy as well as sensationalist headlines and opportunities for controversial marketing. Ridley Scott asked Islamic historian and cinema commentator, Hamid Dabashi, to be an advisor on the script and on the finished film itself. His helpful article on his involvement with the film, his comments on several controversial articles and his assessment of its stance on Islam, can be found in the UK Sight and Sound, May 2005, pp.24-27. (As of May 5th, 2005, the Google search for ‘Hamid Dabishi’ and ‘Kingdom of Heaven’ gives over 50 listings including an interesting, brief discussion from christianitytoday.com.)

Kingdom of Heaven challenges Christian and western audiences to re-examine their traditions on war.

The Jewish scriptures are full of battles. The language of warriors is even used of God. However, as God interacted with the people, they learnt more of the ways of peace. By the time of Jesus, with the occupation of the Romans and the periodic uprisings, the language of the New Testament began to speak more of peace than of war.

In fact, this is the message of Jesus, not only in the Sermon on the Mount where Jesus condemns the aggression and vindictiveness of an ‘eye for an eye’ theology of conflict and his advocating of a spirituality of loving one’s enemies, but in a significant episode in Gethsemane. The disciple in Matthew’s Gospel who draws his sword – it is Peter in John’s account and makes us wonder what he was doing having a sword to draw – believes in physical violence to defend Jesus. This is the kind of motivation of the crusaders, at least of those who thought of the battle against ‘the infidels’ as a cause. And Jesus’ response, his motivation, his strategy? ‘Put your sword back into its sheath.’ He goes on to what almost seems a pacifist stance: ‘for all who take the sword will perish by the sword’.

In Kingdom of Heaven we are shown a range of warriors. Guy and Reynald think by the sword. They want power, land and possessions. They die by the sword. Baldwin, Godfrey of Ibelin and Tiberius, even Sibylla, have lived by the sword and have come to see how limited and destructive this is. It is the same in the range of Saracens shown. In a time when the worldview took battle and conquest for granted, Saladin and Balian, acknowledge that the safeguarding of the defenceless and of peace are more important than the battles.

Western audiences watching Kingdom of Heaven see a range of stances on war parallel to those of the stances of the crusaders. The question to ask of Islam is what does the Koran say and teach about war? What are the popular conceptions of the jihad? What is the attitude towards Christians? Where are the meeting points on war and peace between the Gospels and the Koran? What is the ‘spirituality’ behind the character of Saladin, his safe conduct to the refugees from Jerusalem, his later dealings with Richard the Lionheart (who appears at the end of Kingdom of God) two decades later?

Any dialogue between Muslim and Christian will have to go deeper than the long history of bitter battles and of persecutions. There is a peace founded on Jesus and his Gospel which must dialogue with a peace from the Koran. As Balian sits on the hill of Calvary, feeling bereft of God’s presence, he looks down on the city whose name is peace in a land which might have become a multi-religious haven, the kingdom of God.

1. Ridley Scott and his film career, the commercial background, his range of genres, his innovations, his ability to present sagas? The sweep of this film, the historical saga, romance, actioner, the search for meaning?

2. The 11th century in Europe, the poor, the rich, the role of the church, secular and religious power? The threat of Islam? The 11th century and the taking of Jerusalem, the beginning of the Crusades? Christianity’s response to Islam? Audience knowledge of the Crusades – or not?

3. The 21st century perspective on Christianity, its traditions, the church, hierarchy, power, the Crusades, holy wars, God’s will? The retrospective on the Crusades?

4. The 21st century and Islam, its traditions, enmity with Christianity, persecutions, Islam persecuted by the church? The Koran, the worship of Allah, the religious practices, the jihad? The retrospective on Islam from the 21st century? Islam and its consideration of the Crusades?

5. The title of the film, Jerusalem in the 1180s, the possibilities of peace? Hopes, impossibilities and human nature?

6. Audience sympathies and Balian’s quest? Audiences identifying with him, his religious quest, non-religious but spiritual quest? Wanting the meaning of his life?

7. The use of the symbol of the cross, the Crusades derived from the word for the cross? The opening cross, the grave, the suicide? Crosses on the roads, for pilgrims? Chains worn around the neck? The warriors and the crosses, the churches, the banners? Saladin and his final gesture of picking up the cross and putting it at rest on the altar?

8. The framework of the film in France, snowing, the work of the blacksmith, the priest and his fanaticism, the burial, the beheading of the suicide corpse? The pilgrims, the shoeing of the horses? Balian and his return to France with Sybil? The crusaders passing by on their way to future wars?

9. Balian, his love for his wife and dead child? Her depression, the church’s attitude towards the suicide? The priest and his urging the burial party on, the beheading of the corpse? The discussions about Hell and her presence in Hell? Balian and his work, Godfrey’s arrival with his entourage, the hospitaller? Balian working, hearing the truth about his background, his mother? His silent reaction? Godfrey’s invitation, his refusing? The confrontation with the priest, having his wife’s chain, the fire and the priest’s death? His having to escape, following Godfrey?

10. Godfrey and his entourage, their experience of the Crusades, Godfrey’s principles? His wanting to repent, make things right with his son? A wise man, a repentant warrior? The invitation to Balian? Balian pursuing him? Welcoming him, training him with the sword, experiencing the skills of fighting? The individuals in Godfrey’s entourage? The hospitaller and his place, advice? The attack by the sheriff, the fight, the injuries, Godfrey wounded, taking out the arrow – his ultimately dying and bequeathing his heritage to his son?

11. Balian, continuing to Jerusalem, his motivation for redemption? On the ship, the storm, the shipwreck? Meeting the Arabs on the shore, the challenge, the fight, his respecting the Saracens, the Saracens respecting him? The irony of the later meeting and finding that the assumed servant was the master?

12. Jerusalem in the 1180s? The rule of Baldwin(??), his age, being a leper, having to wear a mask? His rule, wisdom? The court, severity of sentences yet keeping Jerusalem in peace, with trade, with the religions mixing, the possibility of a kingdom of Heaven? His relationship with his sister? The knights? The antagonism of Reynald? His stirring enmity with the Saracens? Guy and his seeking for power? The battles, Baldwin going to meet Saladin, their mutual respect? A treaty? His dying, his request for Balian to lead Jerusalem? The ceremonies of his burial?

13. The character of Tiberius, his role in Jerusalem, the old warrior? His hanging the Knights Templar? Strong yet mellowing? The effect of the experience and his wounds? His friendship with Balian, respect for Godfrey? Offering advice, his role in the battles, his decision to leave Jerusalem?

14. Sybil, her marriage to Guy, loveless? Her role in Jerusalem? Her experience there, of Christians, Muslims? Her taunting Baldwin, attracted towards him, the relationship? Her request that he lead? Her reaction to his refusal, her supporting Guy in his warlike attitudes? Her making the option for war? The result of his defeat, her humiliation? Balian explaining what it was to be a queen, her decision to walk with the people, tending their wounds? The return to France and a future family?

15. Guy, the typical crusader, the grant of land, his wanting power, setting up antagonism with the Saracens, using Reynald? Taunting Balian, his relationship with his wife, her final support of him? His desperate war, not having any strategy, not understanding any need for water? The trek through the desert, the battle, his death?

16. Reynald as a barbarian, provocative, the lead with the Knights Templars? The knights and their influence, trade, wealth, power? Attacking the Saracen traders? The battles, his being taken, the confrontation with Saladin, his being killed, his head on a stake?

17. The contrast with Balian, accepting his land, bringing in the water, makihg it fruitful, growth and hope, the people who worked for him? A future?

18. The battle, the actual fighting, the troops on both sides, the spectacle of war? Saladin and his role in the battle? Balian seeing him at close quarters, his life being spared?

19. The portrait of Saladin, historical perspective, as a person, Muslim, devout? His being provoked, going into battle? With Baldwin and the treaty? The mutual respect? His own advisers, hawks and doves? The final provocation, putting Jerusalem to the siege, his observations of the strategies? The final meeting with Balian, not unconditional surrender, allowing safe passage? Picking up the cross? The historical future and the encounter with Richard the Lionheart?

20. Balian, the siege of Jerusalem, his discussion with the ordinary fighters, making them knights and giving them dignity? His strategies, marking out the territory to know when to fire the arrows? The siege itself, the moving towers and their destruction, the flights of arrows, holding the gate? His ability to inspire the fighters, the deaths? His finally going to Saladin and asking for safe passage?

21. The portrait of church authorities, the bishop in Jerusalem, his being on the side of battle, his proclaiming blasphemy when he understood God’s will to be thwarted? Yet his fears, wanting to escape, even allowing people to convert nominally? A critique of ecclesiastical weaklings and villains?

22. The passage to the sea, the safe conduct, the achievement of Balian?

23. Balian, the theme of redemption, his quest for faith and hope? Taking his wife’s cross, sitting on the hill of Calvary, looking at the kingdom of God, burying the cross, feeling God’s absence? What had he gained in his quest for spirituality and meaning as he returned to France?

KISSED

Canada, 1996, 78 minutes, Colour.
Molly Parker, Peter Outerbridge, Jay Brazeau.
Directed by Lynne Stopkovitch.

Kissed is the first feature film of set designer Lynn Stopkovitch. She went on to make a number of television series and films as well as Suspicious River. The star is Molly Parker, British Colombian, who appeared also in Suspicious River, a number of Canadian films as well as such British films as Pure and Wonderland. Peter Outerbridge, her Canadian co-star, has appeared mainly on television.

Kissed has a bizarre subject, necrophilia. The film is presented frankly but generally elegantly and without too much sensation. It is a psychodrama presenting a young woman who is fascinated by the body, fascinated by death, respects bodies and works in an embalming funeral home and then is caught up in emotions for the bodies of the men she embalms. The film tries to explore the psychology of this kind of love and sexual feeling. Molly Parker appears as a rather young innocent, in her early twenties, rather introverted yet understanding the drives she experienced. She encounters a student, played by Peter Outerbridge, who falls in love with her, becomes fascinated with her experiences, ultimately killing himself in the embalming room so that he will be with her, dead.

This, of course, is not everybody’s film entertainment. Seen, however, as drama and psychodrama it is an opportunity to reflect on and feel about abnormal behaviour.

1. The impact of the film? The theme? The treatment? The performances? The point of view of the writer, the director?

2. The film as a psychodrama about necrophilia? How effective, offering insight, emotional identification – or not?

3. The Canadian setting, the town, Sandra as a little girl, her adult life, her studies, at the university, the funeral home, the embalming room, Matt’s apartment? An authentic atmosphere – giving a sense of realism? The musical score and the emotions as audience watched this psychodrama?

4. The title, its reference to Sandy, to Matt? As a summary of the psychological drive to necrophilia?

5. The voice-over, Sandra explaining her life, her speculation about death, her awareness of the body, her fascination with the dead, her psychological motivation? Her own assessment of herself, the drives, her behaviour? Her explanations to Matt, not wanting him to observe, not wanting him to intrude in her experiences?

6. The portrait of Sandra as a young girl, her friend, the burying of the dead animal, her mother’s intervention, not seeing her friend again? The traumatic effect of this break of friendship? Her relationship with her mother – and her mother glimpsed during Sandra’s adult life?

7. Her studies, her fascination with death and its meaning? Her fascination with bodies? Going to the funeral home, observing? Talking with Mr Wallis? His assistant? Her decision to study, to be an embalmer?

8. Her dealing with grieving people at the funeral home, her skills? Her skills as an embalmer?

9. Mr Wallis, his skills, explanations? The assistant and his observance of Mr Wallis? Mr Wallis and the homosexuality?

10. Sandra, alone with the bodies, watching them? The echoes of the credits sequences and the fondling the hair? Her embracing the bodies, her going further? The growing drives? Her explanations of what happened to Matt, of what happened to her?

11. Matt, the drop-out student, attracted towards Sandra, in class, talking with her, meeting her afterwards, the dates, the discussions, going to his apartment, the affair?

12. His fascination, wanting to know more, wanting to observe? The film exploring his own psychology, his obsession, prurient curiosity? The climax of his stripping, putting the noose around his neck, the final speech and plea to Sandra, his killing himself?

13. The aftermath, Mr Wallis, treating the body, Sandra left alone?

14. Sandra’s future, her ability to live a sane life, keep her obsession in its place, the effect of Matt’s death?

THE JACKET

US/UK, 2004, 103 minutes, Colour.
Adrienne Brody, Keira Knightly, Kris Kristofferson, Jennifer Jason Lee, Kelly Lynch, Brad Renfro, Daniel Craig, Steven Mackintosh.
Directed by John Maybury.

Director John Maybury declared that he was very pleased that it was difficult to slot The Jacket in any genre label. He is quite right. It is one of those multi-layered films that almost defies clear description.

The Jacket’s prologue opens during the Gulf War with a graphic visual and sound collage of bombing and combats and concludes with the point blank death of the hero of the film. He tells us that this was the first time that he died. With the war over, action goes ahead a year where the recovered Jack Starks (Adrien Brody, Oscar-winner for The Pianist) is hitching on the road. He encounters a young girl, her drug-raddled mother and a broken down car. He is then picked up by a friendly driver but stopped by the highway patrol. The next thing he is being accused of murder and confined to an institution for the criminally insane. This adds road film and murder mystery to the war genre.

The institution is one of those terrible places, a modern Bedlam, some Shock Corridor stuff, with Kris Kristofferson as a doctor experimenting with drugs and confinement in a morgue body shelf-container as a means for recovering memory. What happens inside the box, especially when strapped into the jacket, takes us from science and medical drama to time travel and 2007. And, if that sounds intriguing, then the film is recommended.

One of the difficulties for time travel and changing the future or the past is the lack of logic inherent in these scenarios. Different time and timeless dimensions may be all right. But, the future changing the past? (Think films like Frequency.) What makes it somewhat more plausible is speculating on whether the events are actually happening to Jack or are the kind of events he would like to happen.

While the harassed Jack might be vent on vengeance, the film changes genre yet again and moves towards more benign themes, Jack as a kind of guardian angel, protecting the mother and daughter, especially the daughter (Keira Knightly) whom he meets in 2007.

John Maybury has worked as an artist and production designer. He gets ample opportunity to create moving images of contemporary graphic art, especially for the introduction of Jack’s memory recovery. (Maybury also directed the portrait-study of painter, Francis Bacon, in 1998 with Derek Jacobi.)

The cast is persuasive, Brody not being a conventional looking hero which makes his performance stronger and more ambiguous. Kris Kristofferson, more grizzled than ever, is quite sinister. Jennifer Jason Leigh is his opponent in the institution and Jack’s helper. Daniel Craig has a lively cameo as one of the inmates.

So, difficult to describe, but easy to recommend to audiences who like intelligent and visually arresting drama.

1. The impact of this drama? Its originality? Its combining various genres and traditions?

2. The work of John Maybury – as an artist, set designer? Film director? An English director working on an American theme?

3. The cast, the combination of American and British actors?

4. The opening with Iraq, 1991 (and echoes of the Iraq war later)? The collage of film footage, CNN, night vision and green scenes, bombings, soldiers’ brutality, Iraqi prisoners? The American soldiers? Jack, as a fighter, his trust, meeting the boy, his being shot at point-blank range? The war and its impact?

5. The death, his comment about the first time he died? The medics and their reaction, his survival? The year passing? No family, his wandering the roads, no prospects? No background? Amnesia? Was he really dead or not?

6. The encounter with Jackie and her mother, her mother’s violent reaction, the drugs, the broken-down car, the friendship with Jackie, his starting the car? The mother’s anger and driving off? His being picked up on the road as a hitchhiker, the young man, the police following – waking with no memory? The gradual memories coming back and the young man shooting the policeman?

7. In court, the witnesses and testimony, his being found insane, going to Alpine Grove?

8. Life in Alpine Grove, the range of inmates, the therapy sessions (especially when Jack was wanting to provoke the group and they responded in chaos and he was sent back to the Jacket)? Dr Becker, Kris Kristofferson and his appearance, manner? The drugs, the tough treatment, Jack being manhandled, brought downstairs, put in the coffin-like situation, the morgue drawer? The effect on Jack? The sudden glimpses, the visual presentation of his regaining memory? The aftermath of the experience, his physical attack on Dr Becker and injuring his face? His watching TV? The discussions with Dr Lorenson, the discussions with Mackenzie?

9. The different photographic style for 2007, bright colour, naturalistic? The Christmas Eve setting? The meeting with Jackie, finding himself on the snow, nowhere to go? Her giving him a lift, taking him home, preparing something to eat, her fridge? Her talk, having a bath, her fears? Seeing his own dog-tags and remembering he gave them to the little Jackie as a gift? Her fears? Jack and his learning about his death? His return to the drawer? His return visits to 2007, the change in Jackie, a growing bond, her belief in him, finding out about Dr Becker, Dr Lorenson? Giving him the information? Their going to Alpine Grove and interviewing Dr Lorenson, the change in her after fifteen years? Finding out where Dr Becker was, his coming out of church, Jack’s confrontation, hearing the names of the other men that he had treated – and their deaths? His haunting Dr Becker? The puzzle about his own death, the date, the headstone in the cemetery, his wanting to find out how he died?

10. His visit to Jean, seeing the young Jackie again, the letter he had written to her, her reading it, her watching him out the window – Jackie’s story about her mother burning to death because of the cigarette? Her extinguishing the cigarette? The possibility of a change of life?

11. The relationship between Jack and Jackie, sexual, his needs? His return visits? His slipping in the ice, his death? The recurrence of his being shot in the war – the two deaths coinciding? The visits to the cemetery?

12. The visit to Jackie, her not recognising him, her being a nurse, rather than a waitress? On the phone with her mother?

13. The story of Dr Lorenson and her friend, the little boy, the therapy, Jack giving her the information about what she did, the experimentation, its success?

14. The movement from a war story, to a road story, to a murder mystery, to a medical and therapy story, to time travel, to the guardian angel travelling in time to change people’s lives for the better? Jack as a ghost, an angel?

15. The credibility and plausibility of the plot? The life that Jack might have lived? A kind of purgatory story? A haunting, a guardian story?

MONSTER-IN-LAW

US, 2005, 105 minutes, Colour.
Jennifer Lopez, Jane Fonda, Michael Vartan, Wanda Sykes, Adam Scott.
Directed by Robert Luketic.

It comes as a profound shock (at least to some of us) that Jane Fonda has not been on the big screen since the moving Stanley and Iris in the early 1990s. This is a film that accentuates the age divide. Will you see it for Jennifer Lopez, JLo, or for Jane Fonda? This review reveals which side of this barrier, this reviewer opts for.

Jane Fonda. She obviously enjoys her return to the screen as a possessive mother who assumes her son will not be happy with the woman he is obviously (not to her) in love with. She plays a TV talk show host who is unceremoniously fired and loses it on camera while interviewing a Brittney Spears clone. Just when she is ready to come home from an institution after a breakdown, her son brings his girlfriend and, in front of her, proposes. What else to do but wreck the engagement: over-organise the ceremony, try to make her feel out of place, feign breakdown, move in with her prospective daughter-in-law and torment her, even aggravate her nut allergy, until she wants out? Jane Fonda even has the chance for slapstick and a punch-up with Jennifer.

Fonda’s assistant is played by Wanda Sykes, a genial stand-up comic who makes wry observations all the way through. Jennifer Lopez is pleasant, rather subdued for much of the film but, once the tables turn…

Michael Vartan, tall, stubbled and handsome, plays it nice. In fact, it is all pretty nice – a bit like icing with a scattering of peppercorns in it. When Elaine Stritch turns up for the wedding as Fonda’s mother-in-law, she brings some welcome acerbity to the dialogue.

This is a light, Saturday night comedy-romance, a film for a nice date.

1. An entertaining light comedy? Romance? Slapstick, spoof? Verbal comedy, visual comedy?

2. The Californian settings, a Californian story? Affluence – even those who are not rich? The comfortable life, houses, mansions, the beach, the television studios, restaurants? Credible as reality, for an American fairy tale? The musical score – and the songs, especially during the credits at the end?

3. The title and mother-in-law jokes?

4. Charlie, Jennifer Lopez’s screen presence? Her hopes, the horoscope, at work at the doctor’s reception, her friendship with Morgan and Remy, talking, sharing the apartment with Remy? Working with the catering? Taking the dogs for walks, seeing Kevin on the beach, her reaction, the encounter with him at the shop, her shyness, at the party and listening in, Fiona telling her that Kevin was gay? Listening to his phone call and her not ringing back, encountering him on the beach, their going out together, her falling in love? The possibilities for her future?

5. The introduction of Viola Fields? Audience expectations of Jane Fonda, in her mid-60s? Ruby as her assistant? Her being the tall domineering type? Her being fired, her saving face, her interviewing the young singer with her fatuous answers, her physical attack? The breakdown? At the rehabilitation centre, leaving? The set-up for the intrusion into the lives of Charlie and Kevin?

6. Ruby, her assistant, at work, saving the day, picking her up from the centre, helping her, conniving with her – or not? The stand-up comedienne and her wry comments? Her admiration for Charlie?

7. The meeting between Charlie and Viola? The meal, the talk, Viola behaving herself? Kevin and his listening to the two women talk and get to know each other? The sudden proposal? Viola imagining pushing Charlie’s face in the cake? - and the later irony with Viola’s face in the tripe? Viola’s character, trying to cope, drinks, presuming that her son would not be happy with Charlie, taking on a project? The party and her turban, the dress for Charlie, wanting her to feel out of place? The meals, her intense planning and Charlie’s reaction, her fainting fit? The false doctor, the treatment? Moving in with Charlie, weeping during the night, ordering her to get water with ice, talking while the TV was on? Her going shopping with Ruby? The tables turning, Charlie wanting her to wear a dress as matron of honour? Giving her the true pills, offering her the tripe, Viola passing out? The meal – and Viola putting the nuts in the gravy? A portrait of a monster mother-in-law?

8. Charlie, coping, her love for Kevin, the planning of the wedding, going to the party, tearing the dress, wanting to go home? The interactions with Fiona, Fiona telling her that Kevin was gay, seeing him kissing Fiona before the party? At home, talking with Morgan and Remy – yet telling them not to be charmed by Viola – which they were? The dogs attacking Viola, getting the true pills, the tripe, inviting the false doctor to the dinner? As well as Fiona coming? Her allergic reaction to the nuts?

9. Kevin, pleasant, jogging on the beach, meeting Charlie in the shop, his party, the discussion, the phone call, going out, sharing, proposing, listening to the two women? His doctor friend and his advice? His love for his mother, putting up with her? His consoling Charlie after the allergy effect?

10. Elaine Stritch and her arrival as the grandmother, monster-in-law? Her barbs, the truth about Viola, taunting Viola? The effect on Viola?

11. Charlie, feeling she should call the wedding off, Kevin and his response?

12. Viola stopping her, the discussion, contract between the two women that they would work out a way of dealing with each other, with the grandchildren?

13. The wedding and the happy ending? A piece of entertainment fluff?

PRIVATE

Italy, 2004, 90 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Saverio Costanzo.

Tough going for a tough theme.

Private is a cinema-verite, handheld camera, naturally-lit (often dark) picture of a family virtually imprisoned (completely each night) in their own home. We share the claustrophobic tension, the deprivations that the family experience, the constant fear and the perpetual humiliation that lead to clashes in the family, the father taking a defiant pacifist stance, some of the children wanting to be aggressive.

Saverio Costanzo’s narrative is based on an actual family.

The important factor, of course, is where the family lives: they are a Palestinian family. Without warning, a squad of Israeli soldiers take over the house in a brutal manner and with no explanation. They take over the upstairs, threatening the family against coming up to their own rooms. The family is herded into the one room each night. The door is locked each evening and opened each morning. The greenhouse in their yard is pulled down. They build it again.

The father is a teacher, a literate man, who will not move from his house, who obeys the orders because he believes violence and aggression are truly cowardly and he defies the military authority with his human dignity. His wife becomes desperate. He has five children who react very differently, especially the oldest girl who wants to fight back but who, instead, creeps upstairs and watches the Israeli soldiers through a crack in a wardrobe and learns to admire her father.

The cast is both Palestinian and Israeli (some prominent actors from both communities). By focussing solely on the plight of the family, presuming that audiences knows the relationship between Israel and Palestine, the film makes us identify with the family rather than with the soldiers and abhor this kind of oppression. (The film was made in southern Italy standing in for Palestine.)

1. The dramatic impact of the film? Thematic impact? Hard facts, hard stories? Human rights?

2. The style of the film, the hand-held camera, naturalistic style, light and darkness, grainy film? Authentic atmosphere?

3. The editing, the long takes, the pace? The effect of the experience of the family on the audience?

4. The title, the focus on the family, the house? Not seeing the wider story of the clash between Israel and Palestine?

5. The family setting, their lifestyle, the house, the parent, the father and his teaching background, English Literature? The wife, the five children? The age range of the children?

6. The sudden eruption of the soldiers into their house, in the dark, the shots, the soldiers and their brutality, no explanation, occupying the house, confining the family, forbidding them to go upstairs to their rooms, the threats, locking them in, the night and the family all together in the one room?

7. The way of life during the occupation of the house, being able to go out during the day, the car, going to school, building the greenhouse? At night, the meal, homework, their being herded in, locked in? The difficulties of sleeping, the soldiers’ noise, the little girl wanting to go to the toilet…?

8. The soldiers themselves, young Israelis, their training, attitude towards the Palestinians? Shooting, the noise? Settling in? Friendships, arguments, Ofer as harsh leader? The soldier playing the flute and his being forbidden? Their watching the football on TV? The soldiers and their interactions as glimpsed by Maryam through the cupboard crack? Their characters, the threats to the family, the commander putting the gun to the head of the father? Then suddenly gone? A new group coming in?

9. The father, his strength of character, his philosophy, as regards the Israelis? Strong stances? The emotional mother? The youngest children, Nada being locked out, her father holding the flame to the keyhole? Maryam and her aggression? Youssef and his homework, his father considering him lazy? Lying and watching the television? Wanting to move to a friend’s house? The younger son and his finding the grenade, setting it up in the greenhouse, the possibility of his father being killed by it? The young boy, going upstairs, following his sister?

10. The detail of family life, through the hours of the day, the night? Their ability to cope, the consequences? The difficulties and dissensions?

11. The father, his more pacifist stand, his saying that violence was a way of cowardice? His decisions, forcing his orders? On his wife, the children and their schooling and studies, the youngest children? His being held at gunpoint? His stance being vindicated? His human dignity and pride? His wife, and her having to submit to her husband?

12. Maryam, her aggression, going upstairs, spying, her change of attitude, dealing with her little brother? Admiration for her father?

13. The experience of repression, humiliation, the lasting effects? Freedom and liberty?

14. The fact that this was made with Israeli and Palestinian cast working together? Based on a true story? The Italian writer-director’s perspective?

MACHUCA

Chile, 2004, 117 minutes, Colour.
Matias Cuer, Ariel Mateluna, Manuela Martelli.
Directed by Andres Wood.

A film well worthwhile catching.

English-speaking audiences do not have access to many films from Chile. Movie knowledge of Chile might come, especially for the Allende period and the subsequent takeover by the military and General Pinochet in 1973, from Costa Gavras’ Missing (1982) or Ken Loach’s segment in 11-9-2001, reminding audiences that the 1973 coup took place on September 11th.

Here is the real thing. Andres Wood, a Chilean writer-director, some years younger than the children he creates for the film, offers Chileans and the world an opportunity to reflect on the events of the 1970s. Affectingly acted, especially by the three central children, realistically and credibly dramatised, it recreates Chilean society and political tensions at the end of the Allende era. Protests are held against the Communists. In other parts of the city, there are pro-Allende demonstrations. Children still go to school. The poor remain impoverished and marginalised. The rich carry on oblivious.

The takeover by Pinochet occurs off screen with only a speech seen on television. However, the change comes home strongly as the newly-empowered military attack alleged communists, women and children, in the shantytowns.

However, the bulk of the film is about three youngsters, one rich, two poor, growing up, observing the adults, becoming friends – but with final tragedy and betrayals. Machuca (the name of the poor boy) is worth seeing for this portrait of schooldays alone: classes, bullying in the yard, afterschool selling flags at (both) demonstrations, visiting each other’s homes, kissing by the river, defending and hurting each other.

Machuca received the SIGNIS award at the Havana Film Festival, 2004, for its fresh look at Chilean history in the 70s, for its portrayal of human values of growth and friendship. Given the exceedingly bad press that Catholic priests have received in recent years because of abuse, it is something of a relief to see the priests who run the private school branded as ‘Reds’ because they want to mix poor students with the rich and advocate social justice as well as standards of behaviour. In fact, the film is dedicated to Fr Gerardo Whelan who was the rector of the actual St Patrick’s College from 1969-1973

1. A film designed for Chilean audiences, for world audiences? The director and his work, his point of view, Chilean background, American training? His films?

2. The 70s, turmoil in Latin America, Marxism, capitalism, clashes, the Hispanic heritage, the military rule? Violence and consequences?

3. Allende and his three years, the glimpse of the visit to Russia? The capitalist rebellion, the US backing, the coup, General Pinochet? The demonstrations? The language of each party, the gulfs between them?

4. The re-creation of the 70s, the world of the rich, the poor? The city, school, homes, roads, graffiti, the river? The musical score, songs?

5. The film dedicated to Father Whelan? St Patrick’s College, Father Mc Enroe and the staff? The lay staff? The role of the Catholic private school, the tradition for the wealthy? The new policy, introducing the poor boys, mixing them, even in the classroom? Father Mc Enroe as a character, his appearance, beard, dress? Speaking in Spanish and English? With the boys, the talks in the classroom, the discipline for the hooliganism, the exercise and the races? The priests being called Red? The takeover by the military? Father Mc Enroe going into the chapel, consuming the Blessed Sacrament, saying that this was no longer a holy place? Machuca and his leading the boys and staff in saying goodbye? Father Mc Enroe as the conscience of the film?

6. The portrait of Gonsalo, his point of view, getting dressed, audience suspicious about his mother on the bed, his place in the family, sister, father, going to school, quiet, the new boys introduced, the classes? In the yard, the confrontation with Machuca, his being urged to hit him, refusing? The taunts of the boys, “faggot” etc? His mother and her relationship with Roberto, making him complicit, the books on the Lone Ranger? At home, with his father, sister and her boyfriend? His friendship with Machuca, going to his house, the meeting of the girl? Her taunts? Taking the lift, selling the flags – and both political demonstrations? The growth in friendship? Her calling him a snob? Their talking together, helping at school, Gonsalo helping Peter with his work? The party at his house, the drinking? Their overhearing the mother’s and father’s quarrel? The change, the taunts? The drinking of the condensed milk – and the kisses? The demonstration and his mother’s behaviour, especially towards the girl? His being ashamed, running away? The clashes with Peter? Their fight, the boys in front of Father Mc Enroe? The coup, his visiting the poor area, seeing the soldiers, denying that he belonged there, bicycling away? Back to his ordinary life, wealth, school? His ruining the exam page of the bully? His future?

7. Peter Machuca and the other boys, servants, going to class, the taunts, Machuca having to shout his name? Tough? His giving the lift to Gonsalo, the selling of the flags, the girl, their all becoming friends? The test and Gonsalo’s help? At his place, going to Gonsalo’s sister’s party? Each respecting the other, the night over, the Lone Ranger books, overhearing the quarrel? The growth in friendship and the being together, the kissing of the girl? The changes, the demonstration, his seeing Gonsalo’s mother attack the girl? The change, disappointment, confrontation, looking at Gonsalo as he denied him?

8. The girl, not going to school, her taunts of Gonsalo as a snob, flaunting herself, flirting, talk, the condensed milk, the kisses of both? Demonstrating, her life at home? The conversations with Gonsalo about the future? Their both saying they wanted to be priests – and the discussion about not marrying? Her final demonstration in the protests, the attack by the women, her spitting, Gonsalo’s mother? The soldiers attacking – her insulting them, her being shot?

9. Gonsalo’s family, his mother and her relationship with Roberto, Roberto’s Argentinian background, his family? Gonsalo being made to be part of the affair? The contrast with home, the father and his working for the FAO, going to Rome, the possibility of migrating? His sister, her boyfriend? The demonstrations, Gonsalo’s mother and her rabid attitude? Her sister’s boyfriend and his uniform, the Fascist touch? The father packing, Gonsalo’s love for his father? The party, his coming home after the shooting, being waited on by the servant?

10. The picture of the poor, the mother with the baby, the father and his brutality, drinking? His speech about Gonsalo and his future, the contrast with Peter always cleaning toilets? The soldiers’ attack?

11. The takeover of the school, the military, the ousting of the priests, the assembly in the chapel, classes? Gonsalo and the last test? The teacher and her being in support of the priests and of Gonsalo?

12. Seeing General Pinochet, the change for the poor, the comfort of the rich, the military dictatorship, the effect on Chile – as seen in the retrospect of the 21st century?

CHROMOPHOBIA

UK, 2005, 133 minutes, Colour.
Kristen Scott Thomas, Damien Lewis, Penelope Cruz, Rhys Ifans, Ben Chaplin, Ralph Fiennes, Ian Holm, Harriet Walter.
Directed by Martha Fiennes.

Chromophobia is not a word that falls trippingly from the tongue. It actually refers to an art work, a plasma screen piece that reflects colours according to different stimuli. But, maybe that is a red herring.

The film is really a contemporary drama where we are introduced to a range of characters who, we know, will eventually all be connected. This works quite well and offers the audience plenty to think about.

Performances are very strong and each cast member is given a substantial amount of screen time. The general setting is the affluent business world with political and newspaper connections. There is a sub-plot which concerns a Spanish migrant, her young daughter and a social worker.

Whether it is the screenplay or whether it is the strong presence of Kristin Scott Thomas, the centre of attention is most frequently on Iona, a modern neurotic wife and mother, who is into every fad and movement that one could think of. It is she who buys the Chromophobia piece – which seems more important to her than her emotionally neglected and clever son). Her husband is a hotshot business adviser (Damian Lewis) who is promoted by his boss (Anthony Higgins) and asked to look after the extensive portfolio of a wealthy Labor party peer and minister, a blind trust which covers financial and political corruption.

His father is a High Court Judge (Ian Holm) who has his own secrets. His university days’ friend (Ben Chaplin) is an ecological journalist who is invited to a deer hunt but has his own ambitious pursuit of double dealings going on.

The sub-plot stars Penelope Cruz as the terminally ill prostitute mother and a very sympathetic Rhys Ifans is a social worker.

Rounding out the central characters is the young boy’s godfather (Ralph Fiennes), an art auctioneer who has his own sexual problems and is the victim of violence.

Put that all together in a very British way, sometimes laconic (even when characters are desperate), sometimes frenetic (especially when the press scents blood) but generally very civilised by both the pretentious and unpretentious alike.

Martha Fiennes had previously directed Onegin. She has taken on quite a task here – and has made it both interesting and entertaining.

1. The title of the film, the art piece, its colours, its changing according to fears and reactions? Symbol for the people in the film?

2. The film as an ensemble story, interwoven stories, interconnectedness, the cast?

3. The focus on London and the countryside, the house, Gloria’s apartment? The contrast with the capital city, offices, art galleries? The world of therapies? The musical score?

4. The focus, character-driven piece, plot-driven, subplots? The effect of their combination?

5. The opening, Orlando and his looking at the magazine, the breasts, giving a tone to the film? The later picture of Orlando, his age, his relationship with his parents, his being neglected, his being smothered at times by his mother, meals and occupation, study and reading, his being looked after by Janet? The family asking Janet about him? His friendship with Stephen, outings with him, dancing, removing his shirt, being videoed? The effect on him – or not? His being interrogated by Iona and her severe attitude, apologies? The reaction of his father? Going to the hospital, his love for Stephen, kissing him? His future with this kind of background?

6. Iona, wealthy, the brittleness of her marriage? Her attitude towards sexuality, her breasts, wanting to get implants – and the film’s filling in in great detail the background for this kind of implantation, its effect, procedures? Her wanting different kinds of therapies, her feeling that she had residual bulimia, her parenting skills, autogenic self-hypnosis, post-menstrual stress, her work, her preoccupation about low self-esteem, listening to tapes, addictive behaviour? Her wanting to find herself? The range of her activities, self-preoccupation? Phone calls to her husband, the discussions with Sarita, her clashes with her and dislike of her? The visits? Her compulsive buying? Meals? The friendship with Stephen? The breast tests and her looking at herself? The video and her interrogation of Orlando? The news of Stephen being assaulted? The visits to the in-laws, their attitude towards her, her being at home there? The tensions with her husband, his preoccupation with his work? Hearing the news, hugging Orlando? Going to the station to meet her husband, her strong stance, having a cause to support him, love for him?

7. Marcus, at work, his dependence on Sarita, lazy, listening to the music, going to the meal with the boss, his being offered a partnership? His being asked to look after the Kilally account? At home, reading Andy McNab? action novel, his offhand attitude towards sex, vague in the house? The meeting with Trent, the meal, the memories? Going to visit his father, his relationship with his father, mother? The squash game, its effect, his drinking, indiscreet talking, Trent taping him? His going to the country, the issue of the deer and the shooting (as a symbol for what was happening to him)? His realisation of the truth, his desperate phone calls, wanting to cover the truth? The expose, the reporters, television – and Iona meeting him at the station?

8. Trent, his work as a journalist, his life, Bushy and the heads of departments, editing his work, his presumptions about his talent? His being rude to the girl on the telephone – and the later repercussions in her ignoring him? Life, ecology? Not so much interested in the arts? The meeting with Marcus, the memories, the visits, hearing the news after the squash game, feeling it was a scoop, the details of his research, Fat Boy? The article, Bushy and the editors? The phone call after the deer-shooting incident, his change of mind, the girl on the phone and her ignoring him? His becoming the hunter, his apologising to Marcus? His drinking, the screen – his future?

9. Sir Edward and his wife, prominent in the past, the judge, the country home, the estate, hunting? Pleasant, the separate rooms, separate lives? His wife and her being at home in the garden? His going to London, the irony of his relationship with Gloria and its revelation? The irony that he was the father of the child? Financial support? Marcus and his phone call in desperation, his father’s deliberations, hesitance, not being able to give any help? The truth about his having the daughter? Colin’s visit? His setting up the trust for the girl? His wife continuing to work in the garden, the encounter with Colin? Sir Edward and his re-reading War and Peace, his wife and her looking after the little girl?

10. Colin, his job, formerly in the police, the different cases, social work? The interviews, Gloria’s case, going to the suburb, the dingy street, going to the house, helping Gloria, attracted to her? Her reactions against him? Her calling him Superman? His grief, his attempts to help, cooking, the tablets and getting rid of them? Her illness, the truth, being too late? His getting the room, helping Maria? The pathos of Gloria’s death – after the dance? The aftermath, his knowing that he could not get custody, visiting Sir Edward, the setting up of the trust, Sir Edward’s trust in him? A portrait of a good man, struggling, not being able to fulfil all his hopes? His capacity for care and love?

11. Gloria, the migrant in London, her being a prostitute? Her clothes, the colour red? Seeing her in church, lighting candles? Her daughter, love for her daughter and care for her? Colin’s first visit, her angers? Her illness, not wanting to be hospitalised? Depending on Colin yet taunting him? His getting the room and her being comfortable? The revelation of her relationship with Sir Edward? The photo? The final dance with Colin? Her being supported in her death?

12. The background world of modern life, the wealthy, therapies, instructors – and Iona with her coach?

13. The world of newspapers, reporters, editors, decision-making?

14. The political background, the boss of the firm, Wharton? Kilally, the Labour Party, the financial interests, the House of Lords, the list, doing business and selling shares – though not officially? The unmasking of corruption?

15. The background story of Stephen, his work with Rembrandt, his being Orlando’s godfather, with Iona? The visits? His class, the kids, the boys outside and their drinking, his befriending them, taking them home, explaining the art? The pathos of their coming back and bashing him, robbing him? His relationship with Orlando, the video, Orlando taking off his shirt? Having the film on his computer? The effect on Iona and Marcus? His being in a coma? Iona and Orlando visiting him, his coming to consciousness, the kiss?

16. Issues of finance, truth, justice, compassion?

17. The theme of colours, the presentation of different colours for different characters? The role of music, the classics? The combination of all these thematic and visual and aural elements?

CINEMA, ASPIRINIS, VAUTORES (CINEMAS, ASPIRINS AND VULTURES)

Brazil, 2005, 99 minutes, Colour.
Peter Ketnath, Joao Miguel, Hermila Guedes.
Directed by Marcelo Gomes.

A small film based on the stories of the central Brazilian character, Ranulpho Gomes. The setting is 1942 in the drought-stricken outback of Brazil’s northeast.

A young German who left his fatherland to avoid war travels the countryside selling the newly developed aspirin, showing film commercials in town squares to eager viewers and buyers. He gives lifts to people along the way, especially Ranulpho who wants to get to Rio for a new life but who works as Johann’s assistant, sharing stories, friendship and minor adventures. These are interesting, sometimes comic and take audiences to an unfamiliar terrain.

Radio reports Nazi submarine activity against Brazilian ships and by August, Brazil declares war on Germany and its allies. Johann and Ranulpho have to make decisions as to what they will do. Johann goes with transit workers to the rubber plantations of the Amazon. Ranulpho heads for Rio.

Audiences who encounter this film will not be sorry if they see it.

1. A small entertaining film? Interest in theme? Characters?

2. Brazil, the north-east, the drought, the outback? Isolated, the roads, the towns, trucks, trains?

3. The 1942 setting, Germany and World War Two, Brazil not yet entering into the war, the submarines attacking Brazilian ships? The final entry into the war?

4. The atmosphere, the cinema style, the bleached colour, the naturalistic photography? The musical score?

5. The film as a road movie, the succession of episodes, the truck, the characters, interactions?

6. The title, the focus on movies, people’s response to the outdoor movies? The impact of movies – especially for advertising? Aspirin, its development, sales? In remote areas?

7. Johann and his driving, alone, his having travelled the world, on the boat, settling in Brazil? Leaving Germany because of the troubles in the 30s? His job, the films, sales? As a person?

8. Picking up people, the young girl, the older woman? The effect of people on him?

9. Ranulfo, his type, his range of stories, talk, play, his staying with Johann, paying his way? Helping with the screenings? Saving Johann when he was bitten by the snake?

10. The screenings, the impact on people, their response?

11. The men in the town, buying, the meal? Sexual encounters?

12. Each character and his understanding of the other, the basis for the friendship?

13. The radio, music, news, information about the war?

14. Johann, his documents, getting rid of them, being an anonymous person in Brazil, the decision to go to the Amazon? Hiding at the railway station, getting on the train, leaving the keys of the car to Ranulpho? His future?

15. Ranulfo, his never having been to Rio, his helping, his getting the truck – and setting out for a new life?

16. An example of small-budget Brazilian film-making and its impact?

THREE TIMES

Taiwan, 2005, 120 minutes, Colour.
Shu Qi, Chang Chen.
Directed by Hou Hsiao- Hsien.

The title does not mean ‘thrice’. Rather, it refers to three different times: 1966, 1911, 2005. They are
A time for love, a time for freedom, a time for youth.

Director, Hou Hsaio Hsien, has used vastly different cinematic styles in his film-making, from the extreme minimalism of a camera moving slowly backwards and forwards in Flowers of Shanghai to a more roller-coaster pace with Milennium Mambo. Here he is able to show his great flair by telling thee stories and using both the slow and the fast styles – and a more gentle in-between.

Three Times is a tour-de-force of styles. It also shows the versatility of his actor and actress who play the central roles in the three stories.

The first is 1966 and comes from the director’s own memories of pool halls in Taiwan, records playing like Smoke Gets in Your Eyes and Rain and Tears. While there may be just too many and too long shots of pool games, this story is one of gentleness, falling in love, discretion and wholesomeness. It is an idyllic look at the period. A young man meets a hostess at a quiet pool club, goes to his military service, writes to her but finds that when he goes on leave, she has left. He looks for her. That’s about it – but nicely done.

The shift to 1911 goes to the minimalist extreme. However, the director reminds us that this was the silent film era and so the film is shot with barely a movement of camera, all action within frame and captions instead of dialogue. The musical score creates the atmosphere. However, the décor and costumes are of the exquisite style, all interiors. While the background is revolution and uprising against the Japanese in Taiwan, all the action is off screen. On screen concentrates on the etiquette of the household and the generous gesture of the journalist who pays the bridal requirements to save a young woman from being a concubine. This is sumptuous visual artistry.

It is a rude, very rude, shock to be suddenly propelled into a very unattractive 2005. Taipei is large, full of traffic, an anonymous city. The protagonists ride motor bikes, use computers and internet, work with digital photography, rely on mobiles and texting. Their jaded looks contrast with the freshness and vitality of 1966. There is not much of a plot: sex, tangled relationships between two girls, epileptic fits and blindness, gigs in clubs and more bikes. It is all presented in a visual style that resonates with MTV audiences but it reminds us of contemporary chaos compared with past genteel times and orderly times. The present is not very engaging.

1. The work of the director, his career, the variety of styles of film-making, themes? This film combining all his techniques and styles?

2. Taiwan, the setting, its history, the Japanese occupation, post-World War Two, the present – and its busyness and ugliness?

3. The performances of the actors, the diversity of their three different roles?

4. The different styles, cinema styles, their effect?

5. The 60s story first, a romance, the wholesome atmosphere, the plain style of storytelling, the setting of the pool hall, the young man’s travels, the road signs, the water, the boats, the homes? The different pool halls? The songs, especially ‘Smoke Gets in Your Eyes’, ‘Rain and Tears’?

6. The man, playing, going for his military service? The girl, her letters? The man’s return, search for the girl, happy together? The girl, nice, wanting to be on the move? The pool halls, their style, the players, the hostesses? The girl’s mother? An idyllic romantic story?

7. The transition to 1911, the atmosphere of the period, the décor and interiors, the costumes, the lavish décor and its enclosed atmosphere? tradition, ritual, etiquette? The colour photography, the fixed camera? The action within the frame? The musical score, the range of songs? Using the techniques of silent films? The captions?

8. The portrait of the family, the woman as central, her place as a servant? The master, his involvement in causes, his talk with the servant? The mistress of the family? The family members?

9. The issue of Spring, her place in society, to be a concubine? The writer, his principles, the money, helping? The celebration of the happy marriage?

10. The background of an uprising, the occupation of Japan, national hopes? The political action off-screen?

11. Moving into 2005, the sense of movement, the modern cities, the highways, overpasses, tunnels, bikes and roads? A world of computers and mobile phones, of texting? Young man and women in this context, the contrast with a hundred years earlier? Their experience, knowing, jaded looks? The young man, his care, the relationship with the girl, sex, work? The girl, her fits? Sexual encounters, casual, loving? Her lesbian friend and her insistence on the relationship? The girl not answering, the tensions? Singing in the club? With the man? The end of the story – to what purpose?

12. The impact over all of the film as a cinematic tour-de-force? Insights into human nature, into China?