THE KINGDOM OF HEAVEN

5th May, 2005

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.

Jesus includes a beatitude praising peacemakers. The letter to the Ephesians, chapter 2, takes a Christian perspective on peace and unity, on reconciliation. It suggests a spirituality of peace. Jesus is our peace. He suffered and died but he still preaches peace to all, ‘to those who far off and to those who were near’.

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 Heaven) 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.

CONSPIRACY OF SILENCE

May 31st 2003

Conspiracy of Silence takes up the contemporary theme of celibacy of the Catholic clergy. It screened in the market at Cannes and has been invited to several festivals during 2003, including Taormina, Galway and Montreal.

Writer-director, John Deery, grew up in an Irish Catholic family, briefly considered becoming a priest and is still a practising Catholic. He has said that his film was not the result of immediate personal experience, nor from involvement in debates about the status of celibacy for the clergy, nor from scandals that have beset the Church, especially in Ireland, during the last decade. Rather, during the mid-90s, he said that he was reflecting on the Church at the end of the second millennium and where challenges to its relevance lay. It seemed to him that the celibacy question posed such a challenge, especially with the departure of so many priests from active ministry, the decision of so many to marry, and then the small numbers of men entering the seminaries in Western countries. How would the Church cope with fewer priests? Catholic papers in the United Kingdom featured reports recently of an Australian archbishop, making a plea for young men to come forward to be priests so that the sacraments could continue to be administered. He declared that, failing this, the Church would 'topple over' and be destroyed.

John Deery intends Conspiracy of Silence to stimulate and contribute to the debate about celibacy not being required for priesthood. The screenplay cites the history of the rule and its introduction at the beginning of the second millennium. For many Catholics, this discussion is not new. However, Pope John Paul II has reaffirmed the requirement of the vow for priests. It is current practice and is supported widely around the world. On the other hand, at the Second Vatican Council, many bishops asked for the rule to be changed so that they would have more priests available for ministry, married priests, especially in the developing world. Other bishops noted that the discipline was not observed by a significant number of priests, difficulties being highlighted in Latin America, the Philippines and Africa. However, the Council and Pope Paul VI decided against changing the law.

For some 'Catholics in the Pew', this discussion may not be familiar and could be surprising given the present practice that they are familiar with. For non-Catholic audiences, especially Christian audiences from Churches which do have married clergy, the discussion may not seem relevant except for its importance for Catholics.

John Deery has decided not to write a book, not to examine statistics, not to venture into sociological or psychological explanations, but rather to dramatise the issue in a contemporary Irish situation. His screenplay is based on research and he used Catholic technical advisers. Most Catholics will recognise dialogue, characters and many situations as authentic. They will recongnise the dilemmas of those in good faith concerning celibacy and the misconduct of some of the clergy (both sexually and in the abusive exercise of power) which have become the frequent material for headlines and media coverage and are now all too familiar.

At 87 minutes, the film is modest in scope. While celibacy is the main issue, the screenplay also raises questions of clergy in homosexual relationships, HIV infection and the tragic suicides of clergy who cannot face their situations. With a strong Irish cast, including Brenda Fricker and John Lynch and actual well-known talk-show host, Gai Byrne, the film works on the emotions first and then uses this emotional response as a basis for debating the issues.

Because the legislation is reversible, because Catholics priests of Eastern rites are able to be married and because converts from Anglicanism have been ordained as married priests, the topic is open to discussion. Were the discipline to be changed, it would make clearer the place of priest members of religious orders who take a vow of chastity and develop a particular spirituality to sustain them in their commitment.

Clearly, media interests and those in position to foster controversy, will highlight the film and its issues. It would be a pity if it were sensationalised rather than being seen as a drama and debated fruitfully.

MOONFLEET

US, 1955, 87 minutes, Colour.
Steward Granger, George Sanders, Joan Greenwood, Viveca Lindfors, Jon Whitely, Liliane Montevecchi, Melfor Cooper, Alan Napier, Dan Seymour, Jack Elam.
Directed by Fritz Lang.

Moonfleet is based on a popular novel of the period by J. Meade Falkner. It is a story of smugglers in the south-west of England in the 18th century. The unexpected director is Fritz Lang, celebrated director of films in Germany in the 1920s including Metropolis, who fled Nazi Germany and had a successful and long career in Hollywood.

He is working in Cinemascope and colour, the type of adventure popular at 20th Century Fox and MGM at the beginning of the Cinemascope era in the mid-50s. However, this is very much a Hollywood Britain.

Stewart Granger had appeared in many of these Hollywood epics including King Solomon’s Mines, Scaramouche, Young Bess, The Prisoner of Zenda. He is eminently suited to the role of the aristocratic smuggler. George Sanders is Lord Ashwood – a type of role he played so often on screen. Joan Greenwood has the opportunity to be a Hollywood villain as his wife. The focus of the film, however, is on young Jon Whitely, the star of The Kidnappers, a very popular film of 1954.

The film is a swashbuckling adventure, made for the big screen, colour and costumes, swordfights and romance – and a heroic death.

1. The popularity of this kind of historic adventure? The re-creation of a period, villains and heroes? The focus on a young boy and his perspective on what went on – innocent perspective?

2. Wide screen, colour, costumes and décor, the English coast, the caves and the beach, the mansions, the inns, the wealthy homes, the highways? Authentic atmosphere? Musical score?

3. The title, the reference to the village? The place of the village with smugglers, religion and the parson, the British soldiery and the castle? A place of danger? Yet a place where John wanted to live after finding Jeremy Fox?

4. The story of John Mohune, the little boy, his journey, reaching the village, the encounter with the people, the inn, his finding Jeremy Fox? The story of Jeremy and his mother? His seeing Jeremy as a friend? His being taken to his lodgings, in the night, his not being afraid – but the plan to kill him because he knew too much? In the church, the graveyard, his falling through into the cave, overhearing the plans? His being held by Felix Ratsey, the interrogation by the soldiers, his not revealing the truth? His being taken by Jeremy? The plan to go to the New World, his not wanting to go, on the beach, the soldiers? Jeremy coming to save him? An innocent boy, genial, friendly and courageous?

5. Stewart Granger and his supercilious style for Jeremy Fox? With the smugglers in the town, his masterminding the enterprise, their rebelling against him, his vicious fighting, whipping? His control? The relationship with Mrs Minton? The gypsy dancer? The men at the inn? His fighting with Hull and his dominating? His visiting Lord Ashwood, the approaches of Lady Ashwood? The proposal for the piracy? His agreement, wanting to get the diamond? The document with the Scripture quotations, his ability to interpret them, with Jon, going to the well, John going down the well and getting the diamond, almost caught by the soldiers? Jeremy Fox and his disguising himself as a soldier, on the horse and he and John escaping? In the carriage with Lord Ashwood, the kiss so that he would not be caught? His decision to leave Lord Ashwood, go back to Jon and save him? His death?

6. Lord Ashwood, aristocracy, gambling, his relationship with his wife, knowing her infidelity? The plan for piracy? The proposal to Fox, the meeting in the coach, the jewel? His being abandoned by Fox? Lady Ashwood, seductive, double-dealing?

7. Mrs Minton, her love for Jeremy Fox, her going to the police, her being shot on the beach?

8. Ratsey, loyalty to Fox, his threats to John? The other members of the gang?

9. The parson, his friendship with John, helping him? The magistrate?

10. Grace, her friendship with John, on the horse, their time together?

11. The soldiery, the military at the time, fight against smugglers? A rollicking if somewhat pessimistic historical adventure?

ROBOTS

US, 2005, 91 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Ewan Mc Gregor, Halle Berry, Mel Brooks, Robin Williams, Jim Broadbent, Drew Carey, Jennifer Coolidge, Paul Giamatti, Dan Hedaya, James Earl Jones, Greg Kinnear, Jay Leno, Natasha Lyonne.
Directed by Chris Wedge and Carlos Saldanha.

It is a machine age – but never more so in Rivet Town and the big city where Rodney Copperbottom grows up and then moves to so that he can fulfil his abilities at inventing, especially, as his idol, Mr Bigweld, often says, ‘to fill a need’. He is the complete altruist, loving his father (a poor restaurant dishwasher whose parts are wearing down) and mother and trying to save his idol, the philanthropist and television personality, inventor Mr Bigweld.

As you can see, this is a kindly and wholesome story. However, there lurks a villain, Ratchet, who has ousted Mr Bigweld and, at the behest of his monstrous mother, has consigned robots whose parts are gone to the scrapheap. Rodney, however, is kind and a whiz at fixing rundown robots. Ratchet and Rodney are on a collision course. Rodney makes many friends, especially a motormouth machine, Fender, who is always falling apart, and the glamorous Cappy.

So, there is plenty to do for the robots and the film moves along quite nicely. The animation of the various robots is always amusing and there is a lot of clever incidental detail for the observant audience, parallels to our taken-for-granted human world. There is also a lot of amusing dialogue.

In case we couldn’t guess, there is not only a happy ending but a moral victory for good Rodney and evil Ratchet, which means that Robots is a genial do-gooding parable.

The voice cast is top-notch with Ewan McGregor? leading as Rodney. Naturally, Robin Williams as Fender dominates every scene he is in and has a great deal of his usual patter which his fans will love. Other voices are Greg Kinnear as Ratchet, Jim Broadbent as his mother, Halle Berry as Cappy, Jennifer Coolidge as Aunt Fanny and the pleasure of Mel Brooks as Mr Bigweld.

1. An entertaining film? An interesting example of 21st century animation? CGI and the skills in creating characters, layouts and backgrounds? Vitality? A technology for technological characters? Art style? Stories and exuberance?

2. The anthropomorphising of robots and the effect for the audience? The machines and life? The parallels with humans and the humour?

3. The range of voices, voice styles, the comedy, villainy, heroics? American style and society? The musical score?

4. The plot, the creation of the small town, the ordinariness, the heroics? The big city, corporations, individuals and their spirit, big business, victory for the good?

5. The town, its setting, Dad and his work, drying dishes? Mum at home? Ordinary life, the detail of the camera going up the street, haircuts etc? The various machines, their names? The restaurant and Mr Copperbottom cleaning the dishes?

6. The news about the baby, the verbal humour and the parallels with conception and birth? The visual parallels of putting the baby together? Mother and father and their pride and joy? Rodney growing up, his relationship with his parents, in the town, his inventions – and mishaps? His wanting to help his father? Seeing Mr Bigweld on the television? His exhortation that every invention should fill a need?

7. Rodney’s decision to go to the big city, his mother unwilling, his father finally supporting him? Going to the station, the ticket, the travel in the train, his high hopes?

8. The visuals of the city, the skyscraper and landscapes? Settling in? The meeting with Fender and their discussions, the comedy? At home with Aunt Fanny? His skills, fixing things, the machines realising that he could help them, the long line and his skilled work, his being seen as a hero?

9. Ratchet, his relationship with his mother? The villain? The meeting of the board, the decisions, the exclusion of Mr Bigweld, his wanting to throw useless machines away, seeing Rodney as a threat? His relationship with Cappy?

10. The social, Rodney in disguise, the parody of the party, his meeting with Cappy, the help of Fender? Getting in, the confrontation with Ratchet?

11. The plan to save Mr Bigweld, Mr Bigweld away with his inventions, not knowing what was going on, the loss of his empire? His feeling alone – but his being revitalised?

12. The character of fender, his look, Robin Williams’ patter and jokes? His sister and his relationship with her, her helping with the team?

13. Ratchet, his evil doings, the influence of his mother, the revolution – and the uprising against him?

14. Rodney, his success, freeing Mr Bigweld, the victory, the acclaim? His future?

15. His becoming the second-in-charge, pride, happiness? The theme of individuals versus exploitation?

16. A light touch presentation of social issues and personal issues?

THE HITCHHIKER’S GUIDE TO THE GALAXY

US/UK, 2005, 110 minutes, Colour.
Martin Freeman, Sam Rockwell, Moses Def, Zoe Deschanel, Warwick Davis, Anna Chancellor, John Malkovitch. Narrator: Stephen Fry. Voices: Alan Rickman, Richard Griffith.
Directed by Garth Jennings.

Douglas Adams’ popular fantasy began life as a radio play in 1978, a year after the release of Star Wars. Following its great success, Adams wrote five novels with his ordinary Everyman hero, Arthur Dent. There has been a BBC television series, video games and web sites but, until now, no film. Adams himself wrote two drafts for the film before his sudden death in 2001.

The Hitchhiker’s Guide to the Galaxy has become a British classic

This is a review of the film as a cinema experience since your reviewer has not heard, read or seen any of the previous versions. On emerging from a slightly overwhelming viewing, I was immediately given two contradictory comments by devotees: the first said that Douglas Adams would have hated this movie; the second said that it was extremely faithful to the spirit of the original. It probably means that those who cherish memories of radio and the books, who have created their own imaginative version of the universe, should give this film a miss to avoid disappointment.

What is the film like? It’s certainly like space science fiction films only its treatment is comic and often disrespectful. It’s certainly like a Monty Python treatment of space, particularly The Galaxy Song from Monty Python’s Meaning of Life. In fact, there is a philosophical undertone to the odd and mad goings on, precisely trying to find the meaning of life.

Since Arthur Dent is caught one morning having his house destroyed for a local bypass and warned by his friend, alien Ford Prefect (Mos Def), that earth has only a minute or two left before it is destroyed for a galactic bypass, he takes off on his adventures in dressing gown and pyjamas. His picaresque adventures lead him to the President of the Universe, a self-absorbed dimwit named Zaphod Beeblebrox (an irrepressible Sam Rockwell) and earthling Trillion (Zoe Deschanel). They are aided by robot, Marvin, who has been outfitted with GPP, Genuine People Personalities (though you would not pick that up from Alan Rickman’s sepulchral monotone).

There are special effects galore, a race of large grublike creatures, the Vogons, who are a parody of nitpicking government civil servants but who are not above turning into a militia, talking mice, and John Malkovich as a religious zealot who is only head and shoulders on metal legs!

Apparently, the original was very funny but this version raises smiles rather than guffaws. In fact, some of the characters are a bit on the irritating side. In compensation they find a weapon which, when fired, enables the victim to understand the firer’s point of view. (They have to fire at the obtuse Zaphod many times.)

However, there is a lot to think about. By choosing an ordinary man to identify with, we reflect on the great questions of existence on a rather commonsense plane. When Arthur Dent is returned to his home, it is a bit like T.S.Eliot’s returning to the place we started from and knowing it for the very first time because Arthur has to think about the universe he is hitchhiking around.

His dismay at the destruction of Earth takes a turn for the better when inventor Bill Nighy takes him on a tour of the galactic factories and laboratories (these sets are most impressive) and then shows him the earth re-created. Guide comes down strongly on the side of a world of beauty and order created by a benign intelligence (reminiscent of the argument for the existence of God).

What finally prevails, as it must, is a sense of hope, of human dignity and the overwhelming power of love. Amidst satire, anarchy, spoof and asking the big questions, there is a lot of search for wisdom.

1. The comedy classic status? Popularity over the decades? The radio origins, print development, television series to film?

2. An adaptation for the wide screen, for movie style, length, the actors, effects, the dialogue, the philosophical underscoring? The musical score?

3. The title, the narrative, the story?

4. In the light of science fiction film traditions? Spaceships, the journey, moving through time, wars in the galaxies, the Star Trek tradition? Creatures and different worlds? Machinery, robots?

5. The Monty Python tradition, the comedy of the absurd? Comic philosophy, philosophy through comedy? Arthur Dent as an Everyman? A picaresque journey through space?

6. The importance of the visual humour, the verbal humour? The English nonsense tradition? Absurdity, the anarchic?

7. The journey through space, the series of adventures, the hero and his transformation – or not? The T.S. Eliot theme of returning to the place where one started and knowing it for the first time? The ultimate solution being love?

8. The prologue, the dolphins, intelligence of dolphins, their leaving the planet? The ironies?

9. Arthur Dent, beginning his day, pyjamas? The building of the bypass? His lying down on the road in protest? The arrival of Ford Prefect? The memories of meeting Ford, the offer to shake hands, saving him from the car crash? Their going to the pub, the observers – at the beginning and at the end of the film? The drink, the memories of the party and Arthur and his meeting with Tricia? The end of the world? Arthur facing it, the small Everyman, the individual, his diffidence?

10. The spaceship, Arthur and Ford finding themselves there? Ford and his character, patter? The encounter with Zaphod? His eccentricities? His two heads? His being elected president of the universe – and the motivation? The discovery of Trillion/Tricia on the spaceship? Their setting out on their journey?

11. The focus on Zaphod, his exuberance, his two heads and their use, his personal lack of intelligence, behaviour?

12. Trillion, the human on the spaceship, her love for Arthur, sharing in his adventures?

13. Marvin, echoes of Star Wars, the robot, his moroseness, Alan Rickman’s style of voice and speaking? Marvin and his leadership, sharing the adventures?

14. The Vogons? Their look, shape, voices? Their activities, bureaucratic and pedantic? The enemy? Their military strength?

15. The introduction of Humma Kavula, John Malkovitch, his speeches, head only, walking on metallic legs? Mission, religious dimension, his interaction with the travellers?

16. The speed of time travel, the different aspects of the journey, the confrontations?

17. The computer, the questions, forty-two as the answer, the voice of the computer, trying to discover the question? The philosophical implications for the meaning of life – at Monty Python-style level?

18. The story of the mice, evolution, the long-distant past? Mice, human form? Their later appearing?

19. The arrival of Slartibartfast? Ben Nye and his voice, lugubrious manner? His name, the trip? The significance of his role in the created world, the explanation of the world, going to the factory, the beauty of the world? The argument for intelligence behind the world? The journey and the visuals? The effect on Arthur?

20. The confrontation with the Vogons, the battle, the guns? The new destruction of the world? Arthur and his having to make decisions, seeing his house again, it being reconstructed, the pub? His decision to go to the end of the world with Tricia – depending on which end of the world?

21. The themes of humans, values, brains and intelligence, the ultimate power of love?

22. The meaning of life, happenings, coincidences, order, creation and the place of humans within the great scheme of things?

xXx: THE NEXT LEVEL (xXx: STATE OF THE UNION)

US, 2005, 105 minutes, Colour.
Ice Cube, Samuel L. Jackson, Willem Dafoe, Peter Strauss, Scott Speedman.
Directed by Lee Tamahori.

There will be no complaint from the testosterone brigade when they watch this action-packed terrorist story. In one sense, xXx is critic-proof because it will easily sell itself. The publicists will think this is just as well because so many critics do not want to be seen commending this kind of populist stuff. They have just sneered and dismissed it: ‘there’s no accounting for tastes’.

Lee Tamahori, a New Zealand director (Once Were Warriors) told me in 1994 that he would love to go to Hollywood and make the kind of movie he enjoyed watching when he was a kid. Over ten years he has (Mulholland Falls, The Edge, Along Came a Spider and episodes of The Sopranos) and achieved a career high with the James Bond adventure, Die Another Die. Which means that Lee Tamahori knows how to tell a good action yarn, employ a somewhat sardonic tone for the characters and proceedings, and use stunts and effects for maximum and optimum impact. There are plenty of explosions, raids, car crashes, chases, a tank attack on the USS Independence and a climax with a high speed car and a helicopter pursuing a bullet train. Who could ask for anything more!!

Actually, the film is somewhat subversive in its presentation of US government and, more particularly, US Defence authorities, especially the Secretary for Defense. Perhaps not Donald Rumsfeld’s favourite movie. In xXx, the action was in Europe. This time the terrorists are rogue Americans and the actions does not go out of Virginia and Maryland. Even The US Capitol building suffers attack and damages to its dome.

Ice Cube steps in to make the original xXx, Vin Diesel, look a bit restrained. Samuel L.Jackson is tough authority. Willem Dafoe is a contemporary Benedict Arnold, treason in the name of patriotism and making America safe.

The plot is full of plot turns and twists that seem so blatant, doing the exaggerated obvious, that there is nothing to do but go along with them. It’s the same with the dialogue, a tongue-in-cheek screenplay of obvious lines, especially those that flaunt ‘attitude’. It is a film of attitude. It also has the courage of its exuberant convictions.

1. A satisfying action show? A testosterone action show? Exuberant action?

2. The title, agents in the US, the film as a sequel – and the connection with the original, the reference to XXX's death, the role of Gibbons?

3. The Virginia settings, Washington DC – authentic for this kind of far-fetched action?

4. Editing and pace, action, the dialogue and the emphasis on attitude? Humour, irony? The musical score, heightened? Rap songs?

5. The subversive aspect of the film, the role of the President of the US, the role of the military, the rebellious Defence Secretary, his troops, patriotism and false patriotism, treason?

6. The prologue, the tranquillity of Virginia countryside, the horses? The bodies, the attack, the firing, the escape from the underground facility? The president, Heckert, Kyle and the puzzle?

7. Gibbons and his assistant, the mayhem underground with the attackers? The shooting, gas? The escape? Gibbons puzzling as to who attacked? Breaching security in the US? Terrorism? Going to the prison, interviewing Stone, being videoed? Stone’s attitude? The revelations about the past, the attack, Deckert, Gibbons’ presence, Stone finishing in jail for nine years? Gibbons’ challenge to Stone?

8. The spectacular escape from the prison, Stone and his agility, the helicopter on the roof? Stone and his return to the facility, going down the hole, the pursuit, the escape, the car, the boat, the explosion, the bridge?

9. Stone as a person, his reliance on tough attitude? Going to the Chop Shop? His friend going up-market, the cars, machines? Wanting to do everything his own way?

10. Gibbons, at home, the explosion, his death?

11. The glimpse of the president, his more liberal stances, Deckert and his disagreement, ostensible loyalty? The background of Deckert and his command of the group, Gibbons being in the group, Deckert at Gibbons’ house before the explosion?

12. The photos, Charlie and her presence, the meeting in the restaurant, Stone pretending to be a southern Reverend? His going to the White House, being the waiter, overhearing the plot? His being photographed? The escape? Charlie and the car, taking him to the house, his relaxing, the murder of the general, the set-up and the siege?

13. Kyle, his staff, information about Stone, Gibbons? His going into the house under siege, discussions with Stone? Stone using the microwave to pretend that the heat was his body and his escaping?

14. Stone and the discussions with Kyle, his going to the USS Independence? His discoveries? The armaments, his being discovered, the tanks? The battle? Finding that Gibbons was alive?

15. The plan, Deckert and his going to discuss the matters with Kyle, Kyle and the truth? Going to the Chop Shop, meeting Lola, her agreeing to lend her valuable car, her relationship with Stone? His going on a mission?

16. The meeting in Congress, the attack, the strategy plan by Deckert? Deckert’s henchmen? The deaths, the president and his being taken by Deckert? The fights, deaths?

17. The bullet train, the pursuit, Stone in the car, the helicopter? The shooting, the fights on board the train, the bridge?

18. Stone, his completing the mission? His decision not to stay with Lola, going into the future (or a sequel)?

19. The popularity of this kind of American superhero, the tough man, heroic fantasy, comic strip style – yet the rather more left wing political undertones?

MEAN CREEK

US, 2004, 89 minutes, Colour.
Rory Culkin, Ryan Kellye, Scott Mechlowicz, Trevor Morgan, Carly Schroeder, Josh Peck.
Directed by Jacob Aaron Estes.

Mean Creek is a modest film with a comparatively brief running-time by first time director, Jacob Aaron Estes. However, he has made a striking and forceful film that can be recommended to select audiences.

It would be of great benefit for conversation amongst parents and teaching staffs. Screenings and guided discussion among younger adolescents could help them articulate their moral questions and their value stances. Mean Creek has already won the prestigious American Catholic Humanitas award at the Sundance Film Festival.

The press notes usually contain a great deal of inflated gumph to promote a film. However, the notes for Mean Creek give a quick overview of the thinking behind the film and what it communicates:

“… not only a suspenseful morality tale but a rare and revealing portrait of a new generation, capturing the swagger, hidden insecurities, the posing and the yearning to fit in, the savvy and the barely contained aggression and, perhaps most of all, today’s fierce search for moral ground without any clear compasses.

“Using a handheld camera and a raw, visceral visual style that sets the audience adrift with the characters, the film provides a gritty, authentic and thought-provoking peek into growing up.”

It focuses on bullying in the school yard. It dramatises the anger and the drive towards some kind of getting even, including a moderate amount of crass teenage language and behaviour). It reminds us that adolescents think they have everything under control but that at any moment something devastating can happen and they have to accept responsibilities and the consequences.

The setting is a very small town in Oregon. The bully is a large and heavy boy used to getting his own way. Josh Peck is absolutely credible as this kind of boy. He talks too much, criticises and mocks others so that he can seem ‘cool’ and ‘with it’, whereas it is all posturing. As he goes out on the river with the group that wants to teach him a lesson, we begin to feel sorry for him as he has shown a pleasanter side of his character than we (and they) had ever seen. But, then we squirm as he keeps digging his own grave as, unaware, he relentlessly keeps piling on the gibes. And you know that something terrible is going to happen – and it does.

The young cast is always believable. Rory Culkin is the vulnerable victim, Trevor Morgan his protective brother and Scot Mechlowitz is excellent as the leader, a show-off who is really as bad a bully to his friends as the boy he is targeting. Giving the film greater depth are background stories for the two bullies, especially their difficult home lives and their inner insecurity.

Estes said that he was bullied when he was young in San Francisco and, being imaginative, he devised all kinds of fantasy revenges… “suddenly I started to wonder about the guy who was the bully. Who was he? Why was he doing this? And why had I let him affect me in such a profound way? These were the really interesting questions to me – and they became more interesting than getting back at the guy.”

That is what Mean Creek is about, moral dilemmas, the pressures of friendship and, finally, having the honesty to take responsibility for actions and their consequences.

1. A glimpse of young teenagers, their problems, pressures, responsibilities?

2. The title, the credits, the river, its beauty, a place of death, a means for meanness?

3. The Oregon settings, the small town, the school, houses and shops, the woods, the river? The hand-held camerawork and its effect? The musical score?

4. The setting and the tone, the recording from the video camera? Sam and his interfering, George’s violent reaction, Sam being hurt, Rocky and his reaction, defending his brother? The discussion about George and his behaviour?

5. Sam and his age, experience, bullied at school? Rocky as strong? Marty as tough, Clyde and his gentleness, being brought up by the two gay men? Observing George, their talk about him, the project, the plan?

6. George, his size, relationship with his mother, junk food, his room? His bullying actions, especially about the camera? His lack of judgment in assessing people’s reaction to him? People disliking him?

7. Millie, her age, friendship with Sam? The date and Sam’s reaction? Her writing in her diary, the questions and answers and practising them? The real date and her going through the questions, Sam’s reaction, laughter? Breaking down nervousness?

8. The plan, its seeming to be under control? The motivations? Sam not wanting to hurt George? Rocky and the phone call to George, George’s response, the laughter that the plan was going into practice?

9. Marty, his place amongst the group, Rocky out with him? Seeing him around the town? The gun? Kyle and his anger at Marty’s handling the gun? Kyle and his protectiveness, yet brutal towards Marty? The revelation about their father, his suicide? The absent mother? The boys at the shop, the crash? Later with Kyle, Marty trying to get Kyle to lie for him? The finale, the gun, going to Mexico?

10. The trip to the river, George and his thinking it was Sam’s birthday, actually bringing a gift? Millie and her learning of the plan, resenting being made part of it? Telling Sam to stop the violence? Sam and his talking with Rocky, Rocky being persuaded, telling Clyde? Marty and his reaction, refusing to change the plan?

11. George, on the river, enjoying himself, starting to talk, attacking everybody, loudmouth, digging his own grave, so to speak? Sam and his appreciation of the gift? George and his recording what was going on? The talk, the attack on the weakness of the boys, his childish reactions, their reactions?

12. On the lake, the exhilaration, its beauty – but George continuing his insults?

13. The Truth or Dare game? Rocky and the masturbation issue, Marty and his showing his penis, daring George to go into the river, George and his worries about no life jackets?

14. The build-up to the climax, angers, George taunting Marty about his dead father, Rocky and his bumping George, his falling, under the water, his death, Rocky trying to rescue him, the camera continuing to photograph, the underwater scenes? Millie trying to resuscitate George?

15. The long wait, the focus on the reaction of the members of the group? Regrets, stunned? Marty and his smoking?

16. The plan, to bury George, the others’ reaction, the fights? Clyde and his showing some strength of character, Marty prevailing, their burying the body?

17. The return home, everyone quiet? Marty and his interactions with Kyle, going to Mexico? Rocky and Sam at home, the discussions, Sam sneaking out to go to Millie? Clyde and his being at home with the two fathers?

18. The final meeting, Marty and the gun, Sam and the interview with the police, going to the lake, retrieving the body, his father going with him? Their going to George’s mother and giving her the news?

19. How well delineated the characters of each of the boys, Rocky as the older brother, friend of Marty? Marty and his rebellion, bitterness, presumption? Clyde, quiet, always being called a faggot, his sense of responsibility?

20. A film about bullying, kids, immaturity, pranks, loss of control, peer pressure, conscience and a sense of responsibility?

RAG AND BONE

US, 1998, 90 minutes, Colour.
Dean Cain, Robert Patrick, Carroll Baker, Richard Bradford, Kelly Rowan, Stan Shaw.
Directed by Robert Liebermann.

Rag and Bone is, on the surface, a conventional film about police work in New Orleans. However, it is different insofar as the central officer is a former priest, played by Dean Cain. No reasons are given for his leaving the priesthood. However, he is an earnest policeman who shoots a suspect who draws on him and the gun is lost in the river. He faces disciplinary charges. There is a further complication insofar as a ghostly corrupt policeman keeps appearing during the film. He is played by Robert Patrick. Carroll Baker plays a sympathetic nun, Dean Cain’s aunt.

Another film with a police officer being a former priest is the Jack Reed series with Brian Dennehy. It is interesting that Hollywood made these connections for television movies. There is no particular depth of understanding, but these films represent events and the choices that former priests in the United States made.

The film is based on a story by Anne Rice (Interview With a Vampire etc).

1. Entertaining police thriller? The focus on the police officer, his work, conscience?

2. The ghostly atmosphere of the film, the appearances of Sergeant Daniel Ryan, eerie, on the wharf, in the church, at home, in the building?

3. The New Orleans setting, the city itself, the river, the pier, the police precincts, the church? Homes? An authentic atmosphere?

4. Anne Rice as the author of the story, her New Orleans background, her particular interests – with the touch of the supernatural? The credibility of the ghost’s story? The meaning of the title?

5. The focus on Tony Moran, as a former priest, his pursuing the criminal, the shooting, his being asked for absolution and his giving it? Richie and his support, the police investigation? The absence of the gun? His going to the home of the deceased, the father’s rejection, the mother’s straight talking – and the later discovery of the gun, that it witness was the father’s, his apology? His standing down, his going to the old home? His relationship with his aunt, talking with her, her support? His sister? A home, seeing the ghost? The puzzle about the ghost, seeing him in the church? Finding out about him from his father, his aunt? The final confrontation – and the discussion about each finding their own road to redemption? Sergeant Ryan and his corruption, the murder, his attempt to find his redemption through Tony Moran?

6. The police situations, pursuit of criminals, shooting? The memories of the past, corruption, pay-offs, Washington investigations, murders?

7. Tony’s father, his hard attitude towards his son and leaving the priesthood? Their discussions, his ultimate support, explaining Daniel Ryan?

8. Sister Marie, a sympathetic character, her work, her living alone in the apartment, helping out with Tony’s house-moving? The discussions, the flashbacks and her relationship with Daniel Ryan? His death, becoming a nun? Her talk about paths to redemption?

9. The police personnel, Richie and his friendship with Tony, support of him? The authorities?

10. The background of the projects, Sister Marie’s work there, their being pulled down, moneymaking tycoons, public relations? Council meetings, votes? The protests? The moving of black families? Karen Toms, her family, her past relationship with Tony, their discussions? The murder of the black man in the cemetery in the car? His relationship with Karen? The blackmail, the tapes, the criminals and their hold over Karen for her vote? Tony’s pursuit of the criminal, the shoot-out?

11. The combination of personal drama, ghost story, police story, social corruption?

FLAME OF BARBARY COAST

US, 1945, 90 minutes, Black and white.
John Wayne, Ann Dvorak, Joseph Schildkraut, William Frawley, Virginia Grey, Russell Hicks, Paul Fix.
Directed by Joseph Kane.

Flame of Barbary Coast has big ambitions and compresses them into 90 minutes’ running time. It is set in San Francisco in 1906, the year of the earthquake. The earthquake does appear towards the end of the film with only about a minute’s running time – but is quite impressive in its special effects. Critics were unkind and compared the film to 1936’s big-budget San Francisco with Clark Gable, Jeanette Mac Donald and Spencer Tracy.

John Wayne gives a good performance, beginning as a naïve greenhorn cattleman from Montana overwhelmed by San Francisco and finishes up learning to become a gambler as well as a political influence in San Francisco being rebuilt after the earthquake. Ann Dvorak is the casino singer – but she appears too dignified a personality to be this kind of character. Joseph Schildkraut is an ambiguous villain. There is a good supporting cast including William Frawley and Virginia Grey.

The film is a conventional look at the emergence of the Barbary Coast, of San Francisco and its aristocracy on Nob Hill and its condemnation of the Pacific Coast and the casinos. The film was directed by Joseph Kane, a prolific director, especially of this kind of action film for Republic Studios.

1. An entertaining John Wayne frontier film? Montana, San Francisco and the Barbary Coast? The atmosphere of 1945 film-making – fifty years after the events?

2. The black and white photography, the Pacific Coast, the beaches, the mansions, the casinos, the carriage trade? The importance of the musical score – and the wide range of songs?

3. The title – the focus on Ann ‘Flaxen’ Tarry?

4. John Wayne as Duke? On the beach, discovered by Flaxen, the encounter with Tito? His wanting his money back, going to the casino, the confrontation with Tito, learning to gamble? The reporter and commenting on Duke’s luck? Flaxen accompanying him around the casinos and his breaking the bank at them all? The morning after, the ticket back to Montana? Back home, the cattle, his friends, especially Wolf? His wanting to learn to play cards, the training by Wolf? The motivation to see Flaxen again? His return to San Francisco, the confrontations with Tito? The beating him at cards, the ganging up by the casino owners? Wolf and his coaching? The confrontation with Joe Disco and the shooting? His deciding to build the Silver Dollar? The relationship with Flaxen, her love for Tito, his trying to get her to come to the Silver Dollar, the contract? Her singing, the earthquake, the aftermath? His rescuing Flaxen? Encouraging her to walk again? The politics of the rebuilding, the elections, Tito getting the votes, the confrontation with Duke? Flaxen and her making decisions, going off with Duke? The return to Montana? The touch of the fairy tale?

5. Flaxen, dignity, her presence on the Barbary Coast, the mansion, with Tito? Her singing? Playing with people’s affections – and the range of suitors in San Francisco? Accompanying Duke on his gambling spree, saving him, sending him back home? Her staying with Tito, her contract, the clash with Rita Dane? Duke’s return, her dilemmas, singing? The injury and the earthquake? Walking again, Flaxen’s decision against Tito, going off with Duke, Montana?

6. Tito, the boss, friendship with Duke, the gambling of the money? The breaking of the bank? His hold over Flaxen? His family living on Nob Hill and their disapproval? His supporting them financially, even to bringing Caruso to San Francisco? His relationship with the other casino bosses? Duke’s return, the challenge with the gambling, Duke winning? The building of the Silver Dollar? The clashes with Tito, the earthquake, his wanting to get possession of land? Leaving Flaxen? The final choice and his future?

7. Wolf, wisecracking, the gambler, training Duke, going to San Francisco, the girls that he knew, enjoying himself?

8. Rita Dane, the rival to Flaxen, her singing, charming Tito? Taking Flaxen’s place after her injuries? Her money hold over Tito?

9. Cyrus Danver, the newspapers, their campaigns against Tito and the casinos, his going to the casino, his friendship with Duke, helping with the elections?

10. The reporter, the comic style, commenting on Duke’s luck, following him around?

11. The owners of the casinos, their ganging up, the gambler and the shooting confrontation with Duke? Their willing to form a conglomerate after the earthquake?

12. The atmosphere of the casinos, drinking, gambling, the dancing girls, the singers, the world of affluence – and Tito’s mansion, Flaxen’s mansion – and Beulah, her maid?

BEAUTY

US, 1998, 90 minutes, Colour.
Janine Turner, Hal Holbrook, Jamey Sheridan, Linda Naspi, Shirley Broderick.
Directed by Jerry London.

Beauty is an updated version of the Beauty and the Beast story, based on a novel by Susan Wilson. It was directed by Jerry London, a veteran of many television movies and big-budget films.

The star is Janine Turner (Cliffhanger, Trip in a Summer Dress as director and star). She is the beauty, Jamey Sheridan (Ice Storm) is a man with a bone disfigurement in his face, the beast. She is commissioned to paint his portrait. She gets to know him, love the real person under the surface. He is gentle, gracious and helps her at the time of her father’s death. Her father is played by veteran actor Hal Holbrook.

The film is very sweet and very romantic – an old-fashioned love story. The film works on the emotions – but, of course, has the perennial message of urging people to look below surfaces into real persons.

1. The popularity of the Beauty and the Beast theme? The many variations on the story? The fairytale aspect – but set in real life (at least telemovie style)?

2. The settings: the Miller household, the art studio? Crompton’s mansion, affluence? The woods, the snow? The art gallery? The musical score?

3. The title, the focus on Alix? And her relationship with Lee Crompton – the equivalent of the beast?

4. The portrait of Alix, her love for her father, her skill in painting? Her relationship with Mark? His being on tour and taking photos, her support of him? Her taking on the commission, the visit to the Crompton house, the encounter with Mrs Greaves, falling in the snow, helped by Lee? Meeting him, his reticence? His showing her the house, her warming to him as a person? Discovering that he was the mystery writer? The sittings, the effect on her? Her return for Mark’s award? Dancing with him? The distance between them? The break? Her father’s illness, Lee coming to help, his befriending her father? Discussions with the nurse about Lee? Her father’s death? Her return, her love for Lee, his reticence? The rescue of the boy in the snow, his not going to the ceremony, her talking with the priest, covering for Lee, confronting him? The six-months gap, the art exhibition, the sculptor and his friendship, her waiting for Lee, finding the book, his coming to the gallery? A future?

5. Lee, his background, Mrs Greaves explaining his life, his mother, pampered? The disease, Julia and her breaking his heart? His reticence towards other women? Helping Alix in the snow, the sittings, being tired, his writing? The discussions about his character – resembling himself? The portrait? His helping with Alix’s father, sitting with him? Not wanting to see his portrait – the discussions with Alix and his fears of commitment? His coming to the gallery? A future?

6. Mrs Greaves, protective of Lee, wary with Alix, befriending her, their discussions, the photos? Her not wanting Lee to be hurt?

7. Mark, love of photography, his skills, communication, seeing into character? (?) His award, the dancing? His mother wanting Alix to propose? Their break-up and his wanting to be a photographer above all?

8. Love, commitment, beauty, seeing below the surface?