MOTHER

US, 1996, 104 minutes, Colour.
Albert Brooks, Debbie Reynolds, Rob Morrow, Lisa Kudrow, John C. Mc Ginley.
Directed by Albert Brooks.

The comedies of the doleful Albert Brooks (Real Life, Defending Your Life) are an acquired taste. He seems to get the worst deals out of life (though he has a fair wit to express all this), hang-dog and harrassed. Here he is a 40-something adolescent best-seller author who feels so put down by his mother that he decides to move back in with her to try to get over his problems with her. Mother is played by Debbie Reynolds (at 64), a mixture of the obtuse, the quietly domineering, not knowing how she puts down her son. However, both he and the audience learn more about Mother and find she is a more complex character that we imagined. This is definitely a matter of taste comedy which some will find over-contrived and moderately funny. Others will find this chapter of Brooks' woes entertaining and enjoy Debbie Reynolds. I did. As the ad says, Mother misunderstands you best.

1.The comedies of Albert Brooks, his skill as a writer, director, star? The parallels with the Woody Allen style? Lugubrious but comic?

2.The California settings, homes, work, supermarkets? Authentic and realistic? The musical score, the range of songs?

3.The title of the film, the focus? Debbie Reynolds as Mother, her long career, her reputation, her style of performance?

4.John and his work, sad, frustrated, his relationships with his brother, with his mother, the contrast between them? At home, arguing, his mother interfering? The effect on him? The confrontations, the outings? John discovering more about his mother?

5.Debbie Reynolds as Beatrice, her age, experience? At home, her thrift? Her continued criticisms? Her not realising how much she interfered? Her relationships with her two sons? The visits, going out? Correcting John? Her way of talking, at home? Games and manipulation?

6.The fact of her writing, her giving it up, her marriage, her life, her continuing to write? John discovering this, reading it, the truth about his mother’s frustrations, her suppressing these, her life, the touches of bitterness?

7.The themes of writing, creative writing, change, the fact that it was not too late?

8.Jeff, his family, his relationship with his wife? The family, relationship with John? Comparisons, rivalries, reconciliation?

9.John, his mother urging him to go out, the dates? The character of Linda, Donna, the relationships?

10.The supporting characters, Carl, the contribution to the atmosphere of the film? Comedy?

11.A blend of crises and emotion, childhood traumas, relationships, mother and son relationships, discovery of the truth – and coming to terms with relationships and life?

LE CLAN

France, 2004, 90 minutes, Colour.
Nicolas Cazale, Stephane Rideau, Thomas Dumerchez, Salim Kechiouche, Bruno Lochet.
Directed by Gael Morel.

Audiences will probably have many diverse and mixed feelings during this 90 minute film.

Le Clan could be the family of the three brothers and their widowed father whose story, during different seasons of the year, the film tells. The clan, more probably, is the clique of idle young men who ‘hang out’ together, often bored, using drugs, sex and a kind of camaraderie to keep them going.

By the end of the film, we realise what a ‘womanless’ word we have been in – the wife of one of the brothers appears about 10 minutes before the end, otherwise you are hard put to glimpse anyone female. The director says that he did this with purpose. The original screenplay was peopled with women but he eliminated them to portray a male world of clash and interdependence.

The first story is that of 22 year old Marc, unemployed, dealing in drugs, homosexual, erratically moody, especially with his father. His closest bond is with his pet dog – which leads to violence. This part of the film, with its focus on the young men, could be described as ‘homoerotic’. The second story is that of the older brother, Christophe, who comes out of gaol. While the narrative about the family continues, the focus is more on ‘social realism’ with Christophe making a success of his work at a ham salting plant. Christophe’s purposefulness contrasts with Marc’s nihilistic stances. The third story is that of the 17 year old Olivier who pines for his mother, is reserved and often awkward. The transition to his dance and sporting activity, his coming out and relationship with his friend, Hicham, come very suddenly, making us wonder whether we really noticed him or understood him. The suddenness of Hicham’s narration towards the end is brief and puzzling. The brevity of this story means that we don’t get much of an opportunity to realise how Olivier ticks. It also makes us realise that we probably were offered substantial portraits of Marc and Christophe.

Set in the beauty of the lake country around Annecy, Le Clan can be a challenging glimpse of the aimlessness of today’s young men.

1.The title, the family, the clan? The men? The definition of a clan? Clannishness?

2.The Annecy locations, the town itself, the rough areas, the highways, the bikes, the lake? Beauty? Country work? The environment? Realism?

3.The score for each of the sons?

4.The structure of the film, in itself, the links, the seasons?

5.The town, the photography of the town, pace and editing, the world of the boys, work, adolescence? A man’s world? The absence of women?

6.The portrait of Marc, a troubled young man, the deals, the drugs, revenge? The initial impression, the tone of the film, his age, appearance, the bikers and the drugs, the men and the camaraderie, the gym? The passing of the seasons, the homoerotic atmosphere, sexual relationships, the video, the transvestite? Christophe and his being in prison, Olivier and his prayers? The ashes? Work, the father and his harshness, the meals? Television, the angers, payment and the drugs, the dog and the bond, killing the dog, the effect, the car crash? Destruction and death wish?

7.Christophe, released from jail, getting a job, the temptations in order to keep it? The change, hard work, at home, changing in himself, his relationship with his brothers, the difficulties in relationships, avenging Marc, the care of Olivier, the father and the factory, the workers, the discussion, the bosses, going out, promotion, success, girlfriend, family?

8.Olivier, young, relationship with Marc, the prayer, the ashes? Shy? The gym, overshadowed, his story, his change? The swimming? Relationship with Hicham, sex and activity, the letters to Hicham, the future?

9.The brothers and their friends, seen as a group, the world of the gymnasium, sexual issues?

10.Hicham and Marc, the Arabs, gay, the help, the drugs? Relationship with Olivier?

11.The portrait of the father, hard? The mother and the memories?

12.A womanless world, its effect? The nature of maleness – without women? This kind of male clannishness? The 21st century, men, their lives, lack of work, idle, drugs, macho stances? Insight into France of the 21st century?

THE INQUIRY

Italy, 1986, 107 minutes, Colour.
Keith Carradine, Harvey Keitel, Phyllis Logan, Lina Sastri.
Directed by Damiano Damiani.

Director Damiano Damiani whose directing career reached form 1947 to 2002 and is best known for thrillers. His eclectic films include La Noia, a version of Alberto Moravia’s novel, The Tempter with Glenda Jackson and Amityville II: The Possession. He was not an obvious choice for The Inquiry. Vittorio Bonnicelli had collaborated on the screenplay for The Bible: in the Beginning and the miniseries, Moses the Lawgiver. He adapted a story by veteran Italian screenwriter, Suso Ceccho D’ Amico who collaborated with Visconti on many of his films and wrote Zeffirelli’s Brother Sun, Sister Moon.

The premise of The Inquiry is that Tiberius is disturbed by what he hears about Jesus of Nazareth and his message and sends Taurus (Keith Carradine) as his special envoy to hold a special inqiry about the death of Jesus and to find his body. Pontius Pilate (Harvey Keitel) is suspicious and anxious about his position. He is becoming more and more estranged from his wife Claudia Procula (Phyllis Logan) who herself had been disturbed in dreams at the time of Jesus’ condemnation.

Taurus is self-confident, objective and thorough. He is a true and loyal Roman, a rational man – ‘Resurrection is not contemplated by Roman law’. He interviews a number of witnesses: the woman who touched the hem of Jesus’ cloak, a man who had been told the story of the Emmaus walk by one of the disciples, someone who knew Cleopas and takes Taurus to the Last Supper room and informs him of Judas’ betrayal, and a visit to Gethsemane where Taurus puzzles over the proposition that God had pre-ordained the betrayal of Jesus and his suffering. He also visits Nazareth, trying to find Jesus and sees Jesus’ mother, despised by her neighbours, working in her garden.

A false corpse is brought to dispel the resurrection claim but it is denounced by Mary Magdalene. Taurus examines the body, interviews the centurion Longinus and sees that the broken legs and the pierced side were recent wounds to the corpse. A soldier testifies that Jesus’ legs were not broken because he was already dead. Pilate and the military have failed in this attempt to disprove the resurrection. Taurus questions him about fraud. Pilate is concerned with what is politically viable.

One of the important features of The Inquiry is that the screenplay raises many of the age-old objections to the resurrection. It presents the plausibility of alternate theories. But it also presents the plausibility that the disciples of Jesus had witnessed something extraordinary, that Jesus had risen and they were telling the truth.

When Taurus visits the tomb of Jesus with Claudia Procula, the story of the sleeping soldiers is told, with the officer saying that they should have been sacked for such dereliction of duty. The theory that the disciples stole the body is also put forward. When Taurus hears that Jesus was seen in both Jerusalem and Emaus and knows the distance between them, he wonders about a twin or a double.

When zealots attack Taurus, his servant Marcus steps in and is stabbed to death. Taurus attends the crucifixion of one of them – which gives the audience the opportunity to appreciate what happened to Jesus. Taurus watches, waits hours and finally blocks his ears to the cries of the crucified man. The crucifixion issue is further developed and the theory that Jesus was not dead on the cross, The Swoon Theory, is dramatised. Two magicians who had entertained Taurus on his arrival suggest that they can prove that Jesus did not die. He gives them permission to allow the dying man some water. He drinks. Soon afterwards he dies. However, two hours later he revives because he had been given a drug that induced catalepsy. Jesus could have been drugged, taken down from the cross and revived.

This experience gives Taurus more confidence and takes away some fear that he was feeling. He had been listening to so many of Jesus’ words, hearing of so many of Jesus’ deeds, puzzling over the beatitudes and the exhortation to love your enemy. He now realises that these words of gentleness were a mask to cover ideas of rebellion, undermining the occupying Roman forces and their morale, making it easier to revolt.

Finally, Taurus is so intent on his mission and is convinced that Jesus is still alive and hiding with Mary Magdalene in Galilee that he dons a disguise and travels incognito to Galilee. He meets disciples talking realistically about Jesus being alive. They reply mystically. One suspicious guide threatens to kill him but is prevented which Taurus quotes Jesus’ words of non-violence. He is given directions to a remote village where Mary Magdalene lives. He encounters a young girl only to discover that she is a leper and this is a colony. When he finally meets Mary, thinking that at last his mission is accomplished, still puzzled why she and the disciples at Emmaus did not recognise Jesus at once, she explains that since that morning she has never seen him. He lives in people’s hearts.

A last twist is that, because he can quote Jesus’ words, the crowds think he is Jesus and press round him for cures. For some mad moments, he agrees to heal, then comes to his senses and flees. A soldier finds him wandering in the desert, takes him to Pilate who abandons him. The soldier offers him a sword so that he can kill himself. As Taurus rubs his hand along the blade, he muses that this edge symbolises the power and ethics of the Empire. He realises that Tiberius knows that with people accepting the words of a crucified man, the world is already changing. His final words to the soldier, asking him to assist him in death, are, ‘Thrust me into the mystery’.

The audience, bringing its presuppositions about and knowledge of Jesus, is offered a great deal to reflect on as Jesus’ words are repeated, the stories of what he did are re-told and the different possibilities, logical and illogical, secular and faith-filled, are presented in this dramatic form of the Roman inquiry.

There was a remake in 2006, L’I nchiesta (The Final Inquiry) with Daniele Liotti (St Anthony in Sant’ Antonio di Padova, 2002) as Taurus and an international cast which ranged from Dolph Lundgren to F. Murray Abraham. Ornella Muti is Mary Magdalene. Enrico Lo Verso is Peter. The scope seems to have been extended because Max Von Sydow is listed as Tiberius and Saul of Tarsus appears in the list of characters. It was directed by Giulio Base who also appears as Lazarus.

1.An Italian perspective on the life of Jesus? The early church? The Roman empire?

2.Audience interest in the themes? The centuries-old questions and doubts about the existence of Jesus and the Resurrection? Voiced in the context of the Roman empire? Answered?

3.The re-creation of Jerusalem, the first century, Judea, Galilee, the deserts? The musical score?

4.The historicity of Jesus, the nature of oral tradition and the witnesses to Jesus and the Resurrection? The Scriptures? Documentation? Jesus and the interest of the Roman empire? Impact for Christians, for non-Christians?

5.The title, the literary style? The situation, Tiberias and his concern about Judea, about Jesus? The sending of Taurus as a delegate? The nature and scope of his inquiry? The motivations, no presuppositions? Taurus objective and noting the data, opinions? Pilate’s fear? Claudia Procula and her response?

6.The opening, the messenger hastening through the desert, eating, the Jew saying he could eat with Romans out of habit? The appearance of the Zealots, their killing him? The blind man and the message? Taurus passing by and questioning the blind man?

7.Jerusalem, Pilate and his rule, his wife, the suspicions? Taurus arriving, the welcome? The attraction to Procula? The evening’s entertainment, the magic, the head swivelling, the mind-reading, especially about Taurus’s mission?

8.Taurus as serious, the people talking, his listening, the Greek saying that Jesus was too perfect, a myth, that he could not exist?

9.Taurus and Procula? The providing of the girl for the night and his lack of interest? Procula taking him to the tomb of Jesus, the issue of the stealing of the body? The story of Mary Magdalene, her reputation, Taurus’s comment on the role of women in Judea? The discovery that Pilate had tortured Jesus? The disciples in hiding? The fanatics?

10.Taurus and his taking testimony, the woman who was cured of her haemorrhage? The report of the walk to Emmaus? The questions about the recognition of Jesus or not by Mary Magdalene, of the disciples? Jesus appearing in different places far distant? The theory of his having a twin or a double? Taurus and his offering of money? The witnesses talking about Jesus’ message, the Beatitudes, love of enemies? His discussion with Marco, his secretary, a slave, the Christian telling him that he was free despite his slave status?

11.The visit to Nazareth, the hostile crowds, seeing Mary the mother of Jesus, the people attacking her? The search of the town, the dead bodies? The boy and his discussions, Mary and her working in the garden?

12.Jerusalem, the affair with Procula? Procula talking about the adulteress being stoned – seeing her body? The nature of deep love – and their superficial relationship?

13.Cleopas, the site of the Last Supper, the talk of a traitor, Taurus sitting in Jesus’ place? The concern about Jesus’ consent to his betrayal? Going to Gethsemane, the speculation that God had arranged Jesus’ betrayal and death beforehand? Taurus thinking that no human being could act like this?

14.Pilate and the finding of the body? Defying logic for a resurrection? Mary Magdalene present, denying that this was the body? Taurus examining Longinus, the fact that the legs were broken and the piercing was recent? Pilate and Taurus discussing fraud a political answer? The attack on Taurus, the Zealots, Marco and his being wounded, dying? Procula and her talk about her child, the statue of the child, her reflections on immortality?

15.Taurus going to the prison, the Zealots, the harshness? The interrogation of Ennius, his Jewish mother and her appearance, Roman father? Following Jesus’ words? Taurus and his arguing logically against Jesus’ words – that they covered rebellion? Taurus worried about the loyalty of the troops, Pilate not worried?

16.The crucifixion of the Zealots, Taurus watching, their singing, the cries of agony, Taurus blocking his ears?

17.The magician’s deal, giving the Zealot water, his dying on the cross, his being brought down, the fact of the cataleptic drug – and so a plan for Jesus’ resurrection, Jesus planning it?

18.Taurus, his decision to have no fear, his wanting to stop the rebellion and capture Jesus, the quest to find Mary Magdalene? Jesus’ words of love mask a different meaning – rebellion?

19.Taurus in disguise, going into the desert, Pilate’s reaction? In Galilee, as a spy, talking to the locals, Ephrem, walking on the water, the disciples confused? His presumption that Jesus was still alive and hiding? Insinuating himself into the good graces? The questions about the mountains, going into the desert, meeting the woman? The disciple who wanted to kill him and Taurus quoting the Gospel against him? The lepers, the blind man, discussion with Mary Magdalene about not recognising Jesus, the fact that she had never seen him again but that he was living in their hearts?

20.Taurus being mistaken for Jesus, the people crowding him and wanting cures? His saying Jesus’ words and then running away, all following him into the mountain? His oral dictation of a letter to Tiberius in the desert, his failed mission?

21.His final speech, whether Jesus was a passing moment, that something happened, had to happen but that he did not know? Saying that the teachings of a crucified man having been heard, the world was already changing and that that was what Tiberius feared?

22.The soldier finding Taurus, wanting a horse, taking him to Pilate, Pilate washing his hands? Taurus upset, knocked over, abandoned? His being offered the sword to end his life? His obituary? His running his hand along the sword’s edge – which symbolised for him the ethics of Rome? His invitation to the soldier to thrust him into the mystery? His death – abandoned in the desert?

23.A thoughtful reflection on the various difficulties about Jesus, historicity, the Resurrection? The age-old objections – and their being explored and answered?

DANS PARIS

France, 2006, 93 minutes, Colour.
Romain Duris, Louis Garrel, Joana Preiss, Guy Marchand, Marie- France Pisier, Alice Butaud.
Directed by Christophe Honore.

Definitely a film for Francophiles. Others beware.

Christophe Honore’s previous film, Ma Mere, and the screenplay that he wrote for Gael Morel’s Le Clan, are full of abstract conversations about inner angst and about failed relationships. They are stimulating if you like this kind of anguished self-analysis and moodiness. Otherwise they seem self-indulgent and are tedious.

Honore has used Louis Garrell (Dreamers) in Ma Mere. Here, he plays the rather carefree younger brother to Romain Duris’ older brother who has broken with his girlfriend, is taking refuge in his father’s house (in his brother’s room, ousting him to the sofa) and revelling in his depression and sneaking out at night in his brother’s clothes and throwing himself into the Seine.

The father (Guy Marchand) is an old grump and is alienated from his ex-wife (Marie France Pisier) who comes to visit but does not bother to see her sons, leaving in a huff because of her husband.

Along with a visit from younger brother’s girlfriend (one of many) which does lead to some kind of outgoing action from Duris, this is about all that happens. The talk is what is important – and more important than the random glimpses of Paris (mainly at night), so that having Paris in the title is a bit misleading. One presumes that characters like this talk like this dans France in general.

1.The work of Honore? Relationships? Sexuality? The emphasis on dialogue, interactions, philosophical reflections? Abstractions and relationships?

2.The Paris settings, the title, Paris at night, the views? The streets, the apartments? Paris as a character? The musical score?

3.The drama, the focus on characters, the interrelationships, the tensions? The melodramatics of their actions? The emphasis on dialogue, emotional, cerebral? The philosophical discussions? The overall impact?

4.The particularly French sensibility? Abstractions compared with the pragmatic?

5.The situation, Jonathan and his getting out of bed, going to the balcony, addressing the audience, confiding in them, returning to his character? Coming back to the audience every now and then? The situation with Paul, Anna leaving him, the relationship with Jonathan and his father, his depression? The visit of his mother? Alice and her coming to see Jonathan and Paul dealing with this?

6.Depression, relationships, moodiness? Suicidal attempts – or going through the motions? Strength of character, strength of will?

7.Paul, the relationship with Anna, her reaction to him, saying that he wanted to wash to be rid of her, her leaving? The later phone call? The boy? Anna as a character, her love for Paul, the dance, the phone call? Possibly reuniting?

8.Paul as a character, his personality, his work? Relationship to his father, going to stay with him? Moving into Jonathan’s room? The friendship between the two brothers, advice? His staying indoors, watching television? His going out at night, in Jonathan’s clothes, leaping into the river? The return, the bath? His meeting Alice, discussing Jonathan with her? The weeping, consoling her? His relationship with his father, his not meeting his mother?

9.Jonathan, the younger brother, less responsible, studies, leaving his studies? His picking up girls, the day, flirting? Running to the market? His advice for Paul, listening to him, the brothers sharing? The bath? With his mother? The clashes with his father? Not reliable for his father? Alice and her coming to the apartment?

10.The father, old, cantankerous, living by himself, relying on Jonathan, wanting to help Paul? The visit of his ex-wife, their discussions, arguments?

11.The mother, her going off with another man? Her visits, concerns about her sons, clashing with her ex-husband, leaving, slamming the door?

12.Alice, weeping, the relationship with Jonathan, coming to the house, on the couch, listening to Paul?

13.The minor characters, especially the women in Jonathan’s life?

14.A particularly French look at characters, love, relationships?

SAN DEMETRIO, LONDON

UK, 1943, 104 minutes, Black and white.
Walter Fitzgerald, Ralph Michael, Robert Beatty, Mervyn Johns, Frederick Piper, Gordon Jackson.
Directed by Charles Frend.

San Demetrio, London is a merchant navy ship. The film focuses on a journey it made from Galveston to the United Kingdom, and its being bombarded by a U-boat. The crew manage to escape – but a group in a lifeboat, rowing for two days, came across the hulk of the ship again. They were able to reboard, put out the oil fires, get the boat going and were able to sail back to Ireland. The film was based on a true story, most of the characters correspond to real life, especially Chief Engineer Charles Pollard who took charge of the return trip.

The film is done in a kind of documentary style, as well as being a film for the war effort. A group of veteran British actors who appeared in films for forty to fifty years comprise the cast: Walter Fitzgerald, Ralph Michael, Canadian Robert Beatty, Mervyn Johns, Frederick Piper and a young Gordon Jackson.

The film was directed by Charles Frend, an editor of some of Hitchcock’s films and MGM British-made films like The Citadel and A Yank at Oxford. Within ten years he was to direct The Cruel Sea and a number of the more serious of Ealing Studios films. The screenplay was co-written with Robert Hamer, also an Ealing Studios director who directed Alec Guinness in Kind Hearts and Coronets as well as Father Brown. This was an Ealing Studios film for the war effort.

1.The film based on a true story? Credible? A documentary-style feature?

2.The film for the war effort, released in 1943, Britain and its experience of the war, the bombardments of London, the U-boats in the Atlantic, the need for the merchant navy to go to the United States for oil?

3.The black and white photography, the details of the ship? On the Atlantic? The bombardment? The interiors of the ship and getting it going again? An air of realism? Musical score?

4.The introduction to the ship, to the mission, going to Galveston? The need for oil? The captain, the crew? Introduction to the various members of the crew? Yank Preston and Galveston, his drinking, wanting to enlist in the Royal Air Force?

5.The members of the crew and the film’s delineation of their characters? Their manner of speaking? The understated British humour? Charles Pollard and his ingenuity in getting the ship to return to England? Hawkins and his being in charge? Preston, his work on the ship, drinking, with the British? His help in getting the ship back – and the tribute to him at the end? Boyle, Jameson as his brother-in-law, buying things for his wife, his illness on the boat, the pathos of his death, funeral? Jock Jameson, young, his friendship with his brother-in-law? On the return, the food, the cups of tea – and the danger of the explosion? Pollard risking it for the cup of tea? The other members of the crew?

6.The captain and the men in the boats (*or boat? Couldn’t quite hear) being rescued? Taken to Newfoundland?

7.The voyage back, putting out the fires, getting the engines going, cleaning up? The good fellowship? The jokes, the hard work? The lottery as to which country they would land in? Ireland?

8.The insurers and their comments about compensation? The court case and the hearing? The tribute by the judge?

9.A World War Two achievement? Interesting in later decades?

LOVE IS THE DEVIL

UK, 1998, 90 minutes, Colour.
Derek Jacobi, Daniel Craig, Tilda Swinton.
Directed by John Maybury.

A film about the British painter, Francis Bacon. He is superbly played by Derek Jacobi as a petulant upper-class genius, self-absorbed, using people, especially George Dyer, his model with whom he had an ultimately destructive relationship.

The film does not focus so much on Bacon's actual paintings. It is more interested in the man, his personality, the influences on his art, his experiences that led to the paintings, the irony that great artistry can emerge from reprehensible attitudes and behaviour.

1.Audience knowledge of Francis Bacon, his art? His status? Post-war genius? His paintings of the human condition – from his own strange and mad experiences?

2.The re-creation of the London world of art, the gay scene, Soho? Bacon and his friends? The clubs? The musical score?

3.The importance of the visual, the realisation of Bacon’s art, the film made to look like his art, the editing and impressions? Art and paint, styles? Distorted mirrors? Glass, angles, colour, shapes, the stairwell? The various combinations? The physical reality – meat, blood, wounds, scars …?

4.The title, Francis Bacon and his diabolical self, George Dyer – diabolical or not? Love and the relationship between men and women, men and men? Bacon and George Dyer? Love, lust, sadomasochism? Dominance?

5.The significance of the voice-over, the sayings, the incidents? The importance of Dyer and the fall, the credibility of the story?

6.George Dyer, Daniel Craig’s performance, as a burglar, sharing Bacon’s bed, the Pygmalion effect – but with Dyer dominating? At home, the life in the room, the cigarettes and the burns? Apologies? Bacon and Dyer at the clubs? The casino, locked out? Drunkenness? Dyer relating to the friends? The nature of his relationship with Bacon, friendship, love, lust, power? The infidelities?

7.Derek Jakobi as Francis Bacon, his appearance, incarnating the artist and his madness, the painting sequences, his skills, insights into human nature? The gay sensibility, his bitchiness, his friends, the meetings, the clubs, the drinking? Relationships? Permanent and casual?

8.George and his dreams, the nightmares, diabolical, the red, the blood, the figure, crouching? His fears? George seeing himself as a loser? Premonitions?

9.The friends, their characters, the gay scene, the clubs, the camp talk, the restaurants?

10.The morbidity of Bacon’s life and relationships, his art? A poet of a world of evil? Mundane yet wanting to transform into an angel? Yet inner destructive demons?

BROTHERS

Denmark, 2004, 117 minutes, Colour.
Connie Neilsen, Ulrich Thomsen, Nikolaj Lie Kaas.
Directed by Susanne Bier.

Brothers is quite topical, not only in the relationship between an serious older brother and his irresponsible younger brother, but in its episode with a peace-keeping Danish presence in Afghanistan.

Danish films are often grim in their outlook. So, is this one. What starts out as a love-clash relationship and a family reunion turns into an unanticipated drama. The older brother goes to Afghanistan and his helicopter is shot down and he is reported dead. In her grief and care for her children, his wife begins to depend on the younger brother who becomes more genial. The older brother is captured and in the face of death commits an act which damages him morally and psychologically and has dire repercussions when he returns home.

The film raises a number of moral dilemmas, enough to make the audience thoughtful throughout the film while responding emotionally to the characters and their harsh and sad experiences.

1.The impact of this film? For Danish audiences? World audiences? Its tone, realism? Grim?

2.Ordinary life in Denmark, towns, suburbs, homes? Bars? Prison? Similar lifestyle all over Europe? The West? The musical score?

3.The contrast with Afghanistan, the initial song? The desert, arid, mountains, beauty? The skies?

4.The title, audience expectations, love and hate, rivalry, good and bad, change?

5.The picture of Michael: a military man, a strong man, a sense of mission, picking up the prisoner, it turning out to be his brother? The relationship between them? The brother and his attack on the woman, getting out? The reconciliation? The brothers’ parents? Sarah, the children? An atmosphere of joy at home?

6.Jannik, his character, the past, his look, the woman, getting out, the car, his relationship with his parents, with Anne? With his brother?

7.Michael going to Afghanistan, the farewells, his leaving his children, the officer, his arrival? Niels, the mission, the helicopter, the detail of work in Afghanistan, the crash? The dead? His not dying, his being taken? In the cell, Niels, the ordeal? The detail of the ordeal? The time passing, memories of Sarah? Niels’ story, the order, taunting him, reassuring him? The killing, the rescue?

8.Michael suddenly back, his conscience, moods? His suspicions of Jannik, of Sarah, the children? The officers? Whether to confess or not? Becoming more erratic, Sarah and her fear? Suspicions? The meal, his parents? His confrontation with Jannik, his destruction of the house, his arrest?

9.Jannik, his attraction towards Sarah, helping, playing with the children, the kiss, his girlfriend? The fight, the change?

10.Sarah and the girls, an ordinary woman, pleasant, love for her husband, hearing of his death, her grief, trying to cope? Jannik’s presence, the change in him, his being more tender, the kiss, her loneliness? The news? Michael’s return, her puzzle, her trying to love him, her fears, the danger?

11.The reverse in the brothers, Jannik becoming more humane? Michael becoming more troubled and violent?

12.The visit to the prison, his beginning to confess, the possibility of healing?

13.The reality of war, behaviour in war, conscience, forgiving oneself, being forgiven, reconciliation?

CHOCOLAT

US, 2000, 121 minutes, Colour.
Juliet Binoche, Alfred Molina, Judi Dench, Lena Olin, Johnny Depp, Carrie Anne Moss, John Wood, Leslie Caron, Victoire Thivisol, Hugh O' Conor, Peter Stormare.
Directed by Lasse Hellstrom.

On Ash Wednesday, 1959, in the tranquil French village of Lansquenet, Count Paul, the mayor, supervises his villagers coming to Church. He checks the homily preached by the newly-appointed and very young parish priest. The sedate village values its virtue of 'tranquillity'.

At the same time, a mysterious north wind blows. It signals the arrival of a mysterious woman, Vianne, and her daughter, Anouk, who have come to open a chocolaterie. The mayor, who has devoted his Lent to fasting and the promotion of moral rectitude, confronts Vianne and tries to turn the village against her.

Vianne provides wonderful chocolates, tempting the villagers who cautiously come to her shop and find their lives changed. Amongst these are Armande, who leases the shope to Vianne. Armande is a strong-minded woman whose straight-laced daughter forbids her son to see his grandmother. Another is Josephine, often battered by her husband, Serge, who takes refuge in the shop and works with Vianne.

A band of river people arrive at Lansquenet. They are resented by the village and the mayor instigates a campaign against them as moral outcasts. However, Vianne and her daughter welcome them, especially their leader, Roux, who is attracted to Vianne. Serge, taking the mayor's condemnation too literally, sets fire to the boats after a celebration. Josephine and Anouk escape the fire.

Vianne throws a party for Armande's 70th birthday - Armande returns home where she quietly dies. As Easter Sunday approaches, the mayor is desperate and goes to the shop to destroy the chocolates. Instead he wallows in them. Shamefaced, he realises and admits his narrow outlook on life. The priest preaches on the love of Jesus. The villagers are transformed into a more tolerant community and Vianne decides to stay there. Roux returns.

Chocolat is not meant to be taken as a realistic drama. A number of critics, judging it along these criteria, have dismissed it as implausible and sentimental. However, the movie touched popular audiences. The American Academy nominated the movie for a Best Picture Oscar, the luminous Juliet Binoche for Best Actress and Judi Dench for Best Supporting Actress. The rest of the cast includes Alfred Molina as the Count, Johnny Depp as the gypsy, Roux, Lena Olin as Jospehine and Carrie Anne Moss as the repressed daughter of Judi Dench.

The movie was directed by Swede Lasse Hallstrom. His movies are marked by a strong sense of humanity and compassion: My Life as a Dog, What's Eating Gilbert Grape, The Cider House Rules, The shipping News.

Whether British novelist Joanne Harris would see her story as implausible and sentimental is uncertain. However, the movie can be enjoyed - and seen as a challenge to believers.

1.A satisfying entertainment? The award nominations? Popular?

2.The re-creation of France in 1959, the village, the streets, homes, the shops, the square, the mayor’s office? The church? The musical score?

3.The blend of realism and magic realism? The effect of the chocolate?

4.The title, audience response, response to chocolate, sweet, different tastes? The shop, the customers and the effect, the making of the chocolate, the cacao, unleashing feelings from inside, joy? The issue of Lent, mortification? Indulgence? The chocolate as a symbol?

5.The narrator, the story of Vianne and Anouk, the red hoods, the wind blowing, arriving in the village, the mythologies, the fairytale aspects? Vianne and her arrival, her later telling Anouk the story of her mother, its being visualised, her father, the courtship, the attraction, 1927, the lust and love, the photograph, the mother disappearing, travelling with her daughter, obeying the winds? The arrival of the Travellers at the village, at the river? The end, Anouk spilling the cacao, apologies, trying to collect it? The ends of travel or not?

6.The Lenten setting, the opening on Ash Wednesday, the sermon, the priest and his youthfulness, Count Paul and his supervising the sermons? The opening of the shop, the role of mortification, people giving up chocolate? The people refusing? The count and his critique? The comment on self-indulgence? Armande, her being at home in the shop, not bothering about the church, her strained relationship with her daughter, eating the chocolate during Lent, the party, her death? The build-up to Easter, Count Paul and his self-indulgence, the priest’s sermon, the emphasis on the humanity of Jesus, everybody celebrating in the marketplace?

7.The role of the church, the 1950s, France, strict, the rules, observance, judgmental people, the nature of holiness, sin? People going to confession?

8.Vianne, her arrival, renting the shop from Armande, Armande being crusty? Her diligence in cleaning, the work with Anouk, opening the shop? The range of chocolates? Caroline and Luc, the accident, Caroline’s refusal? Josephine and her stealing the chocolate? Guillaume and his dog, his courting of the widow, the story that her husband had been killed in World War One? Yvette and her husband, his drinking? The sexual aspect? Vianne telling people’s favourite chocolate?

9.Life at the shop, Luc and his visits, establishing a relationship with his grandmother, her portrait? People being at home? Josephine taking refuge, Serge and his brutality? Her staying with Vianne, her happiness, working in the shop? The character of Josephine, subservient, at church, her rebellion against Serge?

10.The count, his absent wife, his diligence and work, Caroline and her administration, her strictness, with her son and fussing, his nose bleeding etc? The infatuation with the count? The discussions between the count and the priest, supervising him, expectations?

11.The priest, young and naïve, condemning the shop, his attitude towards the person of Christ, the influence of the count, hearing the confessions, trying to live up to expectations? The touch of disillusionment, seeing the count after eating the chocolate, his final homily, the compassion of Jesus? Happy?

12.Armande, cynical, diabetes, her friendship with Vianne, the chocolate, spending her time at the shop? Wanting the party, the celebration? Her death – and her mother and the count blaming Vianne?

13.The arrival of the Travellers, the notices in the town, Vianne going out to meet them, the judgmental attitudes, especially of the count? Armande and her reaction?

14.The celebrations, Serge and his being upset, setting fire? Running away? Vianne and Roux together, the bond, fixing the window? The night together, the fire, the search for Anouk, Josephine saving her? Vianne’s relief?

15.Serve, his confessing to the count, the count exiling him?

16.The count, Armande’s death, Caroline and her attentions? The truth about his wife? His vengeful attitudes towards Vianne, his attacking the shop, tasting the chocolate on his lips, gorging himself, his illness and collapse? The priest seeing him? Vianne helping him – and reminding him that it was Easter?

17.Vianne, the decision to move, Anouk’s unwillingness? The kangaroo and its healing? The fight, the spilling of the cacao? Making the village happy – Vianne’s mission in life?

18.The sermon, the true expression of Christianity, Jesus’ humanity, joy? The consequent happiness for the celebration of Easter in the square?

GOYA’S GHOSTS

Spain, 2006, 114 minutes, Colour.
Javier Bardem, Natalie Portman, Stellan Skarsgaard, Randy Quaid, Michael Lonsdale, Jose Luis Gomez, Mabel Rivera.
Directed by Milos Forman.

This reviewer, who liked Goya’s Ghosts very much indeed, received a shock to find that most other reviewers were very unfavourable in their response. That seems to be a warning in itself.

Everybody did agree that the film looks good. Everybody disagreed about the casting – which is a problem as there is an international cast where Goya is played by a Swedish actor. Most did not like the structure of the film, thinking that it lacked dramatic focus and dramatic momentum.

So, in defence of Goya’s Ghosts and in praise of it:

The casting is a little bizarre but Stellan Skarsgaard does make an interesting Goya. Spain is represented by Javier Bardem as Fra Lorenzo, a member of the Spanish Inquisition. America is represented by Natalie Portman who has the difficult task of playing the young Dona Inez in the first part of the film, of playing Dona Inez who is released, not in her right mind, after fifteen years in the Inquisition prison and then playing her vivacious daughter. French Michael Lonsdale is the head of the Inquisition.

It should be said that the director is double Oscar winner (Cuckoo’s Nest and Amadeus) Milos Forman. Forman brings the sense of the sumptuous that he showed with Amadeus and Valmont to this re-creation of Spain. Forman also wants us to see Spain through the eyes of the artist Francisco Goya, showing a collage of his sketches and paintings during opening and closing credits, portraying Goya in action with patrons, including the Queen, posing, indicating in some detail how Goya sketched, engraved and printed his drawings. The screenplay was written in collaboration with Jean-Claude? Carriere who wrote a number of classic films for Luis Bunuel, like The Discreet Charm of the Bourgeoisie and The Phantom of Liberte.

Which brings us to the structure and drama. Goya is not really the centre of the film. Spain is. When we appreciate this we realise that he is part of the drama but also the observer and we observe events and history with him. Fra Lorenzo is far more the centre of action, first as a zealous but flawed inquisitor and then as Bonapartist official in Napoleonic times. The film is structured accordingly. The first half seems something of a chamber piece, entry into an enclosed world of late 18th century Spanish society, monarchical, conservative, rigid, affluent, superficially religious and at times dominated by a ruthless inquisition which carries out arbitrary arrests, long false imprisonments with torture all in the name of truth and religion.

Then a caption announces that 15 years have passed. This second part of the film is much more open. The early 19th century. Napoleon’s troops invade, pillage and rape. The officials of the Inquisition are imprisoned and the alleged spirit of the French Revolution is to prevail. Once again Goya observes this as well as trying to do the best for Inez now released and wandering the streets to search for her child. The revolution is short-lived as Wellington and the British quickly reinstate the monarchy and the status quo. King and inquisition return – this time with executions.

There is a great deal more plot detail. Best to say that for those who enjoy history being re-enacted on screen, offering reflection on government, church and religion and the changing nature of society should find Goya’s Ghosts never less than interesting.

1.The impact of the film? As a portrait of Spain at the end of the 18th, beginning of the 19th centuries? A portrait of Spain through Goya’s perspective? A film like Goya’s paintings?

2.The high production values, direction, writing, cinematography, music?

3.The European sensibility: the 18th century, Spain, France, the church, the revolution, the inquisition?

4.The re-creation of the period, a closed 18th century, an open 19th century?

5.The two parts of the film, distinct, fifteen years apart, coming together at the end, all the characters in the square at the end?

6.The grim perspective of the film, the inquisition of the 18th century and its tyranny, conservative Spanish monarchy? The grimness of the 19th century, the Napoleonic wars, the slaughter? The reimposition of the inquisition and the Spanish monarchy?

7.Francisco Goya and his reputation, his powers of observation, his access to royalty, to ordinary people, considered like a contemporary journalist? The credits at beginning and end and the range of images? His paintings, the engravings, people posing? The achievement, the patrons, commissions, fees? His wanting to be apolitical? His involvement with people, concern? The harsher aspects of Spanish life as he grew older? His deafness and its effect? The film not mentioning his end – exile in Bordeaux?

8.The role of the inquisition, Father Gregorio, his character, quiet, harsh, self-confident, presiding? The introduction to Goya via the examination of his sketches, their being repelled, the discussion, Lorenzo and his caution? The meetings and discussions, the verdicts? The self-righteousness – and that the church was always right, in such details as the Question, torture? The issue of Ines, her being arrested, interrogated, tortured? Her father’s donation? Father Gregorio refusing to release her? The detailed scenes in the dungeons, Lorenzo’s visit? The transition to the French invasion, Father Gregorio presiding, the priest singing the Gospel, his being shot? The court and the condemnation of the clergy? Their being in prison? Lorenzo visiting Gregorio, getting the information about Alicia, sparing his life? So that Gregorio would preside over Lorenzo’s condemnation?

9.The members of the inquisition, their discussions, harsh stances, spying on people, the Familiares and their status, at taverns, giving information? Arrests, torture, the rack? The range of victims? Lorenzo, being part of the inquisition, his visit, his lust for Ines? His not being able to effect her release? The inquisition and their condemnation of Lorenzo for his confession, his fleeing? Imprisoned by the French, their release, taunting Lorenzo at the stake, the cries of repentance? The role of the church, judgment? Fanaticism, totalitarian? (And Forman’s comment about his growing up in a communist regime?)

10.The introduction to Lorenzo, his appearance, speech, dress, ardent, the reality of life, prostitutes, Goya’s sketches? His portrait being painted, not enough money to paint his hands, his reaction to the painting, his looking stern? His attraction towards the paintings of Ines? His friendship with Goya? His visits, the visit to Ines, the sexual encounter, his return and the second encounter? Goya persuading him to go to dinner with her parents? The discussions about torture, the torturing of Lorenzo, his signing the document that he was descended from monkeys? His not succeeding for Ines’ release, pleading to Father Gregorio? Fleeing to France?

11.Ines, young, being painted by Goya, the discussion about witches, her being painted as an angel in the church roofs? In the tavern, her brothers, kissing the dwarf, the arrest, the questions, her naivety, being tortured on the rack, kept in prison, Lorenzo’s visit, the sex? Condemned as a Judaiser? The fifteen years passing, coming out, her disfigured face, madness? Goya finding her? Her seeing Lorenzo? Her wanting her child, the search, Lorenzo putting her in the asylum, seeing the baby in the tavern, Lorenzo at the stake, calling out to him? Following him with the baby on the cart?

12.Goya and his work, as a personality, non-involvement, infatuation with Ines, friendship with Lorenzo, the painting of the queen and her displeasure at the painting, his audiences with the king? Listening to the king, the violin, the interruption about the execution of Louis XVI? The details given of the process of engraving and printing? The sketches, the portraits, the dinner and his helping the family, his reaction to the torture of Lorenzo, his being ousted, bewildered? The bells ringing and his deafness?

13.18th century Spain, the role of the church, the royal family, their wealth, merchant families, pomp, beautiful buildings, the inquisition, descended from Jews, spies alert?

14.The fifteen-year gap, the introduction of Napoleon, his speech, the revolutionary principles? His being emperor? Installing Joseph as King of Spain? The detail of the brutal French invasion, in the streets, raping and pillaging? Freeing the prisoners of the inquisition? The shooting of the singing priest? Imprisoning the inquisition members? The trials?

15.Lorenzo and his return, the influence of France, reading Voltaire and other philosophers, the new ideas? His being a Napoleonic official, his lavish office, the scenes with his wife and family, the friendship with Goya? Information about Ines, the meeting, his putting her in an institution? Going to Gregorio, getting the information about Alicia? The coach ride with Alicia, her rejecting him? The rounding up of the prostitutes and their being transported to America? His information about the British attack, the escape with his family, the shooting, his arrest, the trial, his dunce’s cap, being mocked, refusing to recant, the inquisition hounding him at his execution, for repentance? Ines calling out to him? The garrotting, his body being carried on the wagon, followed by Goya, with Ines?

16.Goya and his deafness, his situation, his assistant signing for him? Observation? His career, going to Lorenzo, discussions with him? Ines and his (*?) help, seeking out Alicia, seeing her in the park, talking to the madam? Going to Lorenzo, the consequences? The road block, his going to the tavern, seeing Alicia with the baby, her being taken? Ines and the baby, the trial? His following the cart?

17.The story of Alicia, her being boarded with the nuns, her escape, as a prostitute? In the gardens, her clients, with Lorenzo, her screaming, in the tavern, the baby and the round-up, her attracting the British officer, on the balcony – and the witness to Lorenzo’s death?

18.Ines’ family, genteel, the dinner, the torturing of Lorenzo, his signing the letter, their death with the French invasion? Ines finding them at the house?

19.A picture of the times – and perspectives on the 18th and 19th centuries?

PUSHING TIN

US, 1999, 124 minutes, Colour.
John Cusack, Billy Bob Thornton, Cate Blanchett, Angelina Jolie, Jake Weber, Kurt Fuller, Vicki Lewis.
Directed by Mike Newell.

Pushing Tin is a blend of the comic, the romantic, disaster film. It focuses on several air traffic controllers, their work, camaraderie, their home lives and tensions.

John Cusack is the star of the air traffic control centre. When Billy Bob Thornton arrives, there is macho rivalry. Cate Blanchett portrays Cusack’s wife, Angelina Jolie Billy Bob Thornton’s young and alcoholic wife. The encounters between the couples lead to the collapse of a marriage and the healing of a marriage.

The film is conventional in some ways – though the solid performances, the world of the air controllers and their lives and work, the tensions between the two, the bonds between the wives make it an above average drama.

The film was directed by British Mike Newell whose range of films include Bad Blood in New Zealand, Four Weddings and a Funeral and a Harry Potter film.

1.The blend of comedy, romance, drama? The airport setting, air traffic control? The neighbourhoods?

2.New Jersey, the airports, the control room, the restaurants, the home barbeques, homes? The contrast with Colorado, the outdoors? The city and the country? The musical score?

3.The title, the controllers, the planes as tin? The people at work, the room, their concentration, the computer graphics for the flight paths, the difficulties, fears, the comments about mistake, loss of nerve, the ethos? So many planes coming at once? The bomb scare and the consequences?

4.John Cusack as Nick, the focus of the film, the leader in the control room, the bonds with the other members? The discussions with Barry? With Ed? The man who lost his nerve? Wanting to come back in? The discussions with the boss? Timetables, the detail of the work? Nick and his relationship with Connie, the children? Home life, the detail, Connie and her busyness, going to the school meeting, her art classes? Meals, the barbeques? Normal – but some tension?

5.Russell and his arrival, his reputation, laconic, his skill at his work? The barbeque and Mary’s presence? The basketballs and the bet? Nick and his jealousy, the match competition and the burn, the continued macho competition? Russell’s attitude, Nick’s attitude? The others observing? Russell’s marriage, marrying a young wife? His discussions with Connie, lending her the French tapes? Nick and his self-consciousness, the rivalry, angers? The crisis? Blaming Russell about the plane, their fight? The irony of Russell’s heroism, staying? Nick and his being shamed? Russell and his leaving, going to Colorado? Nick coming to see him, the discussion, the image of the river, going in? Together under the plane and swirled by the draught? The irony that Russell’s marriage was made better? Nick’s worse?

6.Mary, her appearance, her drinking, bored, discussions with Connie, the other women, their comments about marriage break-up? The supermarket and her weeping, Nick taking her to dinner, the sexual encounter, her hostility, the aftermath, telling Russell the truth – and its effect on Nick? On Russell?

7.Connie, her life, nice, the barbeque, her busyness, art class? The death of her father – and Nick’s almost confession? On the plane, Nick’s behaviour, the truth and her being hurt? Nick and his wanting to stop the pilot, his madness about Russell’s conspiracy to down the plane? The reaction of the flight attendants? Telling Nick to leave? Her going away?

8.Nick and his collapse, behaviour in the plane, finally going back, the two mistakes? His being welcomed, the issue of the bet? Guiding the planes? Connie on the plane, his speaking to her, his apologising, his wanting to take her out? The possibility of reconciliation? Connie saying that he had not spoken like that before?

9.Themes of friendship, in the workplace, after work, the restaurants, camaraderie? Authorities? The guide taking the children through the air traffic control – and the crisis and getting them out?

10.Themes of marriage, family, bonds, fidelity, infidelity, careers and crisis?