OCTUBRE

Peru, 2010, 83 minutes, Colour.
Bruno Odar, Gabriella Velasquez.
Directed by Daniel and Diego Vega.

A brief film and we are plunged straight into it without any background explanation. The film can be called a slice of life in the poorer suburbs of Lima. We stay mostly within this limited world, though there is a visit beyond the neighbourhood and one of those intense Marian processions for Our Lady of Miracles, with band, statues, belted devotees and incense.

We stay almost all the time with an unsmiling middle-aged man, Clemente, who lives alone, visits a local prostitute and lends money, fairly it seems, but always wanting a guarantee. The film is going in this direction when Clemente arrives home one night and fears that he has been robbed. Instead, a baby in a wicker basket has been left in his house. He begins to take care of it and employs a local Marian devotee to care for the baby and his household. She is intense, has her own sexual preoccupations and misinterprets Clemente.

And that’s about it. The value of the film is in the performances, the glimpses of life in Lima and the effect of being placed in the middle of this world and being challenged as to what we think and feel about what we encounter.

1. The title, the lucky month – or not?

2. The Lima background, the small focus, homes and shops, the streets? Musical score?

3. Outside and the procession, its lavish devotion? religious imagery and icons throughout the film?

4. A slice of life? Audience plunged into the middle of things, no explanations?

5. Clemente's story, the egg sandwich, giving out the loans, asking for guarantees, the interest rate? Going to the prostitute? Never smiling? Alone, serious, dealing with the wide range of clients? Their requests? His box in the stove, fearing it stolen? Finding the baby? Going to the police, staying that he saved the baby, caring for it? Sofia and the ring, hiring her, the routines in the house? Trying to find the mother, asking the prostitute, going for the visit? Sofia and the bed incident, the uncertainty, the process? His buying the perfume? The man finally arriving for the baby? Future?

6. Sofia's story, in the procession, the religious fervour, her cooking and selling to the baker shop, the question about the ring? The care for the baby, hired, managing the house, doing the shopping, her own sensuality, the approach to the bed? The candles? Her disappointment, seeing her in the procession?

7. The prostitute and her life, clients, Clemente, giving advice?

8. The background characters, in the shops, the prostitutes, the police?

9. A glimpse of ordinary life in a poor section of Lima?

VAMPIRES SUCK

US, 2101, d. Jason Friedberg and Aaron Seltzer.

A lot of people in this decade have taken vampires in movies and television series (from Twilight to True Blood) very seriously and take this title seriously and factually. Of course, vampires do suck. However, many others take the whole matter far less seriously, so the title is a corny but funny title for this parody.

The writer-directors of Vampires Suck have been making spoofs of American movie trends for some years now. They don’t get very good reviews but they feel that they fill a need for someone to send up the trends. Audiences often get a giggle or two from these spoofs, like Meet the Spartans which took on Leonidas and the campy treatment of 300. In fact they have written The Scary Movies and then directed Epic, Date and Disaster Movies. It was only to be expected that they should come up with this one.

The earlier films had some laugh out loud sequences but sometimes strained for these or took refuge in bad taste. Vampires Suck, following Twilight and New Moon rather closely, is not a laugh movie. Rather, it is one that can offer smiles as we watch the spoof tone of the film, the send-ups of the characters (Edward, ‘the pale guy with the constipated look’ who powders his face and puts his hair in curlers and Jake taking his shirt off for no reason except that his contract requires him to take it off every ten minutes of screen time). Bella becomes Becca. The way her character behaves quietly parodies Kristen Stewart’s rather morose heroine.

There are some incidental jokes if you are quick enough, a stab at Tiger Woods’ affairs, the movie Dear John..., no werewolves to be seen, only a Chihuahua.

Those who like the Twilight films and solemnly watch them (and the number is legion) will probably not be pleased or impressed. Those who have seen the films and not liked them might get some satisfaction at the poking fun. For those who have not seen them, they may wonder what it is all about. So, a mild but more accurate contribution to the spoof series.

THE HUMAN CENTIPEDE (FIRST SEQUENCE)

(Netherlands, 2009, d. Tom Six)

An example of a minor horror film (mad scientist experiments on abducted tourists) that has found its reputation growing as marketing informs prospective patrons (but, maybe, far more prospective non-patrons) what the film is about to capitalise on the disgust factor. It sounds repugnant, though its surprise value makes people think it is worse than visualising a chainsaw massacre (and there have been lots of those over the years on screen). It isn’t.

Actually, this brings up the old question of making the distinction between ‘what’ is presented and ‘how’ it is presented.

The grisly ‘what’ of this film, a human centipede, sounds awful, and it is. However, it is not nearly so explicit in gore and ugly sequences as publicity would lead us to believe.

The plot is straightforward. Two American girls (the synopsis refers to them as ditsy but they seem much more sensible than most who finish up being tortured in movies like the Hostel series) get lost one night on a road in Germany. A mad man whom we have seen menace a stranger with a rifle offers to ring for help when they stumble on his luxurious home in the forest. As expected, especially from this doctor whose face is overtly reptilian, he drugs them, kills the man he abducted and finds a Japanese substitute. One of the girls breaks free and the doctor pursues her through his house – more time on this than on the actual surgery.

The doctor is famous as a surgeon for his skills in separating Siamese twins. In his madness, he wants to reverse his surgery and connect his victims and make them function as one, a human centipede. He explains with diagrams what he intends to do but, mercifully for those who watch it with good intentions, very little is actually shown of the surgery. We move to the fair accompli. However, the resulting creature, with the three joined together and suffering, shows his sadistic nature and, perhaps, our masochistic nature in watching it.

The rest is a conventional police investigation and search, the Japanese thwarting the intentions of the doctor and... Since the title of the film says First Sequence, the ending is an abrupt one. Presumably, the writer-director set off to find the money for his Second Sequence.

Much less repulsive than many a current slasher movie, the film has relied on word of mouth and marketing to gains its sensationalist reputation.

WASHINGTON STORY

US, 1952, 81 minutes, Black and white.
Van Johnson, Patricia Neal, Louis Calhern, Sidney Blackmer, Philip Ober, Patricia Collinge, Elizabeth Patterson, Rineholdt Schunzel.
Directed by Robert Pirosh.

Washington Story is a brief programmer film from MGM. It was produced during the black list period and the hearings by Senator Mc Carthy. It was an attempt to give some credibility to the American Congress, bypassing the current controversies of the 1950s and focusing on the role of the House of Representatives, the integrity of politicians, the role of lobbyists, the experience of journalists, their support of politicians as well as their muckraking.

The film was written and directed by Robert Pirosh, a veteran writer from the 1930s (including A Day at the Races) and of many popular television episodes in the 1960s and 70s. He directed only five films including Go for Broke, Valley of the Kings, The Girl Rush.

Van Johnson is surprisingly credible as the congressman. A song-and-dance man, he also showed an ability for performance in some of the MGM features of the 1940s. Patricia Neal was at the beginning of her career, on loan from Warner Bros where she made many films including The Fountainhead. Louis Calhern was a veteran at MGM. There is a very good supporting cast.

The film is interesting in retrospect – and also in comparison with contemporary opinions about the role of American politicians and of Congress.

1. American politics, 1952, the latter part of the 20th century and the discrediting of the presidency and politicians? The 21st century – and the Bush and Obama administrations?

2. The parallels with later times, Republicans and Democrats, voting, the lobbyists, the votes in Congress, the voters, campaigns?

3. The black and white photography, Washington, the Capitol? Interiors, Congress? The American score and its American, patriotic tone?

4. The title, journalists, politicians, lobbyists, truth and slander, principles?

5. Alice’s arrival in Washington, the audience seeing Washington through her eyes? Her past, the connection with her paper, muckraking? Her keeping it quiet? The meeting with Nunnally, his showing her around, the tour, sitting in the House, listening to the statistics? Seeing Joe intervene? Nunnally and his talk? Nunnally as a character, muckraking, being sued? His wanting to get at Joe Gresham?

6. The idea for the article, Alice and her meeting with Joe, his secretary and her work, Joe’s hesitance, agreement? Her cover, the phone call – and the later revelation that it was Nunnally’s house? Their impersonations for Joe? Alice and her tenacity, following Joe, the long walks, the range of people, the speeches, dictating letters, the Boy Scouts and the photo opportunity, the television rehearsal, the television interview, hurried meals? Becoming comfortable with him, the meals, dancing?

7. Sitting in on the committee, Joe presiding, Burch and his ploys, afterwards and the discussion about tactics, their friendship? Emery and his lobbying, his speech? Nunnally’s warnings about Joe and Emery? The social, Joe meeting Emery, their discussion, giving him documents? Alice and her falling for Joe’s charm? Listening to his speeches? In society, the meetings? Her suspicions of Emery?

8. The migrant, his story, visiting the House, his petition, not being allowed back in America and being deported, after twenty-eight years? Joe and his enigmatic response? Alice and her reaction? Her later discovering of the truth, Joe’s kindness towards the migrant?

9. The issue of shipbuilding, disbursing it over the country or localising it? The effect on local communities, the workforce? The role of the lobbyists and information? The discussions in committee?

10. Joe’s visit home, to his aunt, Alice visiting, comfortable with the family? The aunt later visiting Joe in Washington to support him?

11. The vote, Joe and his stance, people’s reaction? The minders and their concern, the newspaper articles? The hostile phone calls and telegrams? The effect on Joe, his wanting to give up? Burch and his challenging Joe about failures and comebacks?

12. Joe, disillusionment, not answering the phone, planning a trip?

13. Alice and her article, discovering the truth, talking with the migrant, tearing up her article, confronting Nunnally? The quick ending on the Capitol steps?

14. Politics, journalists, political and social issues?

HOUSE OF ROTHSCHILD

US, 1934, 88 minutes, Black and white/Colour.
George Arliss, Boris Karloff, Loretta Young, Robert Young, C. Aubrey Smith, Arthur Byron, Helen Westley, Reginald Owen, Florence Arliss, Alan Mowbray.
Directed by Alfred L. Werker.

The House of Rothschild is a very surprising film from the Hollywood of the 1930s. While most of the moguls at the Hollywood studios were of Jewish descent, explicit Jewish themes were comparatively rare in films until the breakthrough with Gentlemen’s Agreement in 1947. However, this film was produced by Darryl F. Zanuck of Fox Studios (not Jewish) and was a propaganda attempt at the time of Hitler’s accession to power in Germany. In England, at the same time, there was a similar production of Jew Suss with Conrad Veidt. Both of these stories were later used by Goebbels in anti-Semitic propaganda films.

George Arliss, who had won an Oscar for his portrayal of English prime minister Benjamin Disraeli, portrays the patriarch of the Rothschild family as well as his son Nathan Rothschild who opened the bank of the house in England and was responsible for making loans to the British government and other governments to combat Napoleon. After Napoleon’s escape from Elba, and his gathering forces, ultimately beaten at Waterloo, Rothschild negotiated with the bankers and with the British government to persuade the British government to grant citizenship to Jews living in England.

Boris Karloff, soon after his performance as Frankenstein, gives a very interesting performance as the anti-Semitic Count Ledrantz, one of the bankers opposed to the Rothschild yet, ultimately, having to come cap-in-hand to borrow money for the defeat of Napoleon. Loretta Young has a small role as Rothschild’s daughter with Robert Young as her suitor, a soldier in the forces of the Duke of Wellington who is played with bluff cheerfulness by C. Aubrey Smith. Florence Arliss, George Arliss’s wife, appears as his wife in the film. A number of character actors portray the leading bankers of Europe.

Alfred L. Werker directed mainly small-budget, B-budget films. This film stands out in his CV.
The finale of the film is a social with the prince regent conferring a baronetcy on Rothschild (which was not quite accurate, the baronetcy came to his son at the end of the 19th century).

It moves into colour, just before the three-colour Technicolor process was used for a full-length feature film in Becky Sharp (also set in this particular period and in the aftermath of Waterloo).

1. 30s film-making, sets, performances, re-creation of period, costumes and décor? Musical score? The black and white photography, the transition to colour pageantry?

2. The title, the history of the Rothschild family, the Jewish background, bankers, continental Europe? As lenders, their prosperity? Yet the anti-Semitic persecution and taxation? The issue of Jewish freedom in Europe? The long anti-Semitic traditions, the ghettos?

3. Hollywood making Jewish issues explicit, the rarity in the Hollywood of the period? Hitler’s rise to power, the action of the Nazis, the persecution of the Jews, the anticipation of World War Two?

4. The introduction to the family, life in the ghetto, the patriarch, his business, his family, wife and sons? The issue of taxes, the inspectors, bargaining about the taxes? The extortion? The speculations? The robberies of the Jewish coaches? A man of principle, yet having to compromise? His speech about integrity to his sons? Sending his sons out throughout Europe? The beginnings of a world bank?

5. Nathan Rothschild’s story? London in the 18th and 19th centuries? The transition from money lender to banker, the role of the stock exchange? The Napoleonic wars and government needs for loans? The Duke of Wellington and his friendship with Nathan, the visits, giving hints about the loans? The meeting of the bankers, Ledrantz and his vetoing of Rothschild? Rothschild standing up to him, the confrontation with Baring, with the count? The hostility, anti-Semitic? The discussion of percentages for the loan? The continental bankers and Ledrantz covering the loan? Baring finally coming to ask for Rothschild’s help?

6. The domestic sequences, Nathan and his love for his wife, her support, when he risked the money, for richer or poorer – and her note that he read at the stock exchange at the time of Waterloo?

7. The subplot of the romance, Julie and Fitz Roy, their meetings, Nathan’s opposition, Julie as strong? Fitz Roy determined? Fitz Roy with Wellington? The Jewish issues? Jewish freedom and Nathan relenting?

8. Ledrantz, the European background, the loans? His power, card-playing the news of Waterloo? The final negotiations with Rothschild and his backing down?

9. Nathan and his brothers, their plans, the issues concerning napoleon and Jewish freedom? Nathan and his plan to visit, the police and the plans to thwart him? Napoleon’s escape from Elba? Napoleon’s success in getting an army, Paris, moving north towards Brussels?

10. Ledrantz, the visit to Nathan, the discussions, the nature of the loan? Nathan wanting securities? His diplomacy concerning legislation, Napoleon being pro-Jewish, the British and their capitulation?

11. The war, the continued losses, Nathan and the information from his brothers by carrier pigeon? The exchange, panic, Rothschild and his friends buying, the risks, bankruptcy? His going to the exchange, the flower in his lapel, trying to promote confidence?

12. Getting the news of the victory at Waterloo, at the exchange, trying to persuade people to believe him? His vindication, his wealth?

13. The film transition to colour, the prince regent, the Baron Rothschild, the ball, the happy romance?

14. A significant film from Hollywood in the 1930s, the courage of taking a stance on Jewish issues?

GUN SHY

US, 2000, 101 minutes, Colour.
Liam Neeson, Oliver Platt, Sandra Bullock, Jose Zuniga, Michael De Lorenzo, Andrew Lauer, Richard Schiff, Paul Ben- Victor, Mary Mc Cormack, Mitch Pileggi, Louis Giambalvo.
Directed by Eric Blakeney.

Gun Shy did not get much cinema release in 2000. It is a Liam Neeson vehicle rather than a Sandra Bullock vehicle (she produced and gives herself something of a supporting role). Nor is it the kind of romantic comedy that people might have been expecting with Sandra Bullock. It is more akin to the Robert De Niro- Billy Crystal films, Analyze This and Analyze That. This time it is a DEA operative who is having something of a nervous and emotional breakdown.

Liam Neeson has something of a flair for comedy as the DEA officer, joining a men’s group with a psychiatrist and discussing his case while simultaneously planning a sting so that he can arrest big drug dealers, Colombian drug dealers and local criminals. Oliver Platt enjoys himself as a standover man – but who has a soft heart, an Italian who really wanted to be growing tomatoes. Jose Zuniga and Michael De Lorenzo are the Colombians, secretly in love with each other. Andrew Lauer is an opportunist, a plant by the arch villain, a DEA official, played by Mitch Pileggi. Richard Schiff and Paul Ben- Victor are amongst those in the psychiatrist’s men’s support group.

The film has sometimes a frantic touch, sometimes a romantic touch with Liam Neeson and Sandra Bullock, sometimes some very comic touches with the basic premise of the breakdown of the official as well as his planning the sting.

The film was written and directed by Eric Blakeney, prolific writer of television material in the 1980s. This is the only film he directed.

1. A blend of romantic comedy and police thriller? The psychology background?

2. The American cities, the DEA, police, hotels, gangsters, restaurants and venues for meeting, the home show? The touch of realism? The score?

3. The title, its relating to Charlie and his experience and breakdown?

4. The opening, the camera tracking through the airport, in the toilet, Charlie rehearsing his fears, the puzzle of the cleaner? His talking to Lonnie in his imagination? On the plane, his stomach trouble, meeting the psychiatrist?

5. The black humour, the sick DEA officer, the visuals of his trauma, physical and psychological? His trauma with the gangster, the watermelon, the death of his fellow agent, the raid? His nightmares?

6. The session with the psychiatrist, his anxiety? The psychiatrist’s sympathy, inviting him to join the men’s group? The four men and their personalities, issues, with bosses, with anger management? Experiencing put-downs? Charlie letting them in on his own situation? The effect – and the consequences when they disguise themselves as FBI agents?

7. The DEA authorities, the boss and his control, the irony of his being the criminal? Lonnie, discussions, faith in Charlie, the support, getting the information about Jason Cane? The boss discovering this, the rendezvous, picking him up, killing him?

8. Charlie and his work, eighteen years, enjoying it, the effect of the trauma, his reprimanding his shadow agent for being able to be seen? The connections?

9. The plan and the deals, Fulvio and his wife, Jason organising the deals, his Wall Street background? The Colombians and the boss sending his son to prove himself? The various meetings, the arguments, the loss of temper, agreements? Charlie and his being calm, even sleeping with Fulvio’s gun aimed at him? Fulvio admiring him? The Colombians trusting him and agreeing? The discussion with the boss, with the boss, his believing Charlie, the reverse psychology tactic?

10. Judy, the medical background, the bond, treating Charlie, the relationship, the affair, helping him, throwing the pills out? The home show exposition, meeting the gangsters and their wives in the restaurant? The finale, the FBI agents?

11. The expo, the dream house, the group all at the show, Elliott almost blowing Charlie’s cover, Elliott hitting him, getting him in the taxi? The wife’s reaction? Explanations in the group, Elliott explaining how he lost his temper, his wife leaving him? The others and their conversations, the drink after the meeting, their collaborating to save Charlie?

12. The plan, the warehouse, each side showing the money? The plan behind the plan – and the boss trying to organise the deaths of those concerned and steal the money?

13. Fulvio, Italian, his grandma rebuking him, his becoming a standover man, his uncontrolled anger, shooting the Colombian in the groin? His wife taunting him, his father-in-law? His admiration for Charlie?

14. The Colombians, at the meetings, Jason bringing the girls, protesting about having the family, the gay relationship with the guard, his being shot?

15. Jason, smooth, making decisions for others and continually being put down and told not to?

16. The plan and the exposure, the shootings, the fake FBI and the rescue, the Colombians swimming to safety, Fulvio escaping with Charlie?

17. The real FBI, the capture of the boss and Jason?

18. Sailing away to happy ever after – and Fulvio growing tomatoes?

SHREK FOREVER AFTER

US, 2010, 93 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Mike Myers, Eddie Murphy, Cameron Diaz, Antonio Banderas, Julie Andrews, Jon Hamm, John Cleese, Craig Robinson, Walter Dorhn, Jane Lynch, Lake Bell, Mary Kaye Place.
Directed by Mike Mitchell.

After three Shrek features, it is easy to forget how unlikely a popular animation character Shrek might have been on paper and how he won over any doubters, including hardboiled critics at the Cannes film festival where the first film was in competition. But, we all liked him, and Donkey and the cartoon characters like the Gingerbread man, and Fiona the King and Queen of Far, Far Away. It helped that these characters were voiced by Mike Myers, Cameron Diaz, Eddie Murphy, Julie Andrews and John Cleese. And, then came Puss in Boots with those mesmerising, piteous eyes, with Antonio Banderas’ voice.

They are back again for this fourth episode, seemingly the last. And it may well be the last since a lot of the surprise has inevitably long gone and the films rely on affectionate familiarity. But, the plot this time is quite dark (as is the photography of a dingy Far, Far Away). It seems to be a variation on the classic, It’s A Wonderful Life. There, George Bailey, in despair, is taken by Clarence the Angel to see what his home town of Bedford Falls would have been like had he not lived. It is a squalid place.

Here we do not have an angel but rather the ambitious Rumpelstiltskin who is power-hungry and does a shady deal with the King and Queen to rescue Fiona and for them to sign away their kingdom. When he hears that Shrek and Fiona have broken the spell through their true-love kiss, he entraps the happy family ogre, Shrek, to do a deal to have one free day. This is where, for Shrek, he sees what a wonderful life he had and how far, far from wonderful is a life where Fiona does not know him and is antagonised by him, where Donkey does not know him. He has to rescue Fiona all over again – and even the kiss does not resolve the problem at first. Donkey is sceptical. Puss does his wide-eyed turn again (which did bring some hearty laughter from the audience). Pinocchio tells lies and Ginger is a petty villain. The ogres, however, are on side, but trapped by Rumpelstiltskin.

This darker sequel is reminiscent of Babe, Pig in the City, which left the happy rural countryside and audiences found it rather harder to enjoy.

The other trouble is Rumpelstiltskin himself. He looks like a very short twerp and behaves like it, with an objectionably strident voice, hardly a worthy villain for the film or an opponent for Fiona and Shrek. He is voiced by Walt Dohrn from the story department.

One of the most amusing aspects is that many popular songs from the decades are incorporated into the story as commentary on the action and characters.

Goodbye, Shrek.

1. The popularity of the three Shrek films, the characters, situations, the variation on the fairytale stories? The fairytale personalities and the characters in the kingdom of Far Far Away?

2. The final episode, the presuppositions – and the filling in the background of the rescue of Fiona?

3. The darker side of the film, darker colour, the twists and the dismal state of Far Far Away, broken down? The castle, the countryside? The contrast with Shrek’s happy life? The use of 3D for impact?

4. The use of so many popular songs, the irony, parody, romance, comment on characters and situations?

5. The opening with Shrek and Fiona, the happy family, the children, their lifestyle, Donkey running through the house, Puss-in-Boots?

6. The prologue with Rumpelstiltskin? The king and the queen and their hurrying to his house, his explanation of the deal, their concern about Fiona, ready to sign away the kingdom, the sudden interruption of the news that Fiona had been rescued? Rumpelstiltskin, his wanting control?

7. Rumpelstiltskin and his size, a twerp,, his voice, accent? The kingdom and power? His cohort of Wicked Witches of the West? The fairytale characters in Far Far Away, Pinocchio, his trying to be a boy, free from his strings, telling lies? Ginger and his being opposite of the genial Gingerbread Man? The ogres and their confronting Rumpelstiltskin?

8. Shrek and Rumpelstiltskin, the deal for a day, Shrek being tricked, alone, abandoned in the day that he was born, nobody knowing him? His encounter with Donkey, Donkey’s carry-on and not knowing him? Fiona not knowing him, the need to rescue her all over again? Her suspicions, fighting spirit, the kiss and its not working?

9. Fiona being imprisoned, the rescue, Shrek prepared to sacrifice himself, her falling in love with him, kissing him and being freed? The threats of the dragon? Shrek falling in love again and prepared to die?

10. The comedy of Donkey and his patter? Puss- in- Boots, the episode with his eyes and wanting Donkey to lick him? His putting on weight?

11. The court, the ogres and their capture, Rumpelstiltskin and his advisers, his malevolence?

12. The build-up to the confrontation, the freeing of the ogres, Shrek and his acrobatics, the fight with Rumpelstiltskin? Donkey and his love for the dragon?

13. Rumpelstiltskin in defeat? The restoration of Far Far Away?

14. The happy ending as a goodbye to Shrek?

THE KINGS OF MYKONOS

Australia, 2010, 108 minutes, Colour.
Nick Giannopoulos, Vince Colosimo, Alex Dimitriades, Zita Makrypoulia, Cosima Coppola, Kevin Sorbo, Dimitrios Starovas.
Directed by Peter Andrikidis.

Australia, since the end of World War II, has been a very Greek country, Melbourne allegedly having the third largest Greek population after Athens and Thessaloniki. Quite an audience for this film, plus other Australians who have enjoyed the comic and satirical theatre, television and film work of Nick Giannopoulis and his team of Wogs. They made Wogboy some years ago, capitalising on what used to be a derogatory term for migrants, especially from Greece and Italy, into an endearing term.

A warning is needed for those contemplating meeting the Wogboys again. This is not highbrow artistic comedy and those who look at it as if it were highbrow make the equivalent mistake of reading a newspaper’s comic strip as if it were the editorial. That said, Kings of Mykonos is undemandingly amusing farce with fun being poked at Greek stereotypes, Australian stereotypes and Italian would-be Casanova stereotypes.

It also borrows heavily from those stories of secret property deals by smug double dealers and the goodies, the ordinary blokes (and whatever the Greek translation of that is), finally winning out.

While there are some scenes in Melbourne, in Yarraville, most of the film takes place on sunny Mykonos, on the beaches and in the village, and could serve as tourist propaganda (as long as you avoided the internal squabbles amongst the population).

Nick Giannopoulis is a genial screen presence, an Aussie battler whose forte is not subtlety but who believes in fair deals (most of the time). His mate, Vince Colosimo, is more of a one note character, sex-preoccupied (and that is an understatement), who falls for an Italian tourist – and it could be the real thing for a change. Alex Dimitriades is the smooth-looking and smooth-talking baddy.

There are many corny lines and corny moments (as well as some very, very corny lines and moments and some silly malapropisms – or whatever the Greek equivalent is). But, it is meant to be light good fun and about trying to do the right thing.

1. The popularity of the Wog Boys: stage, television, screen? Wog as an insult, for Greeks and Italians, the Greeks and Italians taking it on and its becoming an affectionate name?

2. Greeks in the Australian population, style, language, becoming ocker, compared with Greeks in Greece, their style and customs, food and music?

3. The Melbourne scenes, Steve and Frank, their friendship, age, Frank and his wife, the councillor and throwing him out, Steve and his love for his car, the trophy in the car, the car being towed away? Parents, the restaurant? Tony the Serb and his malapropisms?

4. Mykonos, the beauty of the island and sea, the village, the beaches, the church, clubs, restaurants? Greek music and song, dances?

5. The situation, Panos dead, his funeral, the mobile phones interrupting, the speeches, the issue of inheritance, the inheritance tax? Mihali? His plans, deceit? Tzimi and his phone call to Melbourne? Steve calling him Jimmy?

6. Steve and Nick Giannopoulos and his screen personality, genial, a clubber, the disco dance with Frank? Broader interests than those of Frank? Thinking the call was a hoax, the Indian call centre? The decision to go to Greece, the arrival, Tzimi meeting them? The relatives – and everything free?

7. On Mykonos, Tzimi and his wife, her coming from Sparta, her boss in the house? Mihali and his plans? Zoe, the song at the club, Steve’s infatuation? The Germans, the archaeology, their interest in the goat and his droppings, the coins? Evidence for a historical site? The jokes about German sense of humour and their laughing just to be polite? The British tourists and their aggression? Zoe and her father, his losing his memory? Tony the Serb and his mangling of language? The tourists, the locals?

8. Steve and his situation, the issue of the tax, inheritance, Mihali and his plans? Listening to Zoe, the petals and throwing them? His relating to her, intimate? Frank and his behaviour, the information about Panos being Steve’s father, the photos, the cousins finally telling the truth, the reasons for their lies? Steve’s speech about food not being free and everybody exiting? Steve and the goat? His very Australian manner, way of speaking, frankness and friendliness?

9. The contrast with Frank, Italian, his age, leaving his wife, his focus on women, lust, lewd, language? Loutish yet naïve? His meeting Pierluigi? The king of Mykonos? His reputation and record with women? His down-to-earth talk with Pierluigi, discovering he was an American, architect, his working for Mihali? His fascination with Miss Italy, her ignoring him, thinking him a waiter? Steve giving him the book? Meeting her as an author, quoting her? Steve and Frank thinking he had betrayed him?

10. The police, the hairs for the DNA tests, rejection? The serious policeman? Friend of Mihali? The search for the goat, putting on his body armour?

11. The court scene, Steve and his plea for further evidence, the delay? Zoe and her going to Athens, Steve and his letting her go, her return with the documents, saving the day?

12. The gift of the car, Steve and his love for cars, tuning it up, Tony the Serb stealing the parts? The challenge to Mihali, calling him chicken? Revving the cars, the beginning of the race, the sudden stop? Everybody searching for the goat? Steve finding it, with Zoe’s father, the droppings, the evidence?

13. Frank and his rescuing Miss Italy from her cramp in the beach? Mihali and his loss? Steve and Zoe together?

14. The final song – and the imitation of the Mamma Mia musical style?

DEATH AT A FUNERAL

US, 2010, 92 minutes, Colour.
Chris Rock, Martin Lawrence, Peter Dinklager, Keith David, Loretta Devine, Ron Glass, Danny Glover, Regina Hall, Kevin Hart, James Marsden, Tracy Morgan, Zoe Saldana, Columbus Short, Luke Wilson.
Directed by Neil La Bute.

No, that is not a mistake. It is only three years since many of us enjoyed the British farce, Death at a Funeral, directed by Frank Oz and starring Matthew Mc Fadyen and Rupert Graves organising the funeral of their father and the revelation that his private life was not what they thought it was. There are various guests, problems and misunderstandings as well as some blackmail, a death with two in a coffin and an old uncle with toilet problems.

The script was sold to the US and it was decided, under the auspices of Chris Rock, to re-make it as an American comedy, specifically an African American comedy. Chris Rock and Martin Lawrence are both more subdued than could be believed but giving humorous performances with many black one-liners which weren't in the original. Danny Glover is there as the uncle with the bowel trouble, Tracy Morgan as his hypochondriac nephew. There is also a place for Zoe Saldana (the heroine of Avatar) and Columbus Short. There are two white characters, a rather ineffectual Luke Wilson who pines for Zoe Saldana who is not interested in him because she is concerned about her fiance who has been given a halluinogenic drug instead of an aspirin and causes embarrassment and several kerfuffles. James Marsden gives an enthusiastically funny performance.

After the right coffin is delivered to the house after a driving error, the preacher starts but there are many interruptions. The main one is the arrival of short-statured Peter Dinklage (who played the same role in the British original) who brings the proceedings into crisis, a fight, a collapse and a what do with the body and how can we avoid anybody seeing what has happened.

It is the same as the original but different (as are most interpretations of a common text). The same characters and situations but a different tone with the American humour. Both are enjoyable comedies – funny, but not exactly refined.

1. How entertaining? As a black comedy? Afro- American comedy?

2. As a remake, the quality of the first film? A reimagining of the original? The transition from quiet British to loud Americans?

3. The credits, the funerals, the wrong turns, a film of wrong turns?

4. The wrong body, Aaron and his reaction, his wife’s reaction? The correct body coming? Aaron continually anxious?

5. Aaron as host, his relationship with his wife, the house and payments, Ryan and the clashes, the jealousies, Ryan and his success? The behaviour of the two brothers? Chris Rock in a more serious role, yet his one-liners? Martin Lawrence also more serious?

6. The range of guests, their journeys, Uncle Russell and his driver, the handicap? Elaine and Oscar, her brother Jeff? The others?

7. The minister, his trying to preside, the viewing of the body, the assembling, the postponement, his growing anxiety, the final ceremony?

8. Frank and his arrival, people’s puzzle? His being noticed, not noticed? His talking with Aaron, the truth, the photo evidence, the shock, the decision to pay the money? Aaron not having it? Ryan’s resistance? Aaron and his arguments with his wife? Frank and his standing firm, demanding the money? The nature of the relationship, friendship, love?

9. Uncle Russell, crankiness, with Norman? Wanting to go to the toilet? The scatological elements of his going to the toilet, Norman helping him? Too much for the film or not?

10. Ryan, his attraction towards the young girl, her age, his situation, books, success, money? The arguments? His reaction to Frank?

11. Norman, his hypochondria, asking the doctor his opinion, wanting to take the pills, the bodily function jokes?

12. The confrontation of Frank, tying him up, hiding him? His getting loose, his fall, seemingly dead? Hiding the body, keeping people out of the room, getting people outside? Transferring the body to the coffin?

13. Oscar, his relationship with Elaine, her hesitations? Nerves, the drugs? His hallucinating, what he said, what he did, grin, naked on the roof, hanging from the roof, the rescue? His disturbing the funeral, saying the coffin moved?

14. Derek, friend, in love with Elaine, arguing with her, his being ousted?

15. The mother, her upset, the news about her husband?

16. The closing of the coffin, the minister and his attempt to have the funeral?

17. The coffin opening, Frank emerging, the shock?

18. The resolution – and the impact of the comedy as an American version of restrained British humour?

ANIMAL KINGDOM

Australia, 2010, 112 minutes, Colour.
Ben Mendelsohn, James Frecheville, Guy Pearce, Joel Edgerton, Luke Ford, Jackie Weaver, Sullivan Stapleton, Anthony Hayes, Laura Wheelwright, Clayton Jacobsen.
Directed by David Michod.

Towards the end of this fine drama about Melbourne crooks (they are too local and low-key to really be called gangsters), the sympathetic detective played by Guy Pearce gives the 17 year old J (for Joshua) Cody a lecture about the animal kingdom, about who is strong and who is weak, who protects the weak, and whether they are as strong as they think they are. At the beginning, J’s voiceover tells us that his criminal family are always afraid whether they realise it or not and that their collapse seems inevitable.

So, that is what the film is about – although it is more complex than that, especially in the family relationships rather than in the crimes committed.

This is a particularly well-written drama and very well acted, a satisfying look at the underside of human nature.

We are introduced to J (newcomer James Frecheville who invests his character with an overt passivity that covers a teenager forced to face dire realities before his time trying to work out where he stands in life in relationship to his family and in relationship to moral evil and good). When his mother dies of an overdose he contacts his grandmother (Jacki Weaver in one of her best roles, the matriarch of a suburban crime family who can sound like sweetness and light and motherly love but who is as ruthless as they come). Three of his uncles are bank robbers, one a drug dealer. They take it for granted that they have to initiate him into their world and its codes. When one of their associates (Joel Edgerton) is set up by police and shot, the brothers retaliate against the police. Their leader, Pope (Ben Mendelsohn showing a deadly control over the family and, off his medication, ruthless and merciless) controls his youngest brother, Darren (Luke Ford) while the drug dealer, Craig (Sullivan Stapleton embodying a believably crazed but dim dealer) goes out on his own.

J observes all this, learns what power can be as Craig forces him to threaten some too-smart drivers at gunpoint, tries to relate to, then protect, his high school girlfriend, and deal with the interrogations and continued advice from the detectives and the pressure from his uncles.

David Michod has said that this is fiction, though many Melburnians will recognise plot elements from cases of criminals and police from the past. However, these goings on, evil as they are shown to be, are small compared with many of the gangster stories from Melbourne’s recent past and the police corruption and murders in the criminal families.

The film is not exploitative at all in its brief scenes of violence but, with the help of its excellent cast whose performances indicate characters with small detailed nuances, opts for dramatic interaction over conventional gangster conventions.

1. Acclaim for the film? Reviews and festivals?

2. A sombre piece of Australiana? Melbourne focus?

3. The Melbourne settings, ordinary suburbia, ordinary houses in the street, the police headquarters, the countryside and farms? Realism? The low-key and restrained visual style? Musical score?

4. The title, Leckie and his explanation to J? The family as an animal kingdom? The world of crime? Survival of the fittest? Protection? Mistakes? Deaths?

5. The story as seen through the eyes of J., the audience observing him, his place, his finding his place in the family, its ethos, influence, temptations? His use of principle, decisions and morality?

6. The opening with J. and his mother dying, the overdose, his phone call, glancing at the TV, the ambulance, the introduction to J? A teenager, impassive in his behaviour? An introvert, introspective?

7. Janine Cody, J's phone call to her, her invitation for him to come, her attitude of disdain towards her dead daughter, the distance in the family? J's arrival, the welcome, settling in, his room? The meeting with the uncles and with Barry Brown? Meals? Barry and his wife? J. listening in?

8. Janine and her domination, her character, outwardly polite, some charm, yet control, her love for her boys, the passionate kisses? Encouraging them? Amoral? Her attitudes towards the police? Change of attitude towards J? The murders and the influence on her behaviour? Pope and his pills? Craig as wild? Darren as the baby?

9. Craig and J. in the car, the drivers taunting, Craig giving J. the gun, his holding them up, experience of power, possibilities? Pope and his getting J. to steal the car?

10. Barry, his family, wife and child, the past and robbing banks, the change, not wanting to go into drug-dealing, interested in stocks and shares, making money? His going to the car, the police shooting him, declaring he had a gun?

11. Pope and the set-up, the stealing of the car, the information, the police arriving, their being shot dead?

12. The police, their investigations, J. and his being interrogated? His reactions? The personality of Leckie, motives, methods, concern for J? J. and his silence? The presence of the lawyer?

13. The lawyer, corrupt connections, the connection with Janine? His experience with J., with the boys, the court case, the boys getting off?

14. The corrupt policeman, paying him, the drugs and supply, the dealings? Giving the information about the police and Barry and Pope, the warnings? The later encounter with Janine, her threatening him, the police raid on J's witness protection house, the attempt to kill J., J. and his escape?

15. Craig, the wild brother, exuberant behaviour, drug-dealing, making money, going to the countryside, the couple, the police, his death?

16. Pope as neurotic, erratic behaviour, the bond with his mother, with J., with the other brothers? The role of the lawyer? J. and interrogations? Pope and Darren being arrested, in jail, their mother’s visit, the lawyer, the threats, the plans, J. and the court case, his testimony? The brothers getting out? Pope and his encounter with Nicky, giving her the drugs, killing her, getting rid of the body? Janine condoning it? His smugness, J. and his visit, J. killing him?

17. Darren as a follower, sharing with the other brothers, his concern about J., his mother’s visit in jail, his treatment and his being oppressed, J. and the warning about Nicky?

18. Nicky’s family, J. going to stay with them, with Nicky at school, the girlfriend, staying over, the mother and her trying to be understanding and tolerant, the prickly relationship with her daughter? Her father? J. and his escape from the raid, after being in the witness protection? His being driven by Nicky’s father? Nicky’s death, the effect on him, Nicky and her character, playing with the drugs? Her corpse? Her parents and their grief? J. and his trying to warn her, breaking off with her and her being hurt?

19. J., the witness protection, the escape, his final decisions, hiding, the death of Nicky, the interrogations by Leckie? His killing Pope?

20. The initial information about the criminals, being foolish, the dangers, risks, deaths?

21. The film as effective as a family drama, as a crime thriller?