DES HOMMES ET DES DIEUX (OF GODS AND MEN)

France, 2010, 120 minutes, Colour.
Lambert Wilson, Michael Lonsdale.
Directed by Xavier Beauvois.

One of the finest religious films, and one of the best Catholic films, in years.

No controversy here. The film won the Ecumenical Prize at Cannes 2010. It also won the Grand Prix du Jury from the festival itself.

The subject is the Trappist community of Mt Atlas, Algeria, in the 1990s. Living their monastic life amongst the local people and ministering to them, especially with medical services, they were viewed more and more with suspicion in the country, especially because they were French expatriates, by government troops who were becoming more active against the increasing terrorist attacks, and by the terrorists themselves. Seven of the monks were killed in the latter part of May, 1996.

While the film expertly builds up the background of post-colonial Algeria, corrupt government, extreme Islamists imposing something like Taliban terror in the towns and villages, the role of the military is ambiguous. Later, and with stronger evidence emerging in recent years with documentation more open and available, the violence perpetrated by both sides, including the military is now under review. The centre of the film, however, is the life of the monks and their preparation for death.

Filmed in Morocco, the film is both beautiful and austere in its landscapes and in the interiors of the monastery – and in the interior lives of the monks and their commitment to God and to their order.

The director, Xavier Beauvois, shows an instinct for depicting the detail of monastic life with sensitivity and a strong awareness of what it means. His technical advisers have offered expert information which he has absorbed. And the casting is perfect. The actors look, move, speak and act as if they were authentic monks. Lambert Wilson shows the complexity of a man elected to be superior but who has a tendency to make decisions himself but is ultimately willing to be guided in discernment by the whole community. They are eight, while a visiting monk at the end is caught up in the tragedy. Veteran Michael Lonsdale is the ageing doctor who shows practical wisdom in his medical skills and down-to-earth counsel as well as in his religious life.

There is a very striking sequence (making us wonder how we would handle such a situation) where the leader of the rebels comes to demand the doctor come to his camp to tend to a wounded man. The superior stands his ground, says that weapons are not allowed in the grounds and offers to speak outside the walls. He also refuses to give medicine, stating that they cannot give what they have not got. The leader accepts this after they exchange a quotation from the Quran. He offers his hand to the superior to shake. The superior accepts and explains that it is Christmas eve, which the leader understands. Later, the superior and the community will marvel at what they did and how they then went to celebrate Midnight Mass.

The film is able to cover all aspects of the religious routine of the monastery in accurate detail (allowing for Trappists to point out some small things which may not be quite right, but these are not evident to a Catholic eye). In fact, it communicates the life and spirit, the prayer, Eucharist, sung liturgy, silence and contemplation, the detachment of the vow of poverty, the taken-for-granted sacrifices of the vow of chastity, the work, the meals and the readings, the community meetings, the outreach. This is shown in episodes throughout the film which are as effective, even more effective, than a documentary. The film could well serve as a recruitment vehicle because it shows the life as both credible and authentic.

The screenplay does not shy away from deep and reflective words which support the visual action. First of all, the words from the scriptures are most apt, especially about two together, one taken, one left, and the text on losing and gaining one’s life. But, each of the monks is given several opportunities to speak about his vocation and his commitment. This is stronger as the risk situation becomes more dangerous and their lives are threatened.

All the time, the audience is challenged to wonder what they would do in such dangerous circumstances, especially after official advice from the area is given, recommending the monks leave and return to France. At a community gathering, the superior asks them all to give voice to whether each wanted to stay or leave. Some speak in favour of leaving and explain why: family, illness, the opportunity to continue their work elsewhere. Some are still uncertain. Others wish to stay, intuitively knowing that this is where God wanted them to be.

After this, each of the monks has to discern his path in terms of his commitment and understanding of God’s will. One of the monks experiences dark night in his prayer and the sequence where the superior listens, allows him to voice his doubts, is moving, and enables him to find some peace of soul.

After the advice to leave, the monks listen to the opinions of the local people, especially those who come to the monastery for medical help. Their argument is that the monks remain in solidarity with the people. At the final discernment meeting, this argument is given great attention, with Gospel backing and the spirituality of Jesus who stayed faithful until his death. This inevitability of death has been shown to great dramatic effect in the 1989 film Romero, where the archbishop of San Salvador knows that his words and actions and the anger of his opponents can lead only to death.

For an audience wanting to know and understand something deeper about Christian spirituality, something deeper underlying, despite the sins and failures of the church and of church people and the consequent anger at abuse and scandals, these scenes offer a great deal to ponder.

So does the letter that the superior writes before the monks are abducted in vans, audio-taped for their identity, knowing that they are hostages, and led into the snow and the mountains to their deaths. He goes over the decisions and the motivation but also acknowledges that the monks have lived in a Muslim country with its Quranic ideals and spirituality and its God, far from the fanaticism of those who do not really read their scriptures fully or are caught up in bellicose righteousness. There is a quotation from Pascal about the satisfaction in war of those who fight because of religious conviction – which may be merely a worldly ideology rather than religion. The superior's development of the theology of the incarnation and how they themselves will live this theology as they go to death in the same way that Jesus did.

These Trappists of Algeria were not considered saints in the ordinariness of their religious lives. They did their best. However, faced with the reality of impending death, like many a religious or a secular hero, they found their depths, despite any fear, and discovered a martyr’s saintliness in giving a life for others. The director offers this very movingly, without words, as the community sits to enjoy something of a last supper together, the camera focusing on each, their smiles, then their tears, then their deep resignation, drinking a glass of wine together, and all to the powerful rhythms and melodies of Tchaikowsky’s Swan Lake.

Perhaps this makes it sound as if the film is offering a sermon rather than a movie story. It is a movie first and foremost and that is how it delivers its message, through story and in words and moving images.

1. The impact of the film? A story of Algeria, the 20th century, terrorism? A story of monks, Catholics, the Catholic church, martyrdom?

2. The facts of the 1990s, later information about the fate of the monks?

3. The location photography in Morocco: the Atlas Mountains, the villages, the roads, the landscapes?

4. The monastery on the hill, the grounds, the building itself, the chapel, interiors?

5. The monks in the monastery, enclosed but accessible, working with the locals, especially with medical help? Relationship with the military, with the terrorists? The monks and their outreach, social, pastoral, dialogue with the government?

6. The background score, the use of chant, hymns, to create the sacred atmosphere?

7. Audience knowledge of the Trappists, of the order, community life, a small group, commitment and life, the rooms of the monastery, study, chapel, dining room, infirmary? Prayer, liturgy, Eucharist, silence and contemplation, the detachment of poverty, the commitment of celibacy and chastity, obedience and discernment? The role of the superior, orders, community discernment? Spirituality? A spirituality of the incarnation – especially at the end, when Christian explains why the monks have stayed, the reality of the incarnation of Jesus and the monks repeating this incarnation in their own times?

8. Monastic life as lived, the role of the superior and his leadership, at mass, leading the chant? His knowledge of the Bible, writing? His knowledge of the Koran?

9. Luc and his age, his work in the infirmary, his medical background? His ability with people, care? His healing the terrorist? Down-to-earth? The discussion about love and its meaning with the young girl? His asthma and his illness? His staying, working with superior? Providing the wine at the last meal? Playing Swan Lake?

10. Christian and his studious background, elected by the group, his leadership, contacts with the government, discussions about whether the monks should stay or leave? The interfaith meetings? His study, the confrontation of the terrorist leader, his telling him that arms should be outside the monastery, not being able to give the medicine? Explaining it was Christmas Eve, the leader acknowledging this and shaking hands? Their shared discussion of a Koran quote? His being asked by the military to come and identify the body, his prayer over the dead body and the resentful reaction of the military? Community meetings, putting his own ideas forth, the monks challenging him, putting their own views, a community discernment? Their choices to leave or stay? Listening to the government’s proposal that they leave? Listening to the local people that they stay? The final meeting, the text of his letter in voice-over, the explanation about the monks, the spirituality, the incarnation, Jesus and his death, the role of Islam, pure Islam, fanaticism? The monks seen together – with the helicopter hovering?

11. Amadee and his age, a joyful man, hiding under the bed and surviving?

12. The characters of the other monks, their ages, some ill, the detail of their work, the cook? The hesitation in some of the decisions? Time for prayer and reflection? Their final decision to stay?

13. The monk who was afraid, his praying but not hearing any voice from God, a dark night of the spirit, the superior supporting him, discovering peace, the courage in his decision?

14. The monks with the people, with their staff, going to the celebration for the young boy and participating? Sometimes wearing their habits, secular dress going outside? Moving around, the car, the phone, selling honey at the market? The car breaking down – and the walking group of women fixing it?

15. The detail of work in the monastery, the honey-making, the selling at the market, ploughing the fields?

16. The terrorists, their background, fanaticism, reports of their killing teachers because of teaching the girls about love? The arrival on Christmas Eve, the leader, the confrontation? Later bringing the wounded man to the monastery, Luc tending to him? The terrorist leader and his death, Christian identifying him?

17. The governor, his advice, his reminder of the colonial past and France plundering Algeria? The monks as expatriates? The arguments for them to leave?

18. The meeting with the people, their memories of the past, their reliance on the monks, the monks identifying with them and they with the monks, enabling them to face the terrorists?

19. The Gospel quotations, the incarnation of Jesus?

20. The moving scene of the last supper, the wine, Swan Lake? The camera tracking their faces, happy, in tears, resigned?

21. The helicopter, the group of monks ready? The abduction during the night? The two escaping? The monks in the vans? Audiotaping their identities? Being marched up the hill into the snow? The value of the film not showing their execution?

22. The final information and its impact on the audience after this religious experience?

LES AMOURS IMAGINAIRES

Canada, 2010, 105 minutes, Colour.
Monia Chokri, Niels Schneider, Xavier Dolan.
Directed by Xavier Dolan.

'In Your Dreams!’ That is where most of the action of this 20-somethings’ romantic comedy takes place. Not in their literal dreams, but in their unfulfilled wish fulfilments.

Very much a young adults’ film with older audiences admiring the writer-director’s zest but finding the two central characters in their search for love and their being lost in their fantasies more than a bit trying.

A 25 year old woman and her gay friend, Francis (Xavier Dolan himself) become infatuated with a young man who is filmed as if he were a statue of a Greek god. He befriends them but not in the way that they hope of imagine and they keep projecting the wish fulfilment on to him. Though friends, they do their bit to edge out each other from the pursuit.

A lot of partying, a lot of soulful introspection, on the road to disillusionment.

1. The work of a young man, twenty-one years old, directing, editing, costume design, acting? His own life experience – and dramatising themes of choices, relationships, hopes, fantasies?

2. Canada, city life, the countryside, the young way of life, clubs, partying, work?

3. The range of music, the musical score?

4. The title, fantasies and imaginary love for Marie and for Frank?

5. Themes of sexual identity, the search, in relationships, in friendship, in the imagination?

6. Frank and Marie, their work together, seeing Nicolas? As a vision (in the Michelangelo vein)? Their interpretation? Nicolas and his being filmed in a glow?

7. Nicolas as an image, an icon, real, unreal? The couple and their gifts to him, his receiving them, their time together, dancing, in the bed, sexual and asexual? Nicolas’s job, his presence in the city, absences, his range of friends?

8. The visit to the country, Frank with Nicolas, Marie with Nicolas, their hopes, imagination and behaviour?

9. Nicolas leaving, the clash between Frank and Marie, each of them writing to Nicolas, Marie sending the poem and explaining that it was for someone else? Their justifications – and their not being requited?

10. Nicolas’s return, ordinary, the fantasies and disillusionment – and the dashing of their hopes?

11. The appearance of a new man – new image, new fantasies?

12. The impact of the talking heads throughout the film and their contributions to reflection about love and relationships?

BIUTIFUL

Spain/Mexico, 2010, 147 minutes, Colour.
Javier Badim, Maricel Alvarez.
Directed by Alejandro Gonzales Inarritu.

Alejandro Gonzalez Inarritu has made some arresting and thought-provoking films: Amores Perros, 21 Grams and Babel. This is also arresting, thought-provoking – and very sad.

The setting is Barcelona (after a moving opening sequence of two hands and a ring and father and daughter talking about family, then a scene in the woods between Uxbal and his father, both scenes forming the end of the film as well). Uxbal means well, but is involved in all kinds of shady deals, especially with illegals from Africa and from China. He is divorced from his wife who is bi-polar and irresponsible and he tries to care for his two children, quite demanding on manners and good behaviour from them.

We follow him around the city as he tries to deal with street selling Africans who are also selling drugs, with a Chinese sweat factory and with his brother’s links with supplying unqualified illegals for the building industry. There is enough material here for several films and the director’s vivid picture of mundane, everyday life in Catalonia.

But, very early we learn that Uxbal has terminal cancer and the film is about his dealing with this and his trying to get everything in order, especially for his children. Uxbal also has a gift of communing with the dead and relaying messages to the bereaved. For his own counselling, he goes to a kindly woman, also gifted, who is able to offer him sound advice.

Uxbal is a good man, not without considerable faults, but presented as something of a secular saint (someone reminds him that he is not Mother Teresa), trying to do good and to undo the consequences of what he has done wrong – with the wife of a Senegalese deportee and her baby, with a dormitory of Chinese who are victims of an industrial mistake.

And the title is Biutiful (which Uxbal’s daughter asks him how to spell). Actually, Malcolm Muggeridge’s portrait of Mother Teresa was ‘Something Beautiful for God’. Uxbal, according to his lights is trying to do something beautiful for those he encounters.

1. The title, Anna’s spelling of the word? Uxbal and his advice? The film offering beauty in squalor?

2. The work of Inarritu, his concern about issues, humanity? The Hispanic background?

3. The city of Barcelona, the overviews, the poorer areas, the world of the illegals, the illegal dormitories and factories, homes, clubs – the underside of the city? The musical score, emotional? The songs?

4. The prologue with the two hands, the discussion about fingers, family, rings, traditions? The sequence resumed at the end but with the focus on faces?

5. The second prologue, in the snow, Uxbal with his father, the younger man before he died, the comment on the ponytail, the wolves, the owls and the hairball, the dead owl, the father imitating the sounds of the sea and the wind, the end and the scene reprised? And the final question as the father led Uxbal away – what’s over there?

6. The introduction to Uxbal, the prologue, his illness, age, appearance, his irritability with the nurse and the injection, his angers? Going to the doctor, the discovery that he had only months to live? His pain? The perspective of death, his wanting to fix everything and have it in order?

7. His gift, communing with the dead, going to the funeral house, the corpses of the children laid out, the accident? His communing with the boy, the story about the stolen watch, the mother’s being upset, the father coming later and Uxbal explaining where the watch was?

8. Bea as his counsellor, her own giftedness, her persuading him to face death, her wisdom, the gift of the stones as protection for his children?

9. The issue of selling his father’s niche, the story of the father, escaping from Franco, going to Mexico, dying of pneumonia within two weeks? Their taking the coffin out, opening it, the embalmed father, Tito unable to look, Uxbal touching his father?

10. Tito, the phone call, Marambra and her high spirits, the loud music, dancing, nakedness, interrupting the phone call? Tito and his talking with his brother? She telling the truth about the visit, Tito lying to Uxbal? As brothers, the issue of the niche? The jobs, the building site, Tito as the contact for Uxbal? The club, the dances, sex, the cocaine, Uxbal drinking, the drugs, telling the truth to the woman about his death?

11. Uxbal and his children, Lily minding them while he worked, meals at home, his insistence on manners, Matteo and his wetting the bed? Their going to school, relationship with their father? Uxbal as a good and loving father? Marambra and her story, bipolar, the drugs, drinking? The photos in the hallway of happy memories? The divorce, Uxbal having custody? Her presence and absence? A reunion with Uxbal, a machine to control her bipolar moods? Her clients, her children’s opinion of her, her unhappiness? Her being hard on Matteo, hitting him, Anna and her birthday, taking her away on the trip and leaving Matteo at home, his smoking, the burning mattress? The birthday party for Anna’s tenth birthday, the family present, singing ‘Happy Birthday’? The gift of the stones from Bea for each child to cherish?

12. The Chinese, the illegals, the details of the factory, the making of the garments, the quality of the goods? The dormitory, the routines, waking up at six-thirty in the morning? Uxbal and his buying the heaters, hoping for some warmth, for Lily and her baby? His discovery of everyone dead? The young Chinese and his callous getting rid of the bodies, throwing them into the sea, their washing ashore?

13. The Chinese boss, his young friend, the callous attitude of the young man, their homosexual relationship? The disaster, the bodies, the boss killing his friend?

14. The Africans, the sales in the street, selling drugs, the elaborate sequence of the police chasing them through the city? Ige and her husband, his being deported, her baby, Spanish citizen? Uxbal and his inviting Ige and the baby to settle in the house, to be with his children? Their relationship, Ige taking them to school? The gift of the money? Her seeming to leave, deciding not to, staying to help? Her being with Uxbal in his illness and death?

15. Uxbal, his relationship with his children, their sensing that he would die?

16. The recurring visions, going back to where the film started? But asking the further question of his father, to where?

CARANCHO

Argentina, 2010, 107 minutes, Colour.
Richard Darin, Martina Gusman.
Directed by Pablo Trapero.

Pablo Trapero has kept his eye on social issues in Argentina for over ten years. He has been concerned with justice, crime and the police. He offers a different angle on these issues this time: accidents, ambulance chasers, litigation and legislation that allows ‘foundations’ to skim large amounts from insurance payouts.

Carancho starts with an accident where Sosa (popular Argentinian actor, Richard Darin) trying to get a client but being beaten up by his boss’s henchman as he is trying to get his independence back – and to do the right thing by clients. He encounters a strict and hard-working doctor (Martina Guzman) who initially disapproves of him but comes to trust him and fall in love. We see from the outset that, despite her hard work (which does not preclude mistakes) and her tiredness, she is also drug dependent.

Many accidents, clients and bashings later (including of the doctor), Sosa and Lujan and the audience are ready for a dramatic showdown. It is violent and highly emotional and, safe to say, problems are not resolved. Darin is a strong screen presence but it is very surprising that Guzman’s initially determined doctor turn into an emotional and mushy mess by the end.

1. Argentian issues, visual style, moods?

2. The Argentinian city, the hospitals, interiors, streets, accidents, offices? A sense of realism?

3. The information about insurance, lawyers, organisations, schemes, frauds? The feeling about the frauds? The pessimistic ending?

4. The initial accident, Sosa and his work, his being bashed? Lujan and her foot, the injection? Her service, the ambulance, the details of her work, the victims, encountering Sosa, his stitches?

5. Her mistrust of him, avoiding him? Sosa attracted to her? Wanting to explain?

6. Lujan and her work, her needing the drugs, the mistake, being overtired, the demands of work and hours? At home, her interactions with the ambulance driver? Sharing the grief of her patients?

7. Sosa, with his boss, the henchmen, the contacts, the clients, the explanations of the system? Sosa wanting his independence?

8. The bosses, skimming the money, their control, threats?

9. Sosa and Lujan and their relationship? Love?

10. The final plan, the bashings, Lujan being hit, her fear?

11. The final interaction, Sosa bashing his boss, killing him, the arrest? His not being detained? The new boss wanting the money, getting the cash, the crash and Lujan and the ambulance rescuing Sosa and the money? The final crash and the pessimism?

LA PRINCESSE DE MONTPENSIER

France, 2010, 139 minutes, Colour.
Melanie Thierry, Lambert Wilson, Gaspard Ulliel, Gregoire Leprince- Ringuet.
Directed by Bertrand Tavernier.

Bertrand Tavernier has made fine films for almost four decades but not, so far, a period costume drama. Here it is.

The setting is the 1560s with the wars between Huguenots and Catholics in France, truces and battles, leading up to the massacre of St Bartholomew’s Day in 1572. (The background of the film, Queen Margot.) The first words of dialogue in this film are, ‘In the name of Christ, fire’, as a Huguenot soldier attacks a Catholic home. Disgusted by what he has done, he gives up fighting, outlawed by both sides for deserting them. He is Francois de Chabanne who, through his friendship with his former student, Philippe, becomes the tutor to his wife, Marie. This is an arranged marriage and the young woman has loved Henri, duke of Guise, all her life.

While there are battle scenes and sword fights (and Tavernier is no slouch in staging warfare), this is more of a serious drama of political intrigue, of pressures on women in the 16th century, on love and people trapped in marital contracts, of religious bigotry and cruelty. It is always intelligent and interesting.

Melanie Thierry is impressive as Marie who has to grow from being a carefree girl to a serious woman whom destiny has not been kind to. Lambert Wilson has a fine role as Chabanne, a wise man whose life is not as he planned but who is able to be a mentor to those in his care.

A good opportunity to learn some French history and enjoy the experience.

1. French history, audience knowledge, French, foreign audiences?

2. The 16th century and the reform in western Europe? The Huguenots and the Calvinist influence? Their religious reform, against Rome? The Catholic church and its counter-reformation? The political stances and princes taking sides, Conde and the Huguenots, the Guises and Catholicism? The role of the king? The queen mother from Italy? Wars, truces, bigotry and bitterness? Leading to the St Bartholomew’s Day Massacre in 1572?

3. The perspective of the film: facts, the war, the cruelty from each side against the other?

4. The staging of battles, the fierce fighting, hand-to-hand, deaths? Duels and sword-fighting? The atmosphere of the era? The musical score and its moods – and the classic touch?

5. The introduction to Francois de Chabannes? The ambush of the riders, the entry to the house, the slaughter, Chabannes killing the pregnant woman, her surprise, the effect on him – and his saying it was like St Paul on the road to Damascus but his eyes being opened? His decision to give up all violence? Riding with Nicholas, discovering the truce, and his being banished by both Catholics and Huguenots for deserting them?

6. His travelling alone, the bandits about to hang him? Philippe and the rescue? Philippe’s listening to Chabannes’ explanation of what happened, both sides? Going into service for Philippe, Philippe as his pupil of five years and Philippe’s admiration for him?

7. The world of Marie, her father bargaining her life away in an arranged marriage? Her friendship with Henri and Mayenne for so many years, with Catherine Guise? Playing together, Marie in love? Discovering the arrangement, her reaction to her father, her mother urging her to submit, the mother saying that love was not necessary in a marriage? The marriage ritual, the ritual of the wedding night and the elaborate preparations, clothing, the blood, the fathers and their playing chess?

8. The importance of families in France in the 16th century, the bargaining, for land, money? Cardinal Guise and his threats to Philippe’s father? Philippe’s mother, her illness, going to Paris, dying? His father deciding to marry Catherine Guise?

9. Philippe in himself, a seemingly upright man, soldier, learning so much from Chabannes? Not knowing Marie, not understanding love? Issuing commands, her obeying orders?

10. Marie and her personality, a strong young woman? Philippe leaving for the wars, Chabannes as her tutor, becoming her mentor? Discussion of birds, stars, writing, poetry, the nature of faith, the quote from St John Chrysostum and the letter to the Hebrews? Her inquiring mind? About sin, temptation and whether one was the same as the other?

11. Philippe and his return, the possibilities of love for his wife, Henri’s arrival, the Duke of Anjou and seeing them together? Philippe and his anger, the duel?

12. The Duke of Anjou, a warrior, in battle, successful? Learning Polish, the plan for him to become king of Poland? His observing intrigue? His flattering Marie? The king and his brother, Catherine de Medici his mother?

13. Philippe’s dilemmas, about Henri, his anger with Marie, shouting abuse at her? Demanding that she go to court? The queen mother, her family around her, a dominant woman, the Italian background, her superstition and the stars? Her meeting Marie? Marie and the dance, the ball, Henri and his mask, her encounter with him on the stairwell, her making the appointment, the irony of her speaking to Anjou? Philippe and his being humiliated?

14. The character of Chabannes in himself, his age, a wise man, a good teacher, in the company of Marie, his methods of instructing her, his love for her? His ultimately helping Guise? His decision to leave, at the inn, writing the letter to Marie, the massacre of St Bartholomew’s Day, defending the woman under attack, his being killed?

15. Marie and her riding back home, the return, Philippe and his hard riding, bringing the letter, memorising it? The encounter with Marie, his ultimatum?

16. Henri, the possibility of marrying the king’s sister, his forgoing it, his alleged love for Marie, from the past? Chabannes’ letter warning against him and his fickleness? Marie finding him, confronting him, his new plan for marriage?

17. Marie going to Chabannes’ grave, her reverence for him, going into an uncertain future?

18. The background of the 16th century in terms of religion, politics, wars, the place of men, women and their being confined – and men not able to understand this? The Princess of Montpensier being a figure for the modern era?

OUTRAGE

Japan, 2010, 109 minutes, Colour.
Beat Takeshi.
Directed by Takeshi Kitano.

Despicable things done by despicable people in despicable ways – and filmed to highlight how ugly and despicable they are. This is a Yakuza story with characters who exhibit no redeeming human features and about whom, at the beginning, we couldn’t care less, whom at the middle we couldn’t care lesser about and at the end couldn’t care lessest.

Since Takeshi Kitano wrote, edited and directed and stars as the hitman who does the most violent torture and killing, it all lies at his door. He has made some interesting Yakuza films in the past (and some violent ones) and some fine films like Hana-bi and Zatoichi. But this is a brutal film about brutes.

1. The title, the Yakuza types, their outrageous behaviour towards each other? The violence and an outrage for the audience?

2. The director, his reputation, films? His gangster films and their violence? The brutality of this film? His role in the making, his performance, perpetrating the violence?

3. Japan, the cities, the Yakuza retreats, offices and clubs, streets? The bridges, the coast? A sense of realism? The pounding score?

4. The audience attitude towards the Yakuza? The history of Japan?

5. The characters all Yakuza, no values except loyalty to their code?

6. The initial meeting, the chairman, his control, his domination of the heads? Holding Ikemoto back, the threats? The chauffeurs all waiting with the cars?

7. The film showing all the intrigues, the Yakuza families, pacts, words not to be trusted, power struggles, the money issues, drugs, pornography, clubs? The setting up of the phony war?

8. The Yakuza club, the man in debt, the phone call, the young man going, his humiliation, the cutting off of fingers? Traditional apologies with fingers and money? The to-and-fro diplomacy? Otomo and his slashing the man’s face?

9. Deals, meetings, lies?

10. The set-up with the ambassador from Africa, taking him out, at the club, with the prostitute, the fake murder, the hold over him, his fears, setting up the casino, his being the host, humiliated, the arguments about the percentage, in the car, the police holding them up, the murdered man in the boot, his having to dig and bury the body?

11. Otomo as a focus, ruthless? His dealings with the corrupt policeman, their past together, boxing? His girlfriend and the (**?? in the?) car? His being conscienceless? The personalities/or not of the different Yakuza members? Ikemoto and his ruthlessness? Murase and his disfigurement? The mutilations, the deaths, in the baths, in cars, on the roads, torture for ears, tongue, decapitation?

12. The corrupt policeman, his background, his winning in the end?

13. The chairman and his orders, Kato and carrying them out, Kato eventually killing him and taking over?

14. The almost absence of women, the prostitutes, the slurs on the older women, sexist, the deaths?

15. Otomo and his giving himself up, going to prison, watching the baseball, the facially disfigured man getting his revenge?

16. The end – and everything beginning again?

TAMARA DREWE

UK, 2010, 109 minutes, Colour.
Gemma Arterton, Roger Allam, Bill Camp, Tamsin Greig, Luke Evans, Dominic Cooper, Bronagh Gallagher.
Directed by Stephen Frears.

For over 40 years, director Stephen Frears has been surprising audiences with the range of his films, from Gumshoe to My Beautiful Laundrette, from Dangerous Liaisons to The Queen. According to his comments, this time he surprised himself. While the credits say the film is based on a graphic novel by Posy Simmonds (which itself took its cue from Thomas Hardy’s also Dorset-set Far From the Madding Crowd), Frears keeps saying that he was making a film from a comic strip.

And so it is and despite this background, some of the characters are much more rounded out and developed than is possible in a comic strip.

Roger Allam and Tamsin Grieg (two noted British stage actors) are Nicholas and Beth who run a haven for writers, he writing his own novels and getting the money, she working the farm and being a kind hostess. The trouble is that Nicholas has a wandering eye and she always forgives him. When she asks him publicly about why he is unfaithful, he replies that she lets him.

Then Tamara Drewe (Gemma Arteton) returns home – with a nose job that has transformed her adolescent looks. She is insecure and begins a liaison with Ben, a group drummer (Dominic Cooper), and is not against other affairs until it all comes to a head. In the foreground is Andy (Luke Evans) who is redecorating her house (which was his family’s old house) and works the farm for Beth. In the background is American Glenn (Bill Camp) who is writing an academic book on Hardy but who is encouraged to write for a more down to earth audience by Beth.

And always there are two bored 15 year olds who cause mischief, talk sex as they read their magazines and have a thing for Ben, which leads to some stalking, house invasion and inappropriate emails and – tongue-in-cheek – the resolution comes about when Ben’s dog chases the cows in a Dorset stampede and a key character is trampled to death. But, as you might guess from what has gone on, he deserved it.

Rather slight but frequently funny and always quite amusing.

1. A confection, tongue-in-cheek, touches of realism?

2. The basis in a graphic novel, for adults, for adolescents? Jody and Casey and their reading the magazines and comics? Events and treatment – somewhat through their eyes?

3. The beauty of the Dorset countryside, rural, the retreat for writers, the farm, beauty, yet a death? The small town, isolation, the houses and streets? The sprightly musical score?

4. A writers’ story and tale? The relationship between literature and cinema? Stories, characters, plots, coincidences and accidents, contrived situations and characters? Part of the enjoyment?

5. The introduction to the writers, the quotes about their particular works, their chatting, personalities, the satire on writers? Their listening in to the troubles between Nicholas and Beth?

6. The title, Tamara Drewe and her story, a young girl, the big nose, her father leaving, the house, her mother’s death, her coming home, the past with Andy, with Nicholas, her leaving? Her nose job and the transformation? Her arrival back, the egg thrown at the car by the girls, her going to the hotel? The glamorous type, journalist?

7. Nicholas and Beth, married twenty-five years, Beth and her hard work on the farm, relying on Andy, a genial hostess for the writers, baking scones and cakes, taking them round, helping them? Nicholas and his writing, his supporting the retreat? His relationship with the Radio 4 researcher, trying to put her off, Beth realising what was happening? The confrontation, the shouting, the ending of the affair? His coming back – repentant and Beth taking him back? (And Glen hearing all this while in the toilet?)

8. Glen, from America, people getting his name wrong, his wariness of animals? His researching Thomas Hardy for so many years? Talking about Hardy, relationships, the old man with the younger – and the parallels with Nicholas? His meeting with Tamara, helping her at the house? Overhearing Beth and Nicholas arguing? His talking with Beth, her encouraging him with his insights into Thomas Hardy? His going away, writing chapters, their success, his return to the retreat?

9. Casey and Jody, bored, throwing eggs, getting up to mischief? Their adulation of Ben and the group Swipe? Trying to get into the concert? Reading the magazines at the bus stop, fantasizing, their fifteen-year-old talk, Jody clashing with her mother? The jealousies? Watching Tamara, getting into her house, taking the T-shirt, sending the mischievous email? Casey eventually photographing Tamara with Nicholas and sending it to Beth? Jody and the idea of the dog care, the message to Ben? The dog let loose? Ben catching her in the house, using her and her confession? The funeral of the dog and his weeping? Ben embracing her – and her urging Casey to take the photos?

10. Nicholas and his books, fame, payment, his theory about lies (and Glen quoting Doctor Johnson on Truth)? The years of writing, Beth and her typing, research, the manuscripts? His affairs – and Beth permitting them because she took him back? Ignoring his daughter who thought he was a git? The email, his believing it, going to Tamara, the affair, his motivation? Going to the conference, Beth asking the question? His searching for Glen in the paddock, their fight, hitting his head, the dog chasing the cows and his being run down? And the irony of Beth shooing the dog away and indirectly responsible for his death?

11. Tamara and her insecurities, return, journalist, trying to write her novel? Her going to interview Ben, the beginning of the affair, the proposal? The baby and Ben leaving her? Nicholas, the affair, reading her novel? Nicholas exposed at the conference, her returning home, the encounter with Andy? Her past with him? Her future?

12. Andy, the home being his family home, but poor, working hard on the farm, his story, with Tamara and the house, redecorating it? Working for Beth? The liaison with the girl at the pub? The truth and the happy ending?

13. Glen, success, Beth appreciating him, Nicholas catching him with Beth, the fight, his trying to leave, his being urged to stay?

14. Comic, foibles, human nature – with serious touches?

UN HOMME QUI CRIE (A SCREAMING MAN)

Chad, 2010, 92 minutes, Colour.
Youssouf Djaoro, Diouc Koma.
Directed by Mahamat Saleh Haroun.

A film that begins in bright sunlight in a fashionable hotel swimming pool in Tchad, a father and son competing in holding their breath underwater. A film that ends in darkness with father and son at a river after experiencing the horror and wounds of civil war.

The central character is Adam, a former central African swimming champion and the first pool supervisor in Tchad. He is a man of bearing and dignity, well respected. However, with the activity of the rebels and cross-border incursions, sackings go on at the hotel and calm life deteriorates as controlling troops take to the streets, curfews are imposed and the local head collects money to help the war effort against the rebels – while many fathers volunteer their sons for active service.

This all takes its toll on Adam, his wife, his son who worked with him at the pool, and his pregnant girlfriend.

Well-crafted and generally accessible for a wide audience, the film leaves narrative holes for the audience (who may not be quick enough) to fill in and does not build up dramatically to the war tension in the city.

However, it is a moving story of contemporary African troubles – with no solution in sight.

1. A film industry in Chad? The almost singular contribution by Mahamat Saleh Haroun? Chad in the 20th and 21st centuries? In the context of Africa, unrest, rebellions, wars, the consequences for government and population, innocent people and deaths? The background for this story?

2. The Chad city, the hotel and its pool, the touch of luxury? The ordinary streets, homes, meals? The neighbourhoods? Sense of realism? The musical score – with the African tones?

3. Peace, people living their ordinary lives? The growing tension, the information from the television about the rebels, the government handling of situations? Introduction of road blocks, the curfew? The military presence? The refugees eventually pouring out of the city? The wounded and dead?

4. The film as a father and son story? The opening in the bright pool, jovial, father and son and the competition to hold their breaths? At work at the pool? At home, the lift on the mo-ped? The growing strain at work? Abdel and his being absent? His father’s concern? The change of job, Abdel retaining the job at the pool? The silence at home? Issues of responsibilities? Abdel and the girl, the father and his having to make a contribution to the war? The father letting Abdel go to war? His motivations, later telling the girlfriend? His going to rescue Abdel, Abdel’s wounds, the final ride, the river?

5. Abdel at twenty, at the pool, playful, good with people, the girlfriend, her pregnancy, his sense of responsibility, keeping his job? The silence at the meal at home, his mother’s being upset, yet offering the drink to his father? His going to fight, the tape he sent home, his horror of war? Wounded, wanting to go home, dying by the river, wanting to be in the river again?

6. Adam and his past, the champion swimmer in the 60s, his being the first pool attendant in Chad? At home with his wife, the meals? The interview, his being transferred to the security at the gate, the friend at the gate despising him? The uniform, snoozing at the gate, people going in and out? His watching Abdel?

7. The local chief, talk with Adam, wanting the money, the talk about sons going to war, his own son going?

8. The girl, her arrival, pregnant, her story, family, a singer and her singing the song, staying with the family, listening to the tape, upset that Adam had sent his son to war?

9. Mrs Wang, the hotel, downsizing, the staff not coming to work, the refugees on the street?

10. Adam and the moped, his encountering the chief disguised as a woman, trying to flee the city? Riding through the desert, coming to the camp, Abdel wounded, wanting to go home, his taking him to the river?

11. The visuals of the river, the dead Abdel floating down the river, the sadness of the ending?

12. Chad film-making and bringing to the world’s attention the troubles of the country via popular film?

ROAD TRAIN

Australia, 2010, 86 minutes, Colour.
Xavier Samuel, Sophie Lowe, Bob Morley, David Argue.
Directed by Dean Francis.

Probably a good idea for an outback Australian horror thriller with ‘supernatural’ touches, but this is something of a derivative show (Duel, Wolf Creek, Highway to Hell…) for straight to DVD and group home watching, the audience egging each other one as it progresses (or regresses) and the ludicrous aspects loom larger. Of course, for this type of film, in the recent slasher thrillers vein, it doesn’t really matter if it is ridiculous.

Two couples are out camping (and the explicit sex scene is in the first five minutes) in beautiful, isolated South Australia. The cast is strong enough to make them a bit more than the cyphers and victims they really are. A Duel-like road train, with a three heads of Cerberus on the front, crashes into them and one by one, they become the victims of the mysterious road train. This can sometimes be bloody and gory. And that’s about it.

1. A road movie, horror? The target audience?

2. Derivative – road films, Duel, Highway to Hell?

3. The South Australian locations, the outback, beauty, grandeur, isolated?

4. The two couples, camping, the relationships, the sexual relationship between Gina and Craig, not between Liz and Marcus? The tension? The banter, the characters, playfulness?

5. Driving, the road train and their admiration, crashing into the car, Craig hurt, the others not hurt? Liz and the urging to overtake, the consequences? Waiting by the truck, going to find help? Tending Craig?

6. The group upset, the puzzle, Nina staying, her relying on the guidebook? Liz wanting to find the shack? The clash with Marcus? The water for survival? Liz finding the house, empty, the cans to drink from? Surviving?

7. Marcus, the man with the gun, along the highway, chasing Marcus, hiding under the bridge, the struggle, the shooting, Marcus returning in his clothes? Their killing him?

8. Craig and his injuries, mystery, possessed, getting Liz to trust him, her death, trying to get Nina to trust him?

9. Nina, running away, confrontation with Craig, shooting him?

10. The trailer, the truck and the repeat? The accident, the clothes, the survivors?

11. Nina, her pursuit of the road train, the cycle beginning again?

12. The symbolism of Cerberus, the three-headed dog coming alive – indications of the supernatural and Hell?

WALL STREET: MONEY NEVER SLEEPS

US, 2010, 130 minutes, Colour.
Michael Douglas, Shia La Boef, Josh Brolin, Cary Mulligan, Eli Wallach, Susan Sarandon, Frank Langella.
Directed by Oliver Stone.

A welcome sequel.

23 years earlier, Michael Douglas’ Oscar-winning role as insider trader, Gordon Gecko, with his now immortalised motto, Greed is good, became on of the screen’s most famous icons. However, as the 1980s were drawing to a close, Stone’s film was in some ways prophetic and was released at the time of the Wall Street collapse of October 1987. It was strong stuff and a timely critique. This time, Stone does not have to be prophetic. The world shared in the financial collapse of 2008 and the American government had to bail out the banks, and banks were being bailed out – much to the public’s dismay and their being scandalised by the extravagant bonus culture that rewarded bosses who failed (let alone acted illegally).

This film, with its behind the scenes look at American banking, the go-getting personalities and their ruthlessness adapted for consumption by a wide cinema-going public is certainly not going to endear the bankers to anyone. And since the film was in production, Lehman Brothers bank collapsed and even Goldman Sachs is being investigated. Greed wasn’t good, but, as the newly released from jail and promoting his new book, a newly smoothly ageing Gordon Gecko reminds us, everybody indulged in that greed where they could. In the final credits, on an American banknote is the wry joking motto, ‘In greed we trust’.

So, Oliver Stone and his writers are socking it to them and to us – but, because the times are bad, there are many notes of warm humanity and more humble values which may strike some viewers as a bit sentimental for this kind of film.

Michael Douglas (looking ever more like his father as he ages) relishes the chance to be Gordon Gecko again, and the screenplay does not fail him. His Fordham lecture is well worth listening to, as is his advice (both straightforward and devious) to his intended son-in-law, Jake (Shia LaBoeuf?, who has moved from juvenile star (Holes) to teenage drama (Disturbia) to action hero (The Transformers) to good adult fare. But, despite the charm and the alleged repentance, can a Gecko change whatever it is that is natural to it? Yes, then no, then maybe!

Frank Langella gives credibility to the first part of the film, a banker of the old school who is dismayed by the upstarts and the machine controlled global finances. He is Jake’s mentor. Then, enter the principal villain for this sequel, a younger, unscrupulous speculator, Bretton James (Josh Brolin who was Oliver Stone’s George W). He is under the wing of a veteran who remembers the crash of 1929, a welcome role for 93 year old Eli Wallach. Things financial go from bad to worse as the Federal Reserve is brought in and even the Bush administration had to bail out the banks which seemed to justify that antichrist of American opinion, ‘socialism’ – which some did accuse George W Bush of in fact.

There is also a human story in Wall Street 2. Carey Mulligan (An Education) plays Gecko’s alienated daughter, Winnie, engaged to Jake who tries to reconcile her with her father. She is a director of a non-profit website, Frozen Truth, (Bretton James says he doesn’t understand ‘non-profit’) which reminds us of how influential sites are and how they can be a power for good (investigative expose articles) or source for unfounded rumours which become a reality that demand to be investigated and argued against.

There are some interesting sub-plots involving Susan Sarandon as Jake’s real estate agent mother, a glimpse of Sylvia Miles as another agent and Austin Pendleton as a physicist working on green-friendly research.

Make allowances for the human and nicer aspects of the film and enjoy the Wall Street side of it. It will make you rather self-satisfiedly indignant at those unscrupulous speculators – but the question remains what can be done, what is being done – and where are we headed?

1. Classic status of the original? The greed of the 80s? Wall Street and the 1987 collapse? Gordon Gecko and his motto as symbols?

2. Oliver Stone and his films: US critique, prophetic in the 80s, his perspective on the financial troubles of the 2008-2009 era?

3. New York City, the skyline, bright, alive, affluent, dinners and fundraisers? Wall Street and the Exchange floors, the environment? Apartments? A presumptuous world?

4. The music of David Byrne and Brian Eno, music and lyrics? Other musical themes?

5. The title and its implications, the US and the references to 1929, the 1980s, insider greed, fraud, the 21st century and speculation, speculation as evil, double dipping, profiteering, spreading rumours, destroying banks and reputations? The international repercussions? Money control via machines? Subprime loans, the Federal Reserve called in, investigations of banks and bankers?

6. The reality of Lehmann Brothers, Goldman Sachs in 2009 and 2010? The realism underlying the film? The response of the Bush administration? The Obama bailout? Facts? The accusations of socialism towards President Bush?

7. Audience response to Gordon Gecko? His being a hero to many young people of the 80s and 90s? Michael Douglas after twenty-three years? Gecko coming out of prison, his possessions, the big mobile phone, no-one to meet him? His making his own way again? Michael Douglas’s performances, Gordon Gecko as charismatic, writing his book, TV appearances and repartee, the lecture at Fordham, his analysis of US problems? His appeal?

8. Jake, young? An intelligent child, working with Louis Zabel, eager? His contact with Professor Masters, the idealism, the green research, getting money? Zabel and bonuses? His discussions with Zabel, his dismay at the collapse of the bank? His buying the ring for Winnie? In the bars, with his friends, financial talk? With Winnie, his life, her not wanting to look at her father on television? Winnie and her work, her idealism, Frozen Truth as a website, her not wanting to marry, accepting the ring – and later returning it because uncomfortable? The dinner with her father, her leaving? At the fundraiser, wanting to take the air? Gecko and his talking with her? The issue of her brother’s suicide, the drugs, Gecko wanting forgiveness?

9. The introduction of the Reserve Bank, Louis Zabel and the discussions, Bill Clark and his dreading of socialism? Bretton James and his hard line, Julie as his patron? Domination? Discussions in private? With Louis, the bartering his share prices?

10. Louis and Jake, the good days and the bad days, his walking the dog, the day with the paper, eating the chips, going under the train? Jake loyal, revenge, the motivation? The press reaction?

11. Wall Street 2008, the rumours, the counter-rumours, their effect, the way that they were spread, phone, Twitter, gossip?

12. Jake and Gordon, Jake introducing him self at Fordham, their meetings, the information, about Bretton James, about Locust Investments? Jake using the information, spreading the rumours?

13. The professor, the issue of fusion, his financial needs, the phone calls? Bretton and his putting it forth to the Chinese? Jake explaining, the Chinese response? Bretton and his manipulation, their refusal? Jake and his hope for the Swiss money from the account? Donations? Gordon at the end and his donation? Possibilities for such research?

14. Winnie, the past, her father in prison, her brother’s death, the money left to her, her not knowing the detail? In love with Jake, deciding to marry him, the ring? Her job, meeting Gordon, the failure, the eventual discussion, reconciliation?

15. Jake and Bretton, the rumours, Bretton and his taking Jake to task, the losses, Brettons’ boasting, the Goya painting (and his smashing it at the end)? Talk, patronising, the bike rivalry, the later race, Bretton saying Jake had the faster bike? His persuading Jake to work for him, Jake and his advice? The decision against him by the Chinese?

16. Gecko and trust, persuasion, Winnie, Jake and Winnie going to Zurich, signing the papers? Phoning the professor? Finding the empty apartment, Gordon having left, losing everything?

17. Gecko and Locust, the expose? Winnie and her article? The Reserve Bank calling the members in? The fear of socialism? Bretton and Julie, Julie as his mentor, washing his hands of Bretton? Bretton and ruin, the official investigation? His past and informing on Gecko – and the cycle complete?

18. Gecko to London, his old self, his office, style? Jake and the CD of Winnie’s pregnancy? Gordon refusing the deal?

19. The subplot of Jake’s mother, the houses, upmarket, wanting loans, wanting more loans, the difficulties of the times? Jake hard on her? Her returning to nursing?

20. Jake and Winnie, finding some peace, Gordon’s arrival – his having changed his perceptions somewhat?

21. The final credits, the images, ‘In Greed We Trust’ and cynicism about American finance?