THE STRANGE CASE OF ANGELICA

Portugal, 2010, 95 minutes, Colour.
Ricardo Trepa, Pilar Lopez de Ayala.
Directed by Manoel de Oliveira.

If an audience did not know who the director is and his style of film-making for almost 80 years (there is no evidence apart from de Oliveira to suggest how a centenarian makes films; he was born in 1908), they might well give it a miss as a throwback to romantic film-making and a style that owes much to the visuals of the silent era. They might find it quite fey as a romantic fantasy.

But, we do know who made the film and his extraordinary film legacy, beginning his career soon after the advent of sound. He has maintained the effects of this style for years. But, de Oliveira is a classic artist in film and in poetic imagination. And, that is what this film is, a poetic look at a photographer who becomes obsessed with the dead young woman whose photograph he has been commissioned to take.

There is some irony in the fact that he is a refugee Sephardic Jew and the dead Angelica’s family, as seen in her nun sister, wary of Jews if not anti-Semitic.

This is a Portuguese world which is both modern and which represents the director’s past, a land of aristocracy and snobbery, catholic devotion and old world manners.

A poetic indulgence in romanticism and essential, of course, for the complete works of de Oliveira.

1. The film of an old man, his visions of life and death?

2. The visual style, the fixed camera, the compositions, the awkward direction and acting?

3. The Chopin music playing in the background?

4. Fantasy and dreams?

5. The Jewish background, Christian wariness? Anti- Semitic attitudes? The crucifix on Isaac’s body at the end?

6. The visuals of the city, night and day, the river, the traffic? Scenes of the hills, the church, the ground being worked on, the cemetery?

7. The opening with the rain, seeking the photographer, the recommendation of Isaac?

8. Isaac, his experiments, his room, Justina, offering the job, hurrying, the demands of the family?

9. The house, the nun receiving him, wariness at his name, Isaac? Angelica’s death, her husband’s grief, the people mourning, the mother and her matter-of-factness, Angelica laid out, smiling?

10. The photos, changing the light bulb, Angelica opening her eyes and smiling? The effect on Isaac?

11. His obsession, dreams, her apparitions, floating? His death and her receiving him? Like an angel?

12. The workers in the field, the hard labour, the earth, Isaac photographing them?

13. The photos hanging and Angelica in the midst of the workers?

14. Justina, her concern, the chat with her boarders?

15. The beggar at the church and his asking for money?

16. Delivering the photos, the harshness of the maid, his return? The order, his forgetting?

17. His final collapse, the dream, the bird in the dream, the bird’s death in reality? The doctor and the nurse?

18. Poetic and romantic?

SUMMER ELEVEN

US, 2009, 92 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Joseph Kell.

Summer Eleven is the story of four young girls, aged eleven, during their summer vacation. This is a warm and sensitive film, written by a man but with a feel for the feelings and thoughts of girls at this age. The film focuses also on their mothers and their extended families.

The girls are very strong in performance, especially Jamie Butterworth as Jessie. There is a subplot with the brother of one of the girls, a man wounded in Vietnam who finds it very difficult to readjust. It is Jessie who is the one able to make communication with him.

The girls are ordinary in their way, the problems not uncommon. However, with a screenplay that illuminates the characters and the situations, it is a film for its target audience, the young girls, and their parents.

1. A warm film, sensitive, families, children, girls, growing up, problems?

2. The title and the captions of the months passing?

3. The film’s sensibilities, eleven-year-old girls, their personalities, issues, crises, transition in school, boys, facts of life? The handling of these questions with sensitivity?

4. The introduction to the four girls, their situations, differences, friends, their mothers?

5. Jessie and Miranda, their mother and their father leaving, her living with Dave, Jessie waking up, sullen at breakfast, with her mother, her father on the phone, her clashes with Dave?

6. Vanessa and Linda, together, rehearsing in the car, the auditions, her talent in the audition?

7. Lizzie, her parents, their tension, older, their concern about Gerry in Iraq, sending the parcel for his birthday, the computer link-up and talking with him? Lizzie as much younger?

8. Perry, seen in the car, with her mother and brother, Vanessa inviting her to play, the mother and her hesitation?

9. The girls together, playing, talking, affirming each other, the party, taking head shots, the tent?

10. The mothers: Linda, alone, pushing her daughter or not? Jessie’s mother, Dave, weak? Dave and his job at home, clearing the girls’ room? His anger at their watching TV? Leaving? Cheryl and Gerry, Gerry’s return, Martin and his inability to accept Gerry, building the ramp at the back of the house?

11. Gerry, cheerful in Iraq, signing up? His parents’ disapproval? Being injured, home, the beers, not wanting therapy, Jessie’s kindness to him, playing the game, the ice cream, ready for therapy?

12. The refrain of the old man and his wife, their devotion and love, dancing, her absence and her death? Jessie watching them and the impact that this made on her?

13. The boys, girl-talk, awkward, playing soccer with the girls, lying on the grass, chatting, the end and the ice cream?

14. Linda and Janine, her concern about Perry being dropped, her clothes, the critique, taking her to the audition with Vanessa’s dress? Jogging, seeing the car, inviting Janine, talking, Janine accepting to stay in the house? Settling in? Her gratitude?

15. Vanessa and the final audition, the rivals, coming close, not getting the job, Ron as her manager and helping her through it?

16. The girls going to school, Gerry’s advice, in the car, Janine and the job? Jessie’s father turning up, the photo and the head shot technique?

17. An ending with hope?

TOURNEE (ON TOUR)

France, 2010, 111 minutes, Colour.
Mathieu Amalric, Mimi le Meaux, Kitten on the Keys, Dirty Martini, Julie Atlas Muz, Evie Lovelle, Roky Rolette.
Directed by Mathieu Amalric.

The tour starts in Le Havre and continues south along the French coast. Those on tour are five American women who have created a New Burlesque Show, stating that they want to target women and do without men. Actually, the excerpts from their show which we see on screen look very much like the old burlesque despite the hearty applause of the women in the audiences. Their names go way beyond Gypsy Rose Lee: Mimi Le Meaux, Kitten on the Keys, Dirty Martini...

But, they are dependent on one man, their producer, Joachim Zand – who is played by the versatile actor Matthieu Amalric (many, many French films and even Bond villain in Quantum of Solace) and who also directs the film.
The uncertainties of the tour are manifest in the meanderings of the plot. There are also a lot of emotional meanderings but, especially, for Joachim who has been in the US, has used the act to get back to France where, it seems, he is not welcome to many old associates. He also makes contact with his two sons.

This means two focuses of attention, on the women and their acts (which may be more envigorating on stage than they are screen) and Joachim’s many troubles. But, all in all, there is an optimism about human nature here, right up to Joachim’s final shout – and the show must go on.

1. The combination of burlesque, 21st century style, and human stories?

2. The French setting, the city of Le Havre and the other coast cities, the visit to Paris? Clubs, cabaret world? The contrast with the ordinary world of family?

3. The title, on tour from the United States, Joachim and his reasons for coming back to France, the nature of the tour, the clubs, the shows, the dressing rooms? The women, their camaraderie, Americans in France, feeling it a closed trip, the luggage, the car, the train, wear and tear?

4. The performance: dressing rooms, their age, figures, striptease, songs, piano, dances, innovations as with the balloon? Their message? The gleeful audience response?

5. The nature of new burlesque as explained, a women’s show, women’s issues, the women audiences – no reliance on men?

6. Mimi and her character, with each of the members, with Joachim, sex with men, her illness, with the boys, chatting?

7. Julie, the exhibitionist, stealing the uniform, her flirting?

8. The others, their personalities, concerns?

9. Joachim’s story, television executive, falling out with people, his debts, ex-wife, sons, his management skills, hopes, failing, with the women, Ulysses as caring for the logistics, his anger on the phone, appeal to Francois, the appeal to Chapuis in the theatre, Chapuis and his physical abuse, Francois punching him, going to the producer in the hospital, wanting to get a theatre?

10. Meeting his boys, their age, experience, at ease with their father or not, the meals, going to the hospital, on tour, their behaviour, going home?

11. The show, the various routines, the finale and Mimi?

12. The characters of Chapuis, Francois, the producer?

13. Joachim’s preoccupation with loud music, turning it down, the reaction of the concierge?

14. The women at the kiosks, flirting? The anger of the woman in the supermarket who had seen the show?

15. Joachim, his final cry – the touch of optimism?

RIZHAO CHONQING (CHONQING BLUES)

China, 2010, 110 minutes, Colour.
Wang Xueqi.
Directed by Wang Xiaoshuai.

A personal journey by a father who has abandoned his family long since. An investigation by the father into his son’s death, like a detective story except that the puzzle is not who did it but who was the personality who did it and what were his motives.

An impressive film in performance, visual style and humane content.

The city of Congqing is photographed in broad cityscapes and in great detail, making the city and its environs like a character in the plot. However, it is Wang Xuequi as Lin, the now dignified and restrained older man, that gives the film its power. As he moves from encounter to encounter, with his working friends, his angry abandoned wife, his son’s best friend, the victims in the supermarket hostage situation, the doctor taken as hostage, the wounded security guard, the young man’s estranged girlfriend and the policeman who shot the son, we are continually building a portrait of a character as well as a re-creation of the crime which is available only in newspaper articles and in security TV footage.

Each of the persons questioned is given a solid character to reveal even if the time available to them is short.

There is hope at the end although it is puzzling that, while the screenplay makes a great deal of the effect of the father leaving home when his son was ten, Lin himself makes no admission of any guilt. It is the quest that shows the depths of his sadness.

1. The strong impact of the film? Human drama, detective-style investigation?

2. The city, the powerful use of the visuals, the cityscapes, buildings, waterfront, cable cars, police stations, homes, supermarket, hospital? The contrast with the coast and the beach? Realism? The light score, the moods and atmosphere?

3. The title, melancholy?

4. A father’s journey, seeing him arrive, settle, the mystery? His seeing the worker after fourteen years? Back-story, leaving his wife and son, remarrying, the second son (and the phone calls to them)? No explanation of his leaving, the news of his son’s death, his need to know?

5. The father’s investigation, like detective work, the interrogations, the puzzles and pieces, memories? The effect on him, his intensity, quiet, upset with the policeman, not speaking of his self-blame? But his quest as blaming himself?

6. The visit to his ex-wife, her anger, shutting the door, throwing the newspapers at him, her friend and his attack? At the shop and her packing, her defiance, silent and angry, hatred? His going back, putting the foot in the door, her going to the river with him, her speech about her son, his ashes in the sea where he wanted to go?

7. Jin, working on the clocks, chatting, the meal with his wife? Hao and his surliness? Meeting Hao later, the information, enlarging the photo of his son? At the hospital? Hao accompanying him to the clubs? The information about Bo’s girlfriend? Bo hating his father, Hao hating his father? His illness, a sense of loss? Lin putting his hand on Hao’s shoulder, the relationship theme?

8. Jim, going to hospital, saved in time, Lin’s visit, his family, Hao’s grief?

9. The police, their help, not able to give information, the officer who shot the boy, the meeting, memories, sense of duty, the reality of the siege?

10. The discussion with the stabbed guard?

11. The use of security television, the black and white images, jerky, the contrast with the flashbacks? Hao and the enlarging of Bo’s photo?

12. The shop assistant, her story, being stabbed?

13. The doctor, her moving to help the victims, taken, the five hours in the storeroom, the initial attempt to escape, Bo’s phone calls, the girlfriend and her turning off the phone, the talk, the noodles coming – the moment of death? Hao and his statement that the last phone call was to him but he had turned his mobile off?

14. The girlfriend, agreeing to meet Lin, at the university, meeting Bo online, the relationship, the incident at the zoo, Hao and Bo stealing the emu? Going to the beach, Bo finding his stepbrother, playing with him, realising the truth, her fears?

15. The overall picture of Bo, twenty-five, hatred, the search for his father, wanting to go to sea?

16. Hao and the burning of the photo on the shore, Lin and the completion of his quest? The irony of the others having no photos? His returning to his family? Some hope?

MARTI DUPA CRACIUN (TUESDAY AFTER CHRISTMAS)

Romania, 2010, 99 minutes, Colour.
Mimi Branescu, Mirela Oprisor, Maria Popistasu.
Directed by Rado Muntean.

Yes, another film about an affair and a marriage breaking up. But, no, it is not your usual drama on this theme.

Because the director has chosen a different style of film-making from the hurried plot snippets of so many contemporary dramas, with their TV-like action and reaction quick edits, the film is more real, more natural and more insightful. The film consists of a series of long takes for each sequence, often several minutes long. This means that the performances are extended, played out in a manner that is both akin to theatre as well as being as mundane as real life. It means that the screenplay has had to have much more care in the writing of dialogue that illustrates the experiences of the characters at some length as well as being more ‘naturalistic’, the way that people speak in life rather than in contrived dramatic form.

As expected, the plot is nothing not seen before: the banker who has fallen in love with a younger woman (actually, his young daughter’s dentist). He has been married for years to a competent woman who has become ‘at home’ in her role as wife and mother. Other characters include the husband’s friend and his parents. But, by and large, the action is confined to the central adult characters and the daughter, opening rather daringly with a post-lovemaking, naked sequence introducing the characters from the affair point of view, their jokes, playfulness, intimacy and carefree attitude towards any hurt they may be inflicting. The next sequence is a shopping sequence where we are introduced to the wife.

Particularly impressive is the single take where he reveals the truth to his wife and she moves from stunned, to hurt, to angry, to calculating. It is a fine addition to the number of substantial films coming from Romania in recent years.

Marriage counsellors might well welcome this film for clients to compare their own behaviour and its consequences.

1. A period of excellence for Romanian films? This film in this group?

2. The realistic situations and characters? Insight and response?

3. The setting of the dialogues in interiors, the rooms, home, restaurants, shops? The scenes on the road? Musical score?

4. The cinematic style, the long takes, up to three minutes, performance as theatre, strong and long dialogue? No reaction shots? The audience observing, liking and disliking?

5. The introduction to Paul and Raluca, the sexual encounter, talk, intimacy, naked, the light touch, jokes, cigarettes, Christmas, Santa, playful?

6. The introduction to Adriana, the shopping, Paul as normal, the gifts, trying on the clothes, decisions?

7. The introduction to Mara, her age, the gifts, Santa, her delight, her parents and relationships?

8. Kristy and his girlfriend, Adriana and Paul and the discussions, memories, age, chat?

9. Paul and his infidelity, lies, the trip, the phone calls?

10. Mara and her teeth, the braces issue, the visit, the kind doctor, Raluca and the serious discussions, Adriana thinking about this discussion in retrospect and her dismay?

11. Paul’s father, shopping for the Christmas tree? The scenes with his parents, at their home, the gifts?

12. Mara and her piano lessons?

13. Paul going to Constanta, his meeting Raluca’s mother, her disapproval, Raluca and her reaction, put out, the gift of the watch, relenting, her gift for Mara? No guilt feelings?

14. Paul, his coming home, Cosmina, the discussion of gifts and the telescope?

15. His telling Adriana, the long take, the drama, her silence, Paul and justifying himself, not wanting to hurt others, his being the victim? Adriana and her anger, weeping, the issue about telling Mara, his responsibility? Her discovering that the woman was Raluca?

16. Christmas at his parents’, Mara and her gifts, Adriana and the details for court, divorce, written permissions?

17. The sudden ending, the audience left with the problems and the dilemmas?

18. The picture of an affair, the marriage break-up – as real?

FIRED

India, 2010, 87 minutes, Colour.
Rahul Bose.
Directed by Sajit Warrier.

Most horror films these days, going for the scares, frights, blood and gore and special effects can seem rather silly, even ludicrous. But, often that doesn’t really matter for the fans because they accept the non-sequiturs and even the absurdities as long as it’s a good show.

Fired starts eerily enough but soon becomes as manic as its protagonist and, before too long (it is an 87 minute film), it heads towards the top and tries to go over.

While it is set in London and used some location photography, it is very much an Indian film. It concerns an Indian company with many Indian employees. And the sensibility is very much colourful Indian and emotions up there on the screen.

Rahul Bose portrays the new CEO who has manipulated his way to the top – and then sacked 121 of the staff. As he complacently moves into his new office, strange things begin to happen, especially when he goes down the corridor and finds the masked staff sewing up their victim’s eyelids – and we know we are in the realm of dreams and hallucinations. Has he taken too many anti-depressant pills. Is his conscience taking over and playing havoc with his psyche – all the devices for a haunted house story are included for a haunted office story. And then there is the spectre of former lover and sacked employee, Ruby – and the security guard who seems to bring some sanity and realism into the torments of the CEO. And so on, with some gory face destroying touches to keep us alarmed.

Actually, it is very much like a Japanese ghost story in plot and in the dreams and the appearance of the Ruby spectre. They have probably made it already.

1. The Indian style, sensibility, the London setting, the Japanese ghost story style, the combination?

2. Drama, terror, horror? Blood and gore? Psychological terror and the consequences?

3. The city of London, the exteriors? The city, roads and the woods? The atmospheric score?

4. The interiors, offices and corridors, the lifts, the basement?

5. The rational explanation, an overdose of antidepressant tablets?

6. Joy and his decision, the interview, selling the sackings, the paper clips and the information, CEO, sacking a hundred and twenty-one?

7. Joy in himself, work, competition, Ruby and the relationship, the phone calls from his wife, the daughter? Arnold and giving up as CEO? The guard and his help? His ruthlessness, pleased with himself, his new office, the door tags, smiles?

8. The initial nightmare, the sewing up of the eyes, his watching, the masked assailants, waking, and the repetition at the end of the same dream?

9. His wife, the phone calls? Anger at Ruby? The reminder of the pills?

10. The devices for the haunted house as for a haunted office? Dolls, the dinosaur toy, the phone ringing, the music, the champagne bottle, the coffee boiling, the rooms and corridors? How effective?

11. The strong performance, Joy holding the film together, the build-up to his mania?

12. Ruby, the sack, the relationship, her being a ghost and a spectre, her different appearance, vengeance, her face coming off? This Ruby as Joy’s creation of her in his imagination? Her sewing the eyes?

13. The guard and his work, sense of realism, his help, leaving the building, driving Joy, Ruby’s appearance, the crash, his disappearance? His being the surgeon with the eyes?

14. The increasing gore, blood, faces tearing? The group and its vengeance?

15. The finale, the facts about the case? A moral fable in horror style?

ROBIN HOOD

UK/US, 2010, 141 minutes, Colour.
Russell Crowe, Cate Blanchett, Mark Strong, William Hurt, Eileen Atkins, Oscar Isaac, Kevin Durand, Max Von Sydow, Mark Addy, Gerard Mc Sorley, Robert Pugh, Lea Seydoux, Matthew Mc Fadyen.
Directed by Ridley Scott.

An adventure, a historical drama, a re-creation of the early Middle Ages. But, only the beginning of the legend of Robin Hood as we have come to know him in the various guises of Douglas Fairbanks, Errol Flynn, Cornel Wilde, Richard Greene, Patrick Bergin and Kevin Costner (at least). Just as Batman Begins took us back to Bruce Wayne’s past and offered explanations of why he became Batman, so this could have been called Robin Hood Begins – which is what the final caption tells us.

For those expecting swash and buckle, there is plenty in the battle sequences, a siege of a castle in France, the confrontation with the French troops on the south coast of England. And there are some sword fights as well, especially between Robin and the more than dastardly villain, Godfrey.

However, this is history more than legend, and geared for more of an adult audience (after all both Russell Crowe and Cate Blanchett are in their 40’s). It is an intelligent look at history as well as action – and, considering some of the themes, the social problems of the time, the divine right of kings and the Magna Carta which would be signed later, it is something of an intellectual look at history.

Director Ridley Scott knows how to bring past periods alive, whether it be the Roman Empire in Gladiator or the 12th century crusades in Kingdom of Heaven. Here he re-visits the aftermath of the Crusades as Richard the Lionheart and his very loyal soldiers fight and plunder their way back to an England that has been impoverished by the taxes for the crusades. Richard dies and his wayward younger brother, John, inherits the throne and immediately moves on the barons and their estates for more taxes. He is manipulated by his seemingly loyal friend, Godfrey, against the advice of his chancellor, William Marshall, whom he sacks only to find that Godfrey is intent on dividing England so that King Philip of France can invade.

This is the background for the story of Robin Longstride, a master archer in Richard’s troops, who takes the place of the dead Robin Loxley of Nottingham, returning the crown to London and Loxley’s sword to his father. Nottingham, a small village, has been overtaxed, and Robin stays (in the vein of The Return of Martin Guerre and Somersby) to be Loxley. His first deed to rob the rich to give to the poor is, with the aid of Friar Tuck, to steal the confiscated grain seeds and sow them for Marianne, Loxley’s widow.

As can be seen from these comments on the history, there is a lot more going on than bows and arrows and merry men in Sherwood Forest.

Russell Crowe can do earnest uprightness as well as leap on a horse and charge, sword flailing. Cate Blanchett can do vigorous work and grief but her moments of remembering that she had played Elizabeth I and taking to armour and horseback stretched credibility a little.

There is an excellent supporting cast with Mark Strong (who has shown how repellent a contemporary villain he could be in Kick Ass) is excellent as the traitor, Godfrey. Oscar Isaac (whom devout audiences may remember as a young and nice Joseph in The Nativity Story) does very well as King John. Eileen Atkins is the strong Eleanor of Aquitaine (Katherine Hepburn’s Oscar-winning role in The Lion in Winter). William Hurt is Marshall, Danny Huston is King Richard, Mark Addy is Tuck and Matthew Mc Fadyen is the local daft villain, the sheriff of Nottingham. Max von Sydow is Walter Loxley.

Perhaps not as emotionally engaging as Gladiator but an admirable historical experience.

PS. However, for peace lovers, there is a nagging concern that the battles in all their vigoroous detail, do make war an adrenalin-pumping experience and seem mightily heroic, even for unjust wars – though it is balanced by showing the hardships that war causes at home, let alone the grim body count.

1. The film as an adventure, history of England, the pre-legend of Robin Hood?

2. The production values, 21st century, stunts and special effects, the scope?

3. The 12th and 13th centuries, the re-creation of the Mediaeval world, its look, castles and countryside, London, villages, costumes, décor, armour, buildings? The information on the glowing parchments?

4. The background of the Crusades, the rights and wrongs, Richard the Lionheart and the English away for ten years, Richard’s vanity, his charismatic leadership, loved by his followers, his return, plundering his way through France, the battles and the funds and taxes from the English? The visuals of the battle, the siege, the wall, the burning of the gate, the details? The archers? The camp, the soldiers, playing, the women, brawls and tricks, victims in the stocks? Richard wounded, the crown to be taken to England, Godfrey and the ambush? The death of Locksley?

5. Richard and his character, strong in battle, in the front, the crown, the leader, his walk through the camp, wanting an honest Englishman, encountering Robin? His death? The contrast with John, John’s lack of character, younger, his alliance with the French? His emulating his brother in battle, jealousy?

6. John, his barren wife, his mother’s concern, the dalliance with the French princess, wanting to make her his bride? Wilful, the confrontation with his mother in the bedroom? His self-defence? The receiving of the news of Richard’s death, his becoming king, crowned? His mother at his side, disapproving? The meeting with the barons, Godfrey and his plan for taxes, William Marshall and his urging caution, his being sacked? The taxes and the confrontations with the barons? John learning the truth, Godfrey’s treachery? Going to attack the barons, meeting with them, giving his word for justice? The battle at the coast, his charge, after the battle, his change, exiling Robin, his claim for divine right of kingship? The prologue to the Magna Carta?

7. Eleanor of Aquitaine, her place in history, strong wife to Henry II, strong mother to her sons, trying to control John, her grief at Richard’s death, reliance on William Marshall, going to the French princess to get her to tell the truth about Godfrey’s treachery?

8. France, Richard and his plundering, the attack on the castle, Philip and Godfrey and their plan, a divided England, the siege, the invasion? The plan to kill Richard, its failure, Locksley and his death?

9. Godfrey in himself, the alliance with Philip, the ambush, his face being wounded by Robin? At the court, his meeting the French forces, going to the cities and his ruthless getting of taxes, killing? Going to Nottingham to confront Robin? The fight with Walter, blind Walter and his attempts to defeat the murderer of his son? Going to the sea, the French landing, the fight, his fight with Marian, with Robin, his flight, Robin’s arrow piercing his neck?

10. The introduction to Marian, the orphans in the forest and their stealing the grain, Marian and Walter her father-in-law, looking after him, his blindness? The chase for the grain? The taxes and their poverty? The church and the hoarding of grain, Tancred and his taking the grain to York? Friar Tuck and his arrival? Her wanting a silent church for a miracle? A week married to her husband? Working the land? The proposals and advances of the Sheriff of Nottingham?

11. The introduction to Robin Longstride, archer, skills, at the siege, Jimmy in (*?and?) the wall, his later death and burying him? John and the brawl about the pea? His direct speech to the king, honesty, truthfulness, naivety – the massacre at Acco, where the Muslims saw the Christians as godless? In the stocks, the escape, coming across the ambush, the promise to Locksley to take the sword, the motto? The talk of father and sons? Godfrey and the arrow wound? The ship, going to London, bringing the crown back and giving it to the Queen Mother?

12. The mission to Walter, John and his keeping the ring as tax, to Nottingham, seeing Marian as a maid, Tuck and his bees, the mead, the men and their drinking, the women, the songs?

13. Marian and the news of her husband’s death, Robin giving Walter the sword? Walter blind? The truth about Robin’s ancestry, the bargain to stay, as his son, for Marian to inherit the lands, Marian to take him as husband? Marian’s reaction, the chamber, the strong stances? His working, hearing Marian’s story?

14. Tancred, leaving, taking the grain, the sacred vessels, Tuck as the new chaplain, the bees and his life, Robin blackmailing him to steal the grain? The personality of John, Alan, Will Scarlett? The plan to steal the grain seeds, the ambush, tying up the men, sowing them at night?

15. Walter, the story of Robin’s father, the revolutionary, the Magna Carta, his execution, Robin remembering, visiting his grave?

16. The barons, the taxes, their stance against John? The character of William Marshall, as chancellor, relationship with Eleanor, with John? The change, his spy sending the carrier pigeon, going to plead with the barons?

17. The meeting of the barons, the aftermath, the troops, John and his word, going into battle?

18. Nottingham, Godfrey and his assistant, the pillage, the cruelty, the fight with Walter to the death, Marian and the abduction, her killing her assailant? Robin and the troops, the rescue, the capture of the French, the inhabitants in the smoke, the help of the orphans?

19. The French, the signals, landing, the fight, Philip acknowledging defeat?

20. The 13th century, John and the divine right of kings, the later Magna Carta? Robin and the hood, the beginning of the legend? The re-creation of the period for information and audience experience?

BEDROOMS AND HALLWAYS

UK, 1999, 91 minutes, Colour.
Kevin Mc Kidd, Tom Hollander, James Purefoy, Simon Callow, Hugo Weaving, Paul Higgins, Julie Graham, Christopher Fulford, Con O’ Neill, Harriett Walter.
Directed by Rose Troche.

Bedrooms and Hallways is a British sex comedy, glimpses of characters who are in their late twenties, early thirties, facing their lives, their sexual orientation, relationships and the beginning of a new century. The focus is on Kevin Mc Kidd, a homosexual man who has two roommates, one very camp (Tom Hollander) and the other straight (Julie Graham). He is more introverted and reluctant to make friends. He is persuaded by a worker to join a men’s group, run with over-the-top enthusiasm by Simon Callow. The members of the group are guided to expose their inner feelings, their innermost life – as well as go on a wild-man hunting expedition. Harriet Walter plays Callow’s wife and companion, running women’s groups in the same house.

The Tom Hollander character becomes infatuated with a real estate agent played by Hugo Weaving. He goes to various estates, discusses their saleability with the clients – and then invites his friend for a sexual encounter in the building.

Jennifer Ehle portrays Purefoy’s partner – but they have broken up and, from the men’s group, he becomes infatuated with the central character, moving to a crisis of orientation and identity.

The film is straightforward in its dialogue, geared for audiences of the same age as the central characters.

It was directed by American Rose Troche who made the lesbian-oriented film, Go Fish. Her work was mainly in television series in America in the succeeding years.

1. The title, expectations?

2. British sex comedy, the end of the 20th century? Characters and situations, problems? The perspectives of the director?

3. London for twenty- and thirtysomethings, an enclosed world, workplaces, flats, living arrangements, the city and the environment? The musical score?

4. Leo and his voice-over, his character, birthday, introverted, coming home, the surprise party, Darren and Angie? The guests and his different reactions? Leo wanting to be alone?

5. The film as Leo’s story: age, sexual orientation, flatmates, his routines? Talking? The encounter with Adam, the recommendation of the men’s group? Keith and his enthusiasm? His attending, talking, exposing his own self, relationships, gay? The interaction with Brendan? His negative reaction to Terry? John and his experience with the stone? Leo’s dreams of Brendan, the date, the affair? Darren and his reactions, comments? Angie? Brendan’s ex, finding Darren tied up in the house, talking with him? The meeting with Leo, the attraction, issues of orientation, romance? The effect on Leo? The truth about Brendan? Brendan going to Thailand? Leo’s learning experience?

6. Darren and his camp style, flatmate, chatter, his story? The meeting with Jeremy? Jeremy as an estate agent, promiscuous, discussions with the people wanting to sell, the old couple, the family with the trains going past? Sex in the houses? Darren caught? His excuse, the humour?

7. Jeremy as the estate agent, exploitative in his work, relationships?

8. Adam, ordinary, working, his participation in the men’s group?

9. The men’s group, Keith and his style, enthusiasm, always affirming, the meetings, talk, the stone and the ritual, the revelations? His encouragement? The effect of the wild man’s weekend – especially for Leo and Brendan? His wife, the clash, her women’s group, the sexual relationship, independence?

10. Brendan, the ending of his relationship, his participation in the group, reaction to Leo, talking with him, going out, appearing in Leo’s dreams? With his ex, at work? The reality, discussions, change or not, Leo and the truth, his going to Thailand?

11. John, part of the group, his strange experience with the stone?

12. Terry, ordinary man, declaration about sexuality?

13. Brendan’s ex, ordinary, with Brendan, with Leo?

14. Angie, her place in the flat, talk and advice, her own life?

15. Glimpses of people’s lives, perspectives, values, search?

THE KILLERS

US, 1964, 93 minutes, Colour.
Lee Marvin, Angie Dickinson, John Cassavetes, Clu Gulager, Claude Akins, Norman Fell, Ronald Reagan, Virginia Christine.
Directed by Don Siegel.

The Killers, or Ernest Hemingway’s The Killers, is an updating and remake of the 1946 classic of the same name, directed by Robert Siodmak. The 40s film starred Burt Lancaster and Ava Gardner.

This film features Lee Marvin at the height of his popularity, a year before he won the Oscar for his comic role in Cat Ballou. Angie Dickinson was also a major star in the 1960s. The focus is on John Cassavetes, a writer-director of very serious films, Shadows, Killing of a Chinese Bookie, Woman Under the Influence, who appeared in many films like Rosemary’s Baby to finance his own films. This was the last film made by Ronald Reagan and he appears as a villain.

The film was directed by Don Siegel who had emerged during the 1950s and 1960s as a director of tough and brief films. He was to make greater impact in the late 60s and during the 70s, especially with his films with Clint Eastwood which include Coogan’s Bluff, Two Mules for Sister Sarah, The Beguiled and, of course, Dirty Harry.

The film is a film noir story, loosely based on an Ernest Hemingway short story about criminals and corruption. It is set in a world of racing cars and the central characters are hitmen.

1. Who were the killers of the title? Or the principal characters? Principally Charlie and Lee? Why the emphasis on the 'killers' in the title?

2. How brutal a film was this? Was it too brutal? How successful a robbery film was it? How successful a picture of U.S. style of crime and violence?

3. Why was Charlie fascinated by the motive of Johnny North being killed? How important was this for the title and themes of the film?

4. How successful was the flashback? How did the audience identify with Charlie in his working out of Johnny North’s motivation? Did this have a cumulative effect for going for the truth? As well as narrating the story in chronological order?

5. What were your first impressions of Johnny North? His work in the school with the blind? That he had been working for several years? How did your attitude change as you learnt the truth about him?

6. How important was Carl for the plot of the film? What kind of person was he? His admiration for Johnny?. Iris being made drunk by the killers? His enthusiasm for working with Johnny and his hatred of Sheila?

7. How effective were the driving sequences of the film? Were they exciting in themselves? How well did they relate to the plot? Their importance for the robbery sequences? Johnny as a driver and his love of driving?

8. Was the relationship between John and Sheila well established? How? Johnny and his preoccupation with driving and his response to Sheila? Sheila as a hardened actress? her ability to turn on her emotions at will? The fierce irony of her affection for Johnny and the truth? How ugly was this picture of Sheila as evil?

9. Was the interview with Sheila with Micky too conventional? Their terrorizing of him?

10. How effective were the sequences of the plan of the robbery and its being carried out? The American use of cars and speed, the subjective eye of the care speeding? The efficiency of the robbery?.

11. What was your reaction to Browning? How evil a man was he? Did you believe Sheila at any stage about him? Comment on the change in Browning when Charlie met him? Charlie’s ability to terrorise Sheila? did she tell the truth?

12. How ugly was the truth? The sequence in which Johnny was led by Sheila and then brutally revealed the truth? What affect did this have on him? Did this explain why he was shot?

13. By this stage, did you understand Charlie and Lee? What fascinated Charles about the truth? Did he learn anything? Was it merely curiosity and was he really after the money? How obtuse a character was Lee? Did he have my redeeming features?

14. The dramatic irony of everyone being shot? The ugliness of Sheila’s plan even as she was killed?

15. How was futility of crime one of the themes of the film? What insight into human nature and evil and greed did the film give?

THE KID

US, 1921, 68 minutes (50 minutes/1971) Black and white.
Charles Chaplin, Edna Purviance, Jackie Coogan.
Directed by Charles Chaplin.

The Kid is Charlie Chaplin’s first feature-length film. After making many short films in the previous decade and establishing his Little Man character, Chaplin ventured into a feature film, capitalising on his tramp character and an encounter with a young child. The film was very emotional and was very successful on its first release. Chaplin was able to create a great deal of pathos in the parent-child relationship. Chaplin was also inventive in his cinema techniques including dream sequences. In 1971 a shorter version of the film was released with a new score composed by Chaplin, based on themes from Tchaikovsky.

During the 1920s Chaplin went on to make several other feature films including The Circus and The Gold Rush. His films in the sound era often relied on the techniques from the silent films as in City Lights and Modern Times. He satirised Hitler with The Great Dictator. After World War Two he made M’sieur Verdoux and his masterpiece Limelight. He made King in New York in 1956 when he had been excluded from the United States. His final film, Countess from Hong Kong, with Sophia Loren and Marlon Brando was not a critical success.

However, The Kid embodies most of the qualities of Chaplin’s film-making as well as communicating his ideal character, the tramp, in relationship with children.

1. This film is considered a classic. Why? What was its overall impact on modern audiences? What classic qualities appealed?

2. Comment on the films use of twenties’ film techniques. The use of silent techniques? The black and white photography, the still camera? The use of words and captions? The editing of incidents etc.?

3. How impressive was Charlie Chaplin? Why? Comment on the significance of his image: the little man, the poor man, the victim, the kindly man? What impact did his character have on audiences? Why was it such a successful and sympathetic character? Why does it still have appeal?

4. What quality of humanity ran through the film? Human feeling about orphans, unwed mothers, little man, poverty, children etc.? Although many of the sequences were in poses. how much human truth was there in the feeling?

5. How well did the film blend sentiment with reality? Was the film sentimental? The early portrayal of the mother leaving the child? The dream sequence with them as angels a in heaven? How did the sentiment then contrast with the comedy for realism?

6. The impact of the opening on audiences? The mother and her plight, her weeping, the irony of the car being stolen? The irony of her return and her search?

7. The complete contrast with Charlie finding the child and the various attempts to get rid of it ? Why were these so funny? How did they contrast with the attitude of the mother?

8. How attractive was the kid himself? The atmosphere of the little boy, but his toughness? How did the film build up his relationship with Charlie? The quality of life? The quality of dependence? The sequences at home? Especially the huge meals?

9. Why were the sequences of the two at work so funny? The little boy and the windows, the police, the ladies grateful to have their windows mended, the running away from the law etc,?

10. Comment on the fight sequences. The two boys and their fighting in the alley, as a symbol of the neighbourhood in which the kid grew up? Charlie and his role in fighting? The little man subdued by the tough man? The humour of the fight sequences as they were filmed?

11. What was the significance of the dream sequences and the angels? What did they add by way of comedy, sentiment?

12. How good was the resolution of the film: the mother and her kindness, her success, finding her son? The contrivance of the note and the doctor?

13. Does it matter for modern audiences if the plot seems contrived and the presentation dated? What is basically communicated through this film?

14. What values did it stand for? A comparison of the 1920s with the modern decade?