A SOMEWHAT GENTLE MAN

Norway, 2010, 90 minutes, Colour.
Stellan Skarsgaard.
Directed by Hans Petter Moland.

Response to A Somewhat Gentle Man will depend on a sense of humour. This is a very Scandinavian film, Norwegian black comedy. It focuses on an ex-convict, played vigorously by Stellan Skarsgaard, who emerges from prison, wants to start again – but also has a contract on the man responsible for putting him in prison.

He is a somewhat gentle man despite his reputation as a hit man. His criminal associates welcome him out of prison, set him up in a basement room (with a sex-starved grotesque landlady). He gets a job in a repair shop and the secretary there falls for him. He also visits his ex-wife, promises not to visit his son but does so and finds him and his fiancée living a happy life, she pregnant.

When the time comes, he does not kill the man after seeing him in a happy family situation. He finds out the truth about his gangster friend and is responsible for his death, the crushing of his car with him in it and his disappearance. While the fiancée does not want to see him because of his criminal background, while he is visiting she goes into labour and he is able to assist with the birth. It is that kind of film.

1.The title, serious and comic, Nordic, black?

2.Oslo and the city outskirts, prison, the rooms and basements, apartments, mechanic’s shop? The score?

3.Stellan Skarsgaard’s portrait of Ulrik? Emerging from prison, the effect of the twelve years, meeting Jensen and Rolfe, having the coffee, the revelation about Kenny? The room, Karen and her attitude, meals, blunt sex? The job, Sven and his eccentricities? Lectures? Merete and her being against any advances? Her changing her mind and response? Ulrik going to see his wife, the quickie? Kenny and his family and his visit, change of heart? Merete and the meal, the sexual encounter, Karen’s response? His lies about going to a conference? Going to Sven in hospital, the flowers and chocolates (and Sven being allergic)? Dancing with Merete? The job, the gun, the plan, his confrontation of Kenny, Kenny’s explanation? His son and his embracing him? The fiancée, anti, talking, the water breaking, helping with the delivery in the car, her happiness with the child, acknowledging Ulrik as grandfather? The killing of Jensen, the car being crushed? His future?

4.Jensen as smart, Rolfe as dumb, issues of money, blackmail, getting money from Kenny, the lies, the pressure on Ulrik to kill Kenny? The final confrontation and Jensen’s death, the crushing of the car?

5.Rolfe as a hanger-on, dumb, foil to Jensen?

6.Karen, her appearance, offhand manner, Sven’s ex-wife, her welcoming Ulrik reluctantly, the meals, conversation, blunt sex, her knowing the truth, disappointment?

7.Merete, working at the garage, her attitude towards Sven, towards Ulrik, change of heart, inviting him home, the night, the meals, the dancing?

8.Ulrik’s visit to his ex-wife, her stances, her infidelity the cause of his killing her lover, Kenny as the lover’s brother?

9.His son, going to visit him, the son and his interest in his father, his fiancée, pregnancy, her turning against Ulrik? The birth? The son having gone fishing – at his father’s advice?

10.A slice of Norwegian life? Funny, serious?

EXTRAORDINARY MEASURES

US, 2010, 105 minutes, Colour.
Brendan Fraser, Harrison Ford, Keri Russell, Meredith Droeger, Jared Harris, Patrick Bauchau, Alan Ruck, David Clennan, Dee Wallace, Courtney B. Vance.
Directed by Tom Vaughn.

The extraordinary measures of the title of this film about disease and cure are those of the scientists who research in order to find cures and the business people who want to provide healing drugs (and/or those who are interested in large profit margins).

The film is based on a true story, that of John Crowley and his family, with Crowley acting as consultor for the film (and appearing in a cameo as a business executive at a finance meeting). Perhaps the subject or those like it are more familiar from television series and movies. However, a lot of audiences will be caught up by the plight of the Crowley family who have two of their three children affected deeply by Pompe Disease, a rare neuromuscular disorder (more information quickly available from Wikipedia, plus a photo of Crowley who actually looks more photogenic than the bulky Brendan Fraser who plays him).

Crowley worked in Biotechnology and his investigations led him to Lincoln Nebraska and the work of an academic scientist, Robert Stonehill. He is played with gruff introversion and workaholic prickliness by Harrison Ford, who executive produced the film.

Meeting Stonehill was not easy for Crowley and their association over the years meant many conflicts between the theoretical and the pragmatic.

However, the film shows how much time, energy and finance is required to research theories and to test them and document trials of the drugs under development. It also reminds the audience that many researchers are in love with the abstract and need to come into contact with people, especially those with the illnesses. And it also reminds us that medication is big business and discussions can focus on profits rather than the healing of the patients. (An interesting comparison is the determination of the Odone family to find medication to help their son in Lorenzo's Oil as well as a modest British film for television, Breaking the Mould, with Dominic West as Howard Florey and the development and testing of penicillin during World War II.)

1.The film based on a true story? Emotional? Inspirational?

2.The American settings, Lincoln, Nebraska, the business world, the science world, the medical world? Ordinary people? The musical score and emotions?

3.John Crowley, his family, Aileen and the children, their life, work, struggles, ups and downs? His being a consultant for the film?

4.The introduction to Megan, bright, John and Patrick, the games at home, the party, turning eight, Megan’s joy? John’s arrival, late, perhaps Megan’s last birthday? John and his not being sick? Patrick and his frailty?

5.The introduction to Aileen, at home, caring for the children, love for them, her love for John? Her patience in dealing with her sick children? The nurses and the day help?

6.John, being late, his work, skills, business skill? His children’s illness? The phone calls to Robert Stonehill? Ignored? His phone call, being cut off, his anger? The presentation and his sudden urge to leave, going to Nebraska, waiting for the doctor, talking to him, listening to him, Stonehill and his attention because of the sick children? His theories and possible cures? Aileen worried about John’s journey to Nebraska? His promise to raise half a million dollars? The campaigns, the social functions, the visitors from interstate, Marcus Temple and his wife and their sick children? The success in raising the money?

7.Harrison Ford as Robert Stonehill, age, alone, eccentric, academic? The phone calls and his absentmindedness? John and his talk, the visit, his asking for grants because of universities not providing them? His idea of the company, John and his decisions, the business plan, financing, going to Chicago and the discussions with Doctor Renzler and his board? The conditions? Stonehill and his being upset and walking out?

8.Aileen and the decision to found the company, John leaving his job, the discussions with his boss, feeling urged to go out alone and face the risks? The family staying in Oregon? His weekend visits, being busy? Buying the new house?

9.Stonehill and his arrival at the house, meeting Megan, the sprint race? His not having real contact with children? A theoretical scientist, academic, hopes, his theories for enzymes and sugar? His work, the clashes with John? The finance meeting, walking out, John going back, the contract, persuading Stonehill to sign?

10.The forming of the company, the need to sell it? The meeting with Erich Loring and Doctor Kent Webber? The conditions, the negotiations? The company, the teams vying with each other instead of collaborating, John’s ideas? Robert Stonehill unable to cooperate? The falling out between them?

11.Erich and Kent, their management of the company, the experience of the visitors, the families with ill children, Erich with the group, Kent and his disapproval, John’s clash with Kent?

12.The decision about the trials, the four colours used anonymously? John consulting Robert Stonehill? The fact that his own was not his recommendation? Going into production? The plan for the tests, small amounts used on small children? The blow to John, his weeping?

13.Megan, going to hospital, Patrick and his frailty, the nurses and the care?

14.John, going to Lincoln, going to the laboratory, infiltrating, stealing the medicine, Stonehill covering for him? Kent and his reaction, his anger?

15.Stonehill, the confrontation with Kent, Kent and his firing John – so that there would be no conflict of interest and there could be a monitored test of siblings?

16.The hospital, the parents, Stonehill coming? The administration of the medicine? The recovery, the sugar high?

17.The final information about the family, the tests? The scene of Megan driving with her father? Stonehill and his having his own laboratory?

18.Issues of science and objectivity, business and profitability, parents and feelings?

GOLDEN SLUMBER (GORUDEN SURAMBA)

Japan, 2010, 139 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Yoshihiro Nakamora.

Goruden Suramba is a difficult film for non-Japanese audiences. This is true both with the themes as well as the way of storytelling.

The film is set in a Japanese city and recreates the atmosphere of Japan very vividly. The focus is on a family, their presence at a department store, buying toys – with the father then going to meet a friend and explaining to him that there is to be an assassination and he will be blamed, like Lee Harvey Oswald with the Kennedy assassination. Immediately afterwards, the assassination attempt occurs, a helium balloon flying over the new president and an explosion killing him. The car with the informer also explodes.

The young man who is to be blamed goes on the run. During the film, there is a lot of television coverage seen which gives information as well as highlighting that the authorities have an alternate look-alike and have filmed him buying balloons and becoming involved in the activities to prove that he is the murderer. The police are ruthless in their pursuit.

The young student on the run is helped by a former girlfriend and a former student friend. Into this pursuit scenario are inserted quite a number of flashbacks showing their activities in the past, their friendships.

The young man also encounters a gangster from prison who gives him information about how to escape the authorities through the sewers, Les Miserables-like. The man in prison has a network and sets up explosions of fireworks at all the entries into the sewers and, at a particular moment, sets them off, confusing the police and enabling the young man to evade pursuit.

There is a confrontation with the police, more deaths – and a political cover-up. It is difficult to know at the end who has survived.

The film presents Japanese life quite vividly – but, for many audiences, the plot and the characters can be confusing – even though they know it is a political theme, with cover-up, scapegoating and corrupt police.

MONGA

Taiwan, 2010, 140 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Doze, Niu Chen -Zer.

Monga is an area of Taipei, an old part of the town. It has a long tradition, even a gangster tradition. This film, set in the mid-1980s, shows life in Monga, the gangs, the overlords, the use of traditional weapons and the new gangs coming in with their guns, breaking the tradition but defeating and destroying the old structures.

The film is long, was very popular in Taiwan, but tests the patience of non-Taiwanese viewers with so much time given to watching the activities of young gangsters. The film does have a particular theme, a young man who is bullied but has martial arts skills, rescued by members of a gang and accepting him – with the result that he becomes a gangster when his main desire was actually to be welcomed and accepted. He goes through a moral crisis, especially as one of the main members of the group betrays the group and sides with the incoming gangsters.

The film can be compared with the portrait of gangsters in American films, in Hong Kong and Chinese films, treating the same era.

1.Monga as an area of Taipei, old, the streets, shops and businesses, traditions, the bosses and the gangs, issues of protection? The 1980s?

2.The vivid presentation of Monga, the narrow streets, shops and restaurants, homes? Realistic? The musical score and its moods?

3.The opening, Mosquito, his face, the cry? The confrontation, the gang? The gang of the Temple Front? The bonds? The recreation, Mosquito going to school, his mother and the boss, the haircut, glasses, his being mocked, the bullying? The leader of the other gang and his stance? The Temple Front and their protection? Issues of money, Mosquito chased, the fight, his show of strength? The Temple Front and the repetition of the opening sequence?

4.Mosquito, the voice-over about the group, the different stories and the visualising of each member of the group, the explanations? Family, background? Friends, together, going to the clubs, going to the brothel, the ritual ceremony of blood and bonding?

5.The boss generation, living in the past, the bands of brothers, loyal to each other despite their different turfs and clashes? The wars and the meetings?

6.Mosquito and his learning, sense of belonging, friendship? Having to buy the squid, the test? The chase and his eluding his pursuers? His mother and her concern?

7.1986 and the status quo? 1987 and change?

8.Mosquito and the brothel, the girl with the birthmark, attracted to her, not exploiting her, talking, bonding, the return, payment – and the imagination of his love for her?

9.Dragon and his leadership, son of the boss, skills? Monk and his IQ, the final deceit? Monkey and his being erratic? Al-Lan? and his ability to dance, smooth? As a group, with the different personalities?

10.The clash with the rival group, the sealing of the eyes and mouth with super glue? Dragon and his malice? Monk, his intervention, going to the doctor, the boy’s death?

11.The emergence of the boss from prison, different kind of talk, exercise of power, different turfs, the roles of the gangs? Monk and his being used? Changing his ideas?

12.The old boss, his advocating knives and fists for fighting, not guns?

13.The set-up of the deaths of the bosses, Monk and his role?

14.The Temple Front gang, the danger, the plan to go to the Philippines?

15.Betrayal, the fights, Monkey taken? Dragon and the confrontation with Monk, the truth, Monk’s disbelief?

16.Mosquito and his hearing what was happening, seeing Monk, the final fight with Monk, the embrace, stabbing him?

17.The old boss, his relationship with Mosquito’s mother, going to Japan, the postcard? The truth about his being Mosquito’s father? Mosquito entrusting his mother to him?

18.Taiwanese gangs and traditions, change? The futility of the gangs? The desire for friendship, friendships broken? Mosquito’s future?

L’AUTRE DUMAS (THE OTHER DUMAS)

France, 2010, 105 minutes, Colour.
Gerard Depardieu, Benoit Poelvoorde, Dominique Blanc, Melanie Thierry, Catherine Mouchet.
Directed by Safy Nebbou.

Alexandre Dumas, pere's, life may not have been exactly the same as the adventures of the three musketeers or the count of Monte Cristo nor had the connections with royalty as his tales of Queen Margot or Louis XIV. However, this part portrait, part adventure, does bring something of the excitement that he put in his pages.

Who better to be Dumas, a larger than life, flamboyant character, than Gerard Depardieu. As always, he so inhabits his character (usually looking the same but here he has a frizzy hairdo) so that we believe he is Dumas. He is excellently counterbalanced by Benoit Poelvoorde as Dumas' writing partner, August Maquet who can be called the 'other' Dumas since he may have written far more of Dumas' work than he has been credited with.

The picture of their collaboration in ideas, plot development and writing is intriguing. Later Maquet was to sue Dumas and was awarded 25% of authorship but was not allowed any explicit credit, finally buried in a pauper's grave while Dumas was eventually interred in the Pantheon.

How much of the adventure side of this film is fact? Who knows?

There is a Dumas' plot device where a young woman (Melanie Thierry) mistakes Maquet for Dumas and enlists his help to petition for freedom for her imprisoned father. Maquet is smitten, prepared to give up everything for her. There are home complications, property-selling complications, republican and monarchist complications. There is a network of spies and some revolutionary activity. The identity issue is resolved at a lavishly costumed banquet and dance. And Dumas and Maquet, after angry interchanges, return to their writing.

A colourful re-creation of 19th century France and an entertaining tale.

1.The status of the Dumas novels? The many films from these novels? French history, adventure, swashbuckling, intrigue, deceptions, royalty? The Musketeers? Their popularity in the 19th century? Dumas and his popular reputation – later being buried in the Pantheon? Audience knowledge of Dumas stories?

2.19th century France, the 1840s, post-revolution, post-barricades, the established monarchy? Dumas and his past rebellion? The overthrow of the king? Time passing? The older Dumas, settled in his way of life and reputation?

3.The introduction to Dumas and Maquet, on the boat, Maquet ill, Dumas taunting him about food? In the town, acclaim for Dumas, the hostess, the women, everybody praising him? The illiterate woman saying she had read his book? His womanising and style, bravado? Maquet as quiet, the writer? Dumas wanting to change rooms for the sea air – and the ironic consequences?

4.Charlotte’s arrival, mistaking Maquet for Dumas, pouring out her heart, Dumas’ past history, comrades? Maquet trying to explain, then not explaining? Being smitten, his promises to Charlotte? His visit to her house, the rain, his intentions?

5.Maquet wanting to leave the town, composing a letter from Charlotte for Dumas, the return to Paris? Dumas’ household, Celeste and her being secretary, her relationship to Dumas? His ex-wife and her suing? Putting the correspondence in the bin? Reading Charlotte’s letter, Maquet listening? Maquet’s plea? Acting on it?

6.Maquet at home, his relationship with his wife, family, the children? At table? The visit of the sub-prefect? The question of the sale or not of the house? The discussions?

7.Maquet and his change of heart, selling the house, going to see Charlotte, the plea for her husband to be released?

8.The political background, the plots, the minister, the agents and spies, the bribes and promotions?

9.Dumas and his writing, method, plot, walks, his memory, turn of phrase? Maquet as collaborator, his skills? Upset at Dumas’ referring to himself as the author rather than “we”?

10.Maquet and the discussions with Celeste, going to her apartment, Charlotte, her fiancé, bringing in the guns, Maquet waiting, the return?

11.Celeste and her agreement, her being upset with Dumas, believing that he had set up Charlotte, arranging the party, Charlotte to be addressed as the queen?

12.The party, lavish, the fancy dress, Maquet as Cardinal Mazzarin? Not wanting to go, sick and retiring, his wife wanting to go? His being amazed at Charlotte? Meeting her, Charlotte and the truth, slapping him?

13.Dumas and his ridiculous costume, flamboyant, Charlotte ridiculing him? Her friendship with Celeste, her discovery of the truth?

14.Charlotte, upset, going to Paris? Dumas and his promises? Maquet and the letter? The sub-prefect and his intervention?

15.The prefect, coming to the party, his secretary disguised, spying?

16.Paris, Maquet, Celeste and her being arrested, Dumas being arrested, the doctor and his illness, his death before release?

17.The protesters outside the prison, invading the prison, everybody free, the swashbuckling fights, the deaths?

18.Maquet and Dumas, their arguing about authorship, Dumas owing so much money to Maquet, the issue of suing?

19.The collaboration, the “we” – but in fact, the court case, in favour of Dumas, Maquet and his poverty burial?

FRANKENSTEIN

US, 2004, 90 minutes, Colour.
Parker Posey, Vincent Perez, Thomas Kretschmann, Adam Goldberg, Michael Madson.
Directed by Marcus Nispel.

Frankenstein is a television movie – based on a concept by Dean R. Koontz (who later distanced himself from the film) and executive produced by Martin Scorsese. It was intended to lead into a television series.

While the film says that the fiction was written by Mary Shelley, it claims it was based on an actual doctor, Doctor Helios. He has continued his work for over two hundred years and is now in the United States, experimenting with creatures who have murderous instincts. He is played by Thomas Kretschmann who also creates Erika, who is to be his companion but who fails him and he destroys her.

The film has a contemporary detective setting with Parker Posey as the local detective and Adam Goldberg as her wisecracking, offhand assistant. They encounter Deucalion, played by Vincent Perez, who gives them information about the creatures that Doctor Helios is creating.

As the detectives investigate the murders, they have the assistance of Detective Harker, played by Michael Madson. What follows is a revelation that Harker is also one of the creatures and collaborating with the various murders in New York City.

The film is somewhat murky to look at, suggestive of the horror and the murders in New York. It is quite well acted with an international cast. The direction is by Marcus Nispel, a German director who went to the United States and directed the remake of Texas Chainsaw Massacre as well as Friday the 13th and worked on a remake of Conan the Barbarian.

1.An imaginative retelling of the Frankenstein story? That Frankenstein was the novel but Doctor Helios was the reality?

2.The plausibility: Doctor Helios, living for two hundred years? His creation of Erika, relationship with her, drowning her? Creating women? Creating men? The villains, the criminal mentality? Detective Harker? Deucalion?

3.The New York setting, dark? Police precincts, the sites of the killings, laboratories, mansions? The musical score?

4.The focus on Detective O’ Connor, her work and skills? Her working with Sloane? His offhand manner, wisecracks? The details of the investigation? Superior officers? Working with detective Harker? His information, attitudes? The victims? The suspects? The meeting with Deucalion? His giving information? Detective O’ Connor’s reaction? Collaboration? Further detection – and the confrontation with Harker? With Doctor Helios?

5.Detective Sloane, the sidekick, offhand remarks, seeming indifference, wisecracks? His working with Detective O’Connor?

6.Deucalion, mysterious figure? Continental European, exotic? The creation by Doctor Helios? His self-knowledge? His appearing, seeking out Detective O’Connor?, trying to get her information? The lead to Harker? The lead to Doctor Helios? The final confrontation?

7.Doctor Helios, social status, admired scientist? The reality of his being like a Doctor Frankenstein?

8.The contemporary variations on an old theme?

MURDER MOST FOUL

UK, 1964, 90 minutes, Black and white.
Margaret Rutherford, Ron Moody, Charles Tingwell, Andrew Cruickshank, Megs Jenkins, Dennis Price, James Bolam, Stringer Davis, Francesca Annis, Terry Scott.
Directed by George Pollock.

Murder Most Foul was the third of the adaptations of Agatha Christie novels for brief British films, with the comic touch, having Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple. It was said that Agatha Christie did not see Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple – however, she appreciated her skills and dedicated A Mirror Crack’d to Margaret Rutherford.

With Murder She Says, Murder at the Gallop, Murder Most Foul and Murder Ahoy (plus a brief guest appearance with her husband Stringer Davis in the Poirot comedy with Tony Randall, The Alphabet Murders) Margaret Rutherford established herself in popular culture as Miss Marple. Miss Marple has also been played by Angela Lansbury in A Mirror Crack’d, a television series with Joan Hickson (who appears briefly in this film exiting from a bathroom) and by Geraldine Mc Ewan, both for television series.

This film is based on the novel Mrs Mc Ginty’s Dead. It is quite theatrical in its touch, even giving Margaret Rutherford a long opportunity to recite The Legend of Dan Mc Graw. Ron Moody, four years before he was to be Fagin in Oliver, appears as the theatre manager. Charles Tingwell appears as Inspector Craddock as he did in all the films. There are a number of character actors including Megs Jenkins and Dennis Price as well as youngsters coming up, James Bolan and Francesca Annis. Margaret Rutherford’s husband in real life, Stringer Davis, appears as Jim Stringer, who helped her with all her investigations in each of the films.

The film is very entertaining and has the sprightly score by Ron Goodwin which was used in each of the films.

1.The popularity of Agatha Christie mysteries? Miss Marple? Margaret Rutherford as Miss Marple?

2.The screen adaptation of a murder mystery? The murders, the clues? The investigation?

3.The town, the theatre, homes? Authentic British touch? The countryside? The black and white photography, the jaunty musical score?

4.The opening, Constable Wells and his having his beer, seeing the hanging woman, the investigation, the court case, the judge’s instructions, the accused and his saying that he wanted to help, Miss Marple and her making the jury indecisive, the exasperation of the judge, of Inspector Craddock?

5.Miss Marple, her character, her investigations? Her thinking that the accused was innocent? Her going to Mrs Mc Ginty’s house, having a chat with Mrs Thomas, getting the clothes and evidence? The blackmailing note? Her getting Jim Stringer to help her, to appear as a salesman, his charming Mrs Thomas?

6.The lead to the theatre, Mr Cosgood and his eccentricities, writing the play? His company, the young actors, their personalities, interactions? The older members of the cast?

7.Inspector Craddock, the police, his investigations, exasperation with Miss Marple, relying on her? Hit on the head? His promotion? The officer who played draughts and was beaten by Miss Marple, his looking at the play, not paying attention?

8.The theatre, Miss Marple and her audition with Robert Service’s poem? Everybody attentive? Her being employed? The digs? The various members of the cast at home, the landlady?

9.The various intrigues, the poisoning of George? The further investigations, Mr Stringer helping? The discovery of Rose Kane and her suicide? Mrs Mc Ginty blackmailing the child? The ambiguous name, Evelyn?

10.The set-up of the play, Mr Cosgood wanting the play to go on no matter what, financial success? The rehearsals? The performance, the background of Dorothy’s death, by accident? Intended for Miss Marple, the typed note?

11.The night, the performance, the audience laughing, the mishaps? Eva and her seeing things, sixth sense, attacking Miss Marple?

12.Evelyn, Bill Hanson, the truth, his murders, the confrontation of Miss Marple? Her shrewdness and her shooting, the fall and his being knocked out?

13.The spirit of Agatha Christie and her murder mysteries?

EXAM

UK, 2009, 90 minutes, Colour.
Luke Mabley, Adar Beck, Chris Carey, Gemma Chen, Natalie Cox, John Lloyd Fillingham, Chukwudi Iwuji, Pollyanna Mackintosh, Jimi Mistry, Colin Salmon.
Directed by Stuart Hazeldene.

An intriguing and clever film. It is not one that the general public would rush to see. It is a specialist film, very well crafted and asking for a thoughtful response.

The drama takes place in the exam room. Each of the characters is introduced as they prepare to come to the exam – make-up, combing hair, small personal things.

There are four men and four women. They come from different ethnic backgrounds. They are given precisely phrased instructions from the Invigilator (Colin Salmon) and given 80 minutes to complete their exam. An armed security guard is present to eject anyone who does not adhere strictly to the instructions.

The only trouble is that the exam papers are blank.

The purpose of the exam is explained right at the end so it is not just an exercise in futility but we spend the time watching these applicants for a job at a biopharmacy company (and trying to work out what we might do in such circumstances) interact to work out what is the question. At one stage, a candidate asks whether this is an exercise in group dynamics. It is.

The interactions reveal the characters, sometimes quite powerfully, even violently. Some are ejected. Some are prepared to use any means to stay.

The interest of the film is in the characters, in their response to a difficult situation, in their ethical or unethical stances and behaviour and in the puzzle as to find what really is the question.

The cast comprises character actors from stage and television. Jimi Mistry and Luke Mably are comparatively well-known. (And the thought occurs that the film could be described as neo-Kafakezque!)

1.An effective screen psychodrama? English production? Ethnic range?

2.Futuristic, disease and the world, multinationals and companies, the founder and his ambitions and aims, methods, mission, selection of staff?

3.The film confined to the one room, the different ways of photographing it? The walls, the screen, the desks, chairs? The guard? The sprinklers?

4.The title, straightforward? A test, an examination, questions? Answers? The need for lateral thinking, the use of the brain, ingenuity? Logic, precise language, the limits of language?

5.The introduction to each of the characters, preparing to come for the exam, shaving, hair, makeup etc? The different backgrounds? Ethnic?

6.The candidates assembling, the anticipation of the exam, their motivations, the company selecting some candidates, job applications, headhunting, competition?

7.The invigilator, his speech, laying out the conditions, issues of being expelled, the exactness of the rules, the pages, interference with the pages, leaving the room? The presence of the guard and his gun?

8.The mousy man, seemingly deaf, not involved, going out – and the revelation that he was the founder?

9.White, taking charge, bossy, his leadership, designating the names, nicknames? His being headhunted? His ingenuity with the pages, with the water? His illness, needing the medication, having the fit? The confrontation, his being tied up? The group against him?

10.The Chinese girl, her writing on the page, her being escorted out? Her upset reaction?

11.Black, African background? His wanting justice? Violence and non-violence? His interventions, change of heart, with White?

12.Brown, Indian background, being tested, the challenges, the moral situation, his eventually leaving?

13.The women, the psychiatrist and the workout?

14.The businesswoman and her determination?

15.The ordinary woman, her compassion?

16.The various devices used to discover what the question really was, using other people’s pages, folding the pages, the suggestion of invisible ink, the water and the sprinklers, the gun and the violence? Each of the characters determined? Those opting to leave? Those opting to stay? The means justifying the end or not?

17.The invigilator’s return, the founder? The aims of the test, to find somebody compassionate to administer the medication, the biopharmacy for the illness and for the world?

THAT EYE THE SKY

Australia, 1994, 105 minutes, Colour.
Jamie Croft, Lisa Harrow, Peter Coyote, Mark Fairall, Amanda Douge, Alathea Mc Grath, Paul Sonkkila.
Directed by John Rouane.


1.Tim Winton and his reputation as a novelist, stage and screen adaptations of his work? The issues he raises, Australian, family, religious?

2.The location photography, the farm, the desert, the lake and the trees, the town? The score?

3.The special effects, especially for the aura over the house?

4.The title, Ort and his seeing the sky as the eye of God? Henry’s explanation of the stars, God up there? Ort and Henry, talking to God? The aura as the soul, or divine light?

5.The family, ordinary Australian battlers, living in the Outback? Alice and Sam and their background, hippies, leaving the city, wanting more, settling down? Sam and his job, the service station, fitting into the community? Alice and her being resigned, living in the country, supporting her family? Tegwyn and wanting to get away? Ort and his love for his family, the house, his life? Values and relationships? Religious or not?

6.Sam’s accident, its effect, the family concern, the hospital, in coma? Tegwyn unwilling to see her father and communicate with him? Ort and his demands from his comatose father? The consequences at home, Sam and his return to the house, the care, Alice and her devotion? Each of them contributing? The grandmother living at home? The routines, the bath, meals, talking to Sam, soothing him?

7.Ort as central to the story, his age, parents, with the other children, talking about going to high school, his pet chook and talking (and the chook later being killed)? His love for his father, his play, rowing and in the water?

8.Tegwyn and her age, teenage, bored, unwilling to stay, not caring for her father, her harsh talk, yet her kindness towards Ort, with her grandmother? Her concern about her changing body, the burn with the cigarette?

9.Alice and her hard work, a tough battling woman, her treatment of her children, getting upset, her angers? Her continued care for her husband?

10.Grandma, her age, her memories, care, the piano? Her death and the pathos?

11.The first appearance of Henry, watching the children at the water, arriving at the house, the stranger who intervenes in a family life and changes everyone?

12.Alice and her suspicions, Henry and his helping, bathing Sam, fixing the refrigerator? His friendship with Ort, the clashes with Tegwyn? The discussions with Alice about himself, about herself, the situation, patience, his instructing Ort, not to want revenge – but attacking Cherry?

13.Ort, the death of the chook, Cherry, and the nightmare of Sam?

14.Henry and his reaction, his talk about water, its power? Silences? His story? Mysterious at first, gradually revealing his story, his purpose for coming, his relationship with God, urging Ort to baptism? His being baptised?

15.The contrast with Tegwyn and Henry, her breasts, his meeting her, the sexual encounter, the effect, his acknowledging himself as a sinner and his struggles?

16.Sam and his consciousness, feeding him, sitting up, his collapse and returning to the hospital?

17.Tegwyn and Henry and their departing?

18.The visit to the church, Ort and his mother, a sense of God, the ritual? The cantankerous parishioners and some nasty reactions for silence? Alice and her weeping in the church?

19.Ort, Henry and his story of oil, anointing? The importance of the aura, the fact that Ort saw it? That Henry could empathise? Ort and his God talk, anointing his father, the eyes opening?

20.The question whether this experience was a dream or reality?

21.The open ending, issues of faith? The contribution to Australian cinema about values, God and religion?

44-INCH CHEST

UK, 2009, 94 minutes, Colour.
Ray Winstone, John Hurt, Ian Mc Shane, Tom Wilkinson, Stephen Delane, Melville Poupaud, Joanne Whaley, Steven Berkoff.
Directed by Malcolm Venville.

Despite the prevalence of swearing and coarse language, it is still not usual to begin a review of film by mentioning the language first. However, 44 Inch Chest is a film about language, good and bad. The bad language is enough to drive many of the average audience from the cinema so coarse is it and so wearing and wearying as it grates on the ear and the sensibilities. Repetitious is an understatement. And, as spoken by some of Britain's top character actors, it sometimes seems incongruous and seems more of a performance rather than language that comes naturally. So, the warning comes first.

What can be said about the film, which was written by Louis Mellis and David Cinto, responsible for Sexy Beast, is that seems more like a play, even a radio play, with the strong emphasis on language (and the strong language). Most of the action, such as it is, takes place in one dingy room and in the stairwell and hallway outside the room.

This means that the emphasis is on characters and characterisation.

At the opening, Colin Diamond (Ray Winstone) seems to be lying dead while Harry Nilsson is singing in the background. But he is not dead, just devastated by his wife's announcement that she is leaving him for another man. His friends rally to support him and abduct the man, a French waiter, and lock him in a wardrobe. For most of the film, they talk, they argue, they try to persuade Colin to come out of it. They deliver themselves of opinions on all kinds of topics, very male and very macho and are waiting for Colin to kill the waiter.

The friends seem to be thugs of one kind or another. Tom Wilkinson is the ordinary bloke who lives with his old mother and seems to be a good mate. On the other hand, Ian Mc Shane plays a more suave character (and excels in his delivery and sense of menace) who is gay and self-centred. Stephen Dillane is the follower. And John Hurt is the old man who belongs to the days of the Krays and their codes for old-fshioned gangster behaviour. Joanne Whalley is the wife and Melvil Poupard (who has no dialogue but is able to convey his depression at being taken and held) is the waiter.

Do they have thug versions of Waiting for Godot? 44 inch chest seems to be making a claim for a position to the left of centre in the Godot field.

1.Expectations of a British gangster film? London? Thugs? The strong cast?

2.A film of words rather than action? The issues of language, the choices of language? Credible language?

3.The interiors, the room and the stairwell? Claustrophobic?

4.The initial action, the abduction? The end in the streets?

5.The screenplay as theatrical, the possibility of its being staged as a play, as a radio play? The verbal impact?

6.The opening, Harry Nilssen and the song, Colin Lying on the floor, audiences wondering whether he was dead or not? His being upset, his wife leaving him, depression?

7.The call to Archie, Archie and his age, at home with his mother, the meals, watching television? His accent? His work? Arriving, care for Colin, relationship with the others?

8.The introduction to Meredith, with the naked young man? His camp style? His homosexuality as an issue, supremely confident, superior to the others, his relationship with the group, interactions with them? Strong-minded?

9.The old man, his name of Peanut, age, an old-time in terms of gangsters, values? His language, teeth? Violence, his expectations, narrow perspective?

10.Mal, a friend, his contribution to the gang, his background, others suspicious of him?

11.Tippi, at the club, atmosphere, sinister?

12.The insertion of the flashbacks, Liz, her relationship with Colin, with the waiter, in love, the confrontation with Colin, determining to leave him?

13.The waiter, the abduction, his being kept in the cupboard? His not saying any words throughout the film? His being tied up, taunted, the threats? Finally let go?

14.Colin asking the others to go out of the room, the Harold Pinter-like chatter in the stairwell? Television programs, memories? Their expectations of what Colin would do to the waiter, wanting violence, coming back into the room?

15.Colin, his memories, the fantasy and the imagination about his wife, taunting the waiter, his anger, letting him go?

16.Catharsis for Colin? The effect of this experience for the other members of the group? For the audience?