EXTRACT

US, 2009, 92 minutes, Colour.
Jason Bateman, Ben Affleck, Mila Kunis, Kristin Wiig, J.K. Simmons, Clifton Collins Jr, David Koechner, Gene Simmons, Beth Grant, Dustin Milligan, T.J. Miller.
Directed by Mike Judge.

Even when we discover that the extract of the title refers to extracts of, say, vanilla, for flavouring products, it still doesn't really tell us much about the plot at all. Or, whether it is a comedy or a serious film. Let's say a broad comedy which raises some moral issues which are more serious. Let's also say that it deals with ordinary enough people that many audiences could identify with, if not in behaviour, at least, in temptations and personal crises and decisions – and the need to repair and make amends for some of them.

Actually, that might make it sound a bit more grandiose than it is, although grandiose it really is not.

Put it this way: Joel is a middle aged small factory owner, lenient on his staff (many of whom are stupid, gossipy and accident-prone) who receives an offer for his factory, who finds his wife, Suzie, rather cool at home and who takes refuge in a bar where his old friend, Dean, is the bartender and is full of really bad advice (and drugs as well). There is also a young con woman, Cindy, who is an unscrupulous thief who teams up with an employee, Step, who is the victim of a severe accident and is good-natured about it (until he meets Cindy). What is Joel to do – and, what is worse, what does he do, egged on by Dean?

Jason Bateman is Joel. He has been in many recent films and has proven himself quite a character actor. Dean is played with nonchalence by an almost unrecognisable Ben Affleck. Mila Kunis is the recidivist Cindy. Kristen Wiig is Suzie.

Add to that there are quite a few supporting characters who are well played,which probably make Extract better than it might have been. David Koechner is the wearing good neighbour whose demise comes as something of a shock to him and to us all. J.K. Simmons, always worth seeing, is the factory assistant. Gene Simmons (yes, of Kiss) is a ranting lawyer. Dustin Milligan makes a convincing really, really slow-witted would-be gigolo and Clifton Collins Jr offers a good turn as Step.

Writer-director, Mike Judge, made the animated film Beavis and Butthead do America, so he is not against some satiric touches in portraying some average (at times, very average in their decisions) middle Americans.

1.Broad comedy, audiences identifying with characters and situations, the workplace, marriage and fidelity? Moral decisions?

2.The American town, homes, factory, bar, clubs? The roads? Realistic? The musical score?

3.The title, Joel and his mother, the invention, building up the company? The staff, their style? Brian as his 2-I-C, relationships with the staff?

4.The prologue: Cindy, flirting with the two men in the music shop, the guitar and her plaintive story, stealing the guitar, pawning it? Her sad story for the pawnbroker? Her reading about Step? Going for the job, flirting with Joel, getting Step’s address, finding his house, setting up the meeting at the supermarket, talking with him, the claim and insurance, the law? Cautioning him about sex after his accident? Stealing the staff purses? Doing the drugs, Willie? The encounter with Joel? Joel watching her at work, the confrontation, the deal, the night with Joel, disappearing, stealing Joe Adler’s car?

5.Joel at home, his relationship with Suzy, her coldness, his hard work, her work at home? His seeing Cindy, his discussions with Dean, Dean giving him the drug, introducing Brad, hiring him, the set-up, Joel’s reaction in the light of day, paying Brad, confronting him? His reaction to the fifteen meetings? Upset, walking out on Suzy, going to the hotel, encountering Cindy, the deal with her? Nathan as the next-door neighbour, continually pestering, wanting the cheque?

6.Suzy, her work at home, the encounter with Brad, realising she loved Joel? Her being uncomfortable with Joel? His leaving? The encounter with Nathan, her telling him off, his dropping dead? Going to the funeral, leaving with Joel?

7.Joel at work, Brian and his not knowing the staff names? The possibility to sell the factory? Rory and the accident, Step and his accident, the insurance, his being persuaded to sue, Joel upset, the staff and their complaints, the two women and talking, Rory and the discussions about the strike? His challenging them to take over the factory? Cindy, realising the truth? Step and his being made manager? Keeping the factory?

8.Joel and Dean, friends, the visit to the bar, Dean’s life, satisfied with bar-keeping? The contrast with Joel and his achievement? Dean, morality, pimping Brad, the set-up, wanting his cut? Giving Joel the drug? Taking him to Willie and the experience with the drugs?

9.The women at the factory, their continued gossip, accusing Hector of stealing, not accepting that Cindy would steal, saying Joel was covering for Hector, Step telling them to shut up and work?

10.Rory, his piercings, dumb, the accidents in the factory, his band, the performance, the discussions about the strike? The various members of the staff?

11.The Hispanics, prejudice?

12.Brad, dumb, everything explained many times, going to Suzy, in love with her? His applying to the factory for a job?

13.Step, his work, the accident, a good man, his stepbrother and his laziness, falling for Cindy, the suing, change of mind? New position?

14.Joe Adler, the advertisements, his bullying and ranting tactics, the deal, Cindy stealing his vehicle?

15.Brian, second-in-charge, managing?

16.Nathan, the comedy of his holding up Joel, slow talking, the dinner, the payment, the cheque? Cindy telling him off, dropping dead?

17.The comic, the serious, the amoral, the moral?

A LIFE OF HER OWN

US, 1950, 104 minutes. Black and white.
Lana Turner, Ray Milland, Louis Calhern, Barry Sullivan, Anne Dvorak, Tom Ewell, Jean Hagen, Phyllis Kirk, Margaret Phillips.
Directed by George Cukor.

A Life of Her Own is a glamorous ‘women’s picture’. It is a star vehicle for Lana Turner, twenty-nine years old at the time, but already the star of such films as The Postman Always Rings Twice, Green Dolphin Street and The Three Musketeers. Ray Milland had won an Oscar for The Lost Weekend five years earlier. They are an unexpected and unusual romantic team.

There is a very strong supporting cast. George Cukor, veteran and celebrated film director, made Adam’s Rib and Born Yesterday at this time.

The film is franker and more outspoken in its theme of an adulterous relationship than might have been expected of a 1950 film. However, it also offers a strong moral tone towards the end (spoken by Louis Calhern) and the couple have to face the reality of the consequences of their relationship. The heroine also has to face the reality of success in her modelling career and it not being enough – and reasserting the will to live.

1.A popular MGM glossy women’s picture of 1950? In its time? Appeal – despite the look and the style of the period?

2.Black and white photography, New York City, the glamorous world? The musical score? Popular songs?

3.The title, Lily at the beginning, her hard life in Kansas, the struggle, the saving of the money, her going to New York to be a successful model, her drive? Superficial beauty? Tom recognising strength of character? Her having to make decisions, the experience with Mary, with Steve, with Lee? It almost getting the better of her? Her final determination to have a life of her own?

4.Lily’s career, going to the agency, the encounters with Tom, watching him teach, listening to his advice, the other agencies, the encounter with Mary, observing her, being with her before she died, the gift of the shoe (and later smashing it)? Her career taking off? Success?

5.Steve, his friendship with Jim, the dinner, his being from Montana, mining, rich? His dates, phone calls, the outing, the meal, helping with the young man and his car? The affair? Setting up Lily, the apartment? The assumption that they were married? His return, the gift of the brooch, Jim not including the card, her anger? His return, her ignoring him – and then succumbing? The effect of the affair? His birthday, the party, his wife coming? Her drunken party? His arrival? Her determination to explain things to Norah, going with Jim, meeting Norah, seeing her on the floor, the talk, the understanding? Her remembering Mary? Steve and his return, his being with his wife, caring for her, the accident? Her loving him? Lily hearing that his project had gone bust?

6.Lee, dating Mary, the advertising business, Lily calling him a rat? His coming to her at the end – and her moving away from him?

7.The world of modelling, the other models, would-bes? Maggie and her boy, the friendship with Lily and helping her? Jerry and her friendship? Tom and his running of the agency – and his understanding her, apologising to her, trying to warn her?

8.Jim, working with Steve, friendship, his love for Norah, helping her, the moral advice and putting the issues of marriage and breaking of marriage clearly to her?

9.The issues of love, affairs, adultery? In the manner of 1950? The frankness? The breaking up of the marriage, the audience sympathising with Lily, with Norah and her accident? Attitude towards Steve? The decision not to break up the marriage?

10.The finale, the title, Lily on her own, looking at the flat where Mary had committed suicide, crushing the shoe? Walking back into a life of her own?

SMALL CLAIMS

Australia, 2004, 105 minutes, Colour.
Claudia Karvan, Rebecca Gibney, Robert Mammone, Freya Stafford, Tina Bursill.
Directed by Cherie Nowlan.

Small Claims is an interesting television movie. It has strong characterisations and has more than enough plot to keep audience interest.

The film is a star vehicle for Claudia Karvan, one of the most reliable of Australian actresses – from childhood days in such films as Molly and High Tide to adult roles in many films, especially those of Paul Cox, Passion and other television series. She is matched by Rebecca Gibney who made such an impact in the Halifax series.

The film was directed by Sheree Nowlan, who made the comedy, Thank God He Met Lizzie, as well as the documentary on the Sisters of Mercy, God’s Girls.

The film has a Sydney setting, focusing on a retired solicitor who is bringing up her children who meets a policewoman, estranged from her husband, at a child care centre. It emerges that one of the other mothers is actually a drug courier who was not murdered along with other couriers eight years earlier.

The film is very complex, focusing as it does on the world of drug dealing and smuggling from Asia as well as police work and police corruption at the top. While the film remains very suburban in its characters and in its treatment, it is relevant in terms of the roles of women, careers, home life as well as portraits of reliable and unreliable men. It also echoes the films about police corruption in New South Wales.

1.An interesting drama, human drama, crime drama, domestic? The focus on women, careers, work, family?

2.The Sydney settings, homes, pubs, police stations, child care centres? A credible an authentic atmosphere? The musical score?

3.The prologue, the killings, their brutality? The passing of eight years? The finding of the bodies, the police investigation, the identity of the couriers? The identity of the police official from the drug squad who was responsible for the killings? The release of the drug dealer from prison and the set-up for revenge, protection, exposure, murder?

4.Claudia Karvan as Jo, being introduced at the party in the pub, her transfer, singing with Rhonda? The clash with the baby-sitter? Her work as a detective, giving it up because of her son, enrolling him in the centre? Meeting the authorities, the mothers, her matter-of-fact, down-to-earth approach? Her relationship with Greg, her anger at her transfer? Finding the compromising photos of Greg and the corrupt police? The discussions with Rhonda and Rhonda’s being careful? Brett, young, the kiss in the pub, her relying on him for help, his giving the information? Her friendship with Melinda, suspicions of Todd? The developing situation, the drugs, her ability to read Melinda, know the truth? Greg and his coming at midnight, the money, under the bed? The house search? The police integrity squad? Going to Rhonda, in the chapel, at the choir practice, Rhonda and her revealing the truth about Rayvorn and corruption?

5.Chrissie, her background as a solicitor, the house and the rain, the crying children, her husband and his job, going overseas, the tension? The phone calls? Her catering work? Taking in the Japanese student? The clashes with her mother, her mother being disappointed in her? Her being at the school, with the children, her worry about Melinda, the decision to intervene, going to the house, looking after the daughter, suspicions of Todd? Her going to Jo, their discussions, arguments, the intruder in the house?

6.Melinda, her children, the clashes with Todd, the party? His gambling? The issue of fees? Todd and his gun? The phone threat? The background of the drugs, her wanting to confide in Chrissie, the opportunity passing? The revelation of the truth, her disappearance? Her past as Leanne, not being executed?

7.The picture of the children, the different families, the homes, the different mothers, parents, at the centre, the drawings, the classes, the dinosaurs? With the sports?

8.The Japanese student, Chrissie and her support of her, in the house, limited English, the fire and the cooking and her weeping? Her help, fear at the intrusion? At the lingerie sale?

9.Todd, the clashes with Melinda, his gambling, the gun? The truth about his record, his debt being taken over by the drug lord? His being forced to violent standover tactics? His daughter in hospital, his not knowing the truth about Melinda? His reliance on Chrissie? The police intrusion into his house, his arrest, Chrissie interviewing him? Becoming his solicitor?

10.The other mothers, the domestic side – as the context for the crime issues?

11.Carl, the drugs, the dealers, the executions, his being released from prison? Coming to Sydney from the west? His brother, stalking Melinda, the warnings, his intrusion in the house – Jo following him, the car chase, going to the motel, finding him dead?

12.Rhonda, her work in the police, the lesbian choir, her friend, her reluctance to give Jo the information, finally agreeing?

13.Intruders, the police, threats, murders?

14.Rayvorn, his associates? Corrupt? With the drug lord? The policeman from the west – and the Police Integrity Commission? Greg and his involvement with the Western Australian man, the revelation that he was part of the undercover team? Talking frankly with Jo – but not being able to be reconciled? Brett and his help? The build-up to the scenes in the hospital, getting Melinda out, the confrontation with the policeman, Greg and his believing Jo, Brett and his saving the day?

15.Chrissie’s mother, her severity, self-centredness, expectations of her daughter – and helping out?

16.The resolution of the issues, the exposure of the corrupt police and their arrest? The contrast with Chrissie’s husband finally getting home, the lingerie party and the general cheerfulness of the ending?

A BETTER TOMORROW

Hong Kong, 1986, 90 minutes, Colour.
Directed by John Woo.

A Better Tomorrow is one of the Hong Kong crime thrillers that made John Woo’s reputation in Hong Kong – with other films like The Killer. He then went to the United States in the early 90s, making a number of thrillers including Broken Arrow and, probably his best, Face Off. He also made Mission Impossible 2 and Paycheck.

The film’s content is familiar from many similar films. The focus is on an older brother who is involved in illegal business, who moves to Taipei, is betrayed and has to serve a jail sentence. The younger brother is a trainee policeman who then becomes involved in the struggle with rival business gangs. As with John Woo’s films and with the pacy editing, there are confrontations, gun battles, athletic fights. It is done with style and pace and is a good exemplar of this kind of Hong Kong action film.

1.The work of John Woo? Crime films? The use of Hong Kong and Taiwan backgrounds? Action sequences? Editing and pace?

2.The use of Hong Kong locations, the city itself, the streets, apartments? Authentic? The Taiwan sequences – and the touristic touches? The musical score?

3.The action sequences, the editing of the gun battles? The action and fight sequences? The Hong Kong style?

4.Ho, his age and experience, his criminal work? His relationship with his father, his father’s illness? His father knowing what he did? His friendship with Mark? Seeing them in action, the initial confrontation and shoot-out? The crime bosses? Shing and his being appointed to go with them to Taiwan?

5.The episode in Taiwan, in the countryside, the criminals hiding, the confrontation, the battle? Ho being wounded? His escaping? Sending Shing away, Shing’s protestations? Ho finally giving himself up? His prison sentence?

6.Mark, his character, joking, offhand? His English with the criminals and the money exchange in Hong Kong? His business deals? Shing and his associates bashing him? His friendship with Ho, wanting to go back into business?

7.Shing, his rise to importance? The confrontation with Ho? The battles, his double-dealing? Ho and the threats to his father? The assassin in the apartment? The fight, his father’s death?

8.Kit and the younger brother, idealising Ho? The trainee, wanting to be a policeman? His love for Jackie, her looking after his father? Kit and his graduation, his police work? Impulsive, his fighting skills?

9.The attack in the apartment, Jackie and her fears, trying to save the father? Kit and his reaction? His reaction against Ho? His having to come to terms with what had happened?

10.The final confrontation with Shing, Shing and his suave manner, his thugs? The fight at the garage? The two groups and their fighting, the role of the police, the escape in the taxi?

11.The resolution? Ho and the theme of the gangster being able to reform? The motivation for his brother? The friendship with Mark – and Mark’s collaboration?

12.The picture of the Hong Kong crime world, the gangs, money laundering, counterfeit money and exchange? A violence world?

13.The theme – what indicated a better tomorrow – and for which characters?

FLIGHTPLAN

US, 2005, 105 minutes, Colour.
Jodie Foster, Peter Sarsgaard, Sean Bean, Kate Behan, Erika Christensen, Mary Lawston.
Directed by Robert Schwentke.

Terror on a plane is a good old standby for a popular suspense thriller. We have seen plenty of hijackers, mad bombers, merciless terrorists. What about a distraught widow whose daughter disappears? And what about her name being missing from the passenger list? And what if passengers and staff are certain that they never saw the little girl? What would we do if we were the mother? (It helps if, as here, that the mother is an engineer and knows the designs of planes and where to look.)

A cautionary note of lack of realism needs to be made, especially for those who fly often. When the mother starts her cabin search for her daughter, all the toilets are vacant and there is no line for them. This certainly requires an enormous suspension of disbelief!

Despite that, the film works quite well in the suspense department. This is in large part due to Jodie Foster. A couple of years ago, she was menaced in her apartment (again with a daughter) by burglars while she hid in the Panic Room. This time she is a widow accompanying her husband’s body from Berlin to New York. In her grief, she remembers and imagines her husband. She comforts her daughter. She feels that men are prying from a neighbouring building. All this is enough to make us unsure when the on board crisis occurs. Did it happen? Well, we saw it all? But how could there be such a conspiracy against her? And when she goes over the top demanding the plane be searched, upsetting the passengers, challenging the crew, well Jodie Foster is so convincing an actress that we realise she must have imagined it all. But did she? And what happens when the plane lands?

Obviously it is far-fetched (we hope) and to criticise it for lack of realism is to have missed the point about this kind of thriller. It’s what if? rather than what really happens.

Sean Bean is the pilot who has to make the choices. Peter Sarsgaard is the air marshall required on flights after September 11th. Actually, the title gives away the intensity of the plot more than we might realise!

1.Successful disaster film? Terrorism? Heist? Combination?

2.The popularity of air disaster films? Audience identification with the dangers, the passengers? The what if?

3.The Berlin locations, the airports? The flight, the extensive interior of the plane, the plan, the reality, the decks, the lounges, the hold, the pilots’ area? How authentic? An invented plane – made to be credible?

4.The prologue, Kyle and the death of her husband, her grief? The plan to take the body back? Her relationship with her daughter? The grief, the vigil, the park? Seeing the men watching her from the adjacent building – and her suspicions on the plane? The arrangements, the authorities? Going to the airport, settling Julia down?

5.The relationship between mother and daughter, in the situation, her care for her daughter, age, tending her in the apartment, sleep? At the airport, going on board? The finger on the window of the plane?

6.Kyle? Jodie Foster’s screen presence? Dignity, as a mother, as a woman, concern? Going on board, settling Julia, going to sleep? Waking and finding Julia missing? The concern, the search – leading to panic?

7.The presentation of the crew: the pilot and his control, the various members of the staff, the flight attendants? Fiona and her concern? Stephanie and her objectivity? The other members of the crew? Their role during the flight, to keep order and calm, handling Kyle, the situation, the passengers and their being upset? The crew?

8.Kyle and her search, her causing a disturbance, her anxiety, going from deck to deck, upsetting the passengers? The reaction of Gene Carson? His trying to calm her? The lack of evidence that Julia was ever aboard? Going to the captain, banging on the door, his handling of the situation? Her continuing to go throughout the plane, her escaping custody, going down into the holds? Her knowledge, concern, her skill in pretending – in the toilet? Her growing panic – alienating the passengers, alienating the audience? The people criticising her? The two men that she thought suspicious and her attack on them?

9.Gene Carson, as a passenger, revealing himself as security? An air marshal? His taking control, collaboration with the staff? The searching?

10.The captain and his decision, contacting the destination, the decision to land? His believing Kyle – and the evidence against her?

11.The revelation of the truth about Carson, his sense of evil, the master plan, in collusion with Stephanie? Getting Stephanie to guard Kyle? His plan, the money, attitude towards the captain, the crew? The plan seeming to go well? His having Julia in the hold? The revelation of the plan, the murder of the husband, the cover-up, his suggestion to Kyle that Julia had died in the fall? Bringing the bomb on board in the coffin? His collaborators in Berlin?

12.Kyle, using her wits, pretending to go along with the arrangements? Her not leaving the plane? Pursuing Carson? The bomb, rescuing Julia? Closing the door, the detonation of the bomb?

13.The evacuation of the plane, Stephanie and her attitude, change of attitude? The arrests – and the arrests of the accomplices in Berlin?

14.The landing, the passengers, the kindliness of the man that Kyle had accused? Reunited with Julia? The attitude of the captain?

15.Audience reaction – the evidence of the mother and daughter going on board, the waking, thinking that Kyle had imagined everything, hysteria? Her erratic behaviour on the plane, her desperation? Audiences’ sympathy or turning against her? The reaction to discovering the truth?

16.An effective psychological thriller – the implausibility of the plot, the conspiracy, the action in the air? But satisfying action entertainment?

THE BROTHERS GRIMM

US, 2005, 119 minutes, Colour.
Matt Damon, Heath Ledger, Peter Stormari, Lena Hedey, Jonathan Price, Mackenzie Crook, Monica Bellucci.
Directed by Terry Gilliam.

The world is indebted to Wilhelm and Jakob Grimm. Over many years, they collected more than two hundred stories that were part of the German oral tradition, publishing them as Grimm’s Fairy Tales. In the early 19th century, they wanted to offer stories of the people and of the imagination as a counter to the dominance of the 18th century’s Age of Reason.

A cheerfully exuberant film was made in the early 1960s, The Wonderful World of the Brothers Grimm. With Terry Gilliam at the helm, the new film about the brothers is not quite so cheerful, although in its way it is certainly exuberant. Gilliam calls his film a fairy tale about the Grimms. It didn’t happen… It could have happened!

Gilliam imagines the brothers as two con-men travelling their native Germany which is now occupied by French invading forces. It is 1796 and the Napoleonic wars are about to break in Europe. The French are snobbish (but with ‘Allo, ‘Allo accents). The Germans are more sensible although they are highly superstitious. The brothers have a reputation for ridding communities of witches and ghosts, quite a spectacular show – but all of their own making. They get a shock when the French general (Jonathan Pryce, star of Gilliam’s 1980s classic Brazil) arrests them but orders them to solve a mystery in a village where the children have been disappearing.

Thus begins a story where reality and fairy story mingle.

Matt Damon is the forceful and charming Wilhelm, master of the fraud. Heath Ledger is the mild-mannered and bespectacled Jacob who is forever writing down the folk stories he hears. With the help of a tough hunting guide, Angelika (Lena Headey), they enter the enchanted forest with its shifting trees, tentacle branches and continuing menace. In the forest is a Rapunzel-like tower where the Mirror Queen (Monica Bellucci) (of ‘who is the fairest fame?’) lies sleeping and haggard until she drinks the blood of twelve children at the moon’s eclipse.

The brothers experience hazards in the forest and harassment from Cavaldi, the General’s aide and creator of elaborate machines of torture. He is played by Peter Stormare in an even more over the top manic performance than his Satan in Constantine. If only Gilliam had reined him in more so that he would have been comic rather than demented! (There were delays in the production and interference from the Weinstein Brothers – if they were to cut anything, trimming Stormare would have been more acceptable!)

What the screenplay does is weave small scenes from well-known fairy tales and allusions to others throughout the whole script: Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, Cinderella, Snow White and, at the end with the threatened Angelika, Sleeping Beauty.

For what audience has the film been made? It has a 12A classification which means that children under 12 need to see it with an adult. It does have some frightening scenes (with wolves, with some mock torture, with the Mirror Queen’s transformation), but they are the kinds of scares we expect from fairy tales rather than the mechanised brutality of so many children’s television programs. Adults? Most of the critics dismissed the film. Many seemed to be expecting a treatise on the imagination and made no allowances for its appeal of popular and folktale storytelling.

This means that its main appeal is to audiences, young and old, who don’t like to put limits on their imaginations. There are so many possibilities in imagining ‘what if…?’. Gilliam (who has created such worlds before in Time Bandits, The Adventures of Baron Munchausen, Brazil and The Fisher King) lets rip with the adventures here, not waiting for audiences to admire the scenery of the costumes. He loves the action and its meanings. Gilliam was also one of the Monty Pythons, co-directing The Holy Grail and directing Jabberwocky. He has never minded presenting the absurd side of storytelling. He offers a brew of the comic, the sinister, fantasy and a dash of realism.

1.The mixed reception for the film? The stories of interference by the producers, the Weinstein brothers? A Terry Gilliam film – or a flawed film?

2.The work of Terry Gilliam, his imagination, the tradition of Monty Python, his interest in fairy tales, myths, the dark side? How evident here?

3.The Czech locations, the studios and sets, the forest, the village, the tower? Interiors?

4.The lavish costumes, the décor, the re-creation of the 19th century? The devising of effects for the classics, the fairy tales? The musical score?

5.The special effects, the stunt work?

6.The atmosphere of magic, cinematic magic, the magic tales? Reality and fantasy?

7.The background of the actual Grimm brothers, their life, the collection of the stories, their influence on the German imagination? The world heritage of their stories?

8.The background of the German enlightenment, rational approach to life? The contrast with popular superstitions? Storytelling?

9.The role of stories, imagining the dark side of human nature, wish fulfilment? Fairies? The exorcism of fears? Happy endings?

10.The Grimms’ fairy tales, the same stories from different authors? Their collection? The impact in the 19th century? The applications now?

11.The audience response? Imaginative audiences and their delight? More focused audiences and their interest in the presentation? The imaginative interpretation and the subjective approach? The objective listening to storytelling, fairy tales – and passing judgment on their adequacy or inadequacy?

12.The prologue, the children, the clash between Will and Jake? The practical one? The dreamer? The parents? The money, the beans? The fights?

13.The Grimm brothers and their career, confidence tricksters, travelling the countryside, the village, their arrival and the celebration, importance? The witch, the discussions about payment, the fears of the rulers of the village? Will as the smooth talker, the snake oil seller? Jake, his writing? The money? The dramatics of the spells, the theatrics? The revelation that it was all set up? Their assistants?

14.The revelation of the truth after the imaginative presentation of the witch, the fears, the shock? Audience shock – and then the ironic reality? The brothers, their relationship, working as a team, the other members of the team, the travels?

15.The background of Germany, the clash with the French? The Napoleonic times? French signs in occupied Germany – and the tongue-in-cheek presentation of traditional enmities between the two countries? The brothers, their accents, German background? The importance of the government, the people? The general and his being the instrument of Napoleon, his French style and French dominant culture? Cavaldi, the Italian background? His service of the general? The situation, the village, Cavaldi and his wanting to expose the brothers? Their being arrested, tortured? The confrontations with the general, the threats? Their being given a mission?

16.The presentation of Red Riding Hood, Hansel and Gretel, Rapunzel, Cinderella, Snow White, Sleeping Beauty?

17.The brothers, their work, the meeting with Angelika? Her tough stances? Her stories, the wolf – and her father? The arrows?

18.The forest, the castle, the queen, the plague and the village, her protecting herself, the fairest of them all? The Mirror Queen? Her devices, taking the children? Their deaths? Her burying the children, wanting them to give her life and beauty? The final confrontation, Jake? The mirror smashing and her being destroyed?

19.Will and Jake, their personalities, strengths and weaknesses, infatuation with Angelika? The mission, finding the graves, the families and their grief with the disappearances of their daughters? The young girls and their deaths? Angelika, under threat? Her father and the wolf? Her death?

20.The brothers and their final scheme, the defeat of the queen, Angelika coming to life, the restoration of the children?

21.The French general, his angers, his wanting to torture the brothers, destroy them? Cavaldi and his insanity? Confrontation of the brothers – supporting them? The brothers, their future, Angelika? Restoration of the ordinary way of life?

22.The entertainment of this kind of excursion into the past, a superstitious past, the historical past of the Napoleonic era? The importance of this kind of imaginative memory?

LOOK BOTH WAYS

Australia, 2005, 118 minutes, Colour.
Justine Clark, William Mc Innes, Andrew S. Gilbert, Anthony Hayes, Daniela Farinaci, Sascha Horler.
Directed by Sarah Watt.

The title of Sarah Watt’s small but award-winning film sounds like a Jungian exhortation to wholeness. No matter what our personal preferences and characteristics, we still have to look both ways.

Commentators on the Australian film industry might say that when it comes to promotion of directors and awards, it is rather a look one way: at male directors. Looking at this a little more closely reveals something unexpected from 2003. Gillian Armstrong won Best Director in 1979 for My Brilliant Career. Then, in 1986, Nadia Tass won for Malcolm. Move to 1991 and Jocelyn Moorhouse won for Proof. After that, no more women directors until 2003. The interesting point is that in 2003, 2004, 2005 the Best Director awards went to women directors: Sue Brooks for Japanese Story, 2003, Cate Shortland for Somersault, 2004, and now Sarah Watt for Look Both Ways.

Is there a particular characteristic that is common to these films? Is there a particular characteristic that could be called more feminine than masculine? That, of course, is a difficult and controversial question. However, one characteristic that emerges from these three films by women is ‘vulnerability’. Vulnerability is something experienced by men and women but is associated with the ‘feminine’ in both, with its emphasis on subjectivity, situations and circumstances and the need for making allowances in coming to decisions.

A suggestion as to why this should make an impact in Look Both Ways is that the film is concerned with death. At the centre of the film is physical illness and death. Nick (William Mc Innes, who is Sarah Watt’s husband off-screen) is diagnosed with cancer, a sudden and unexpected diagnosis. How does a man deal with this news? Is there someone he can communicate it to? Nick, a press photographer, seems to be able to confide solely in his editor. Rather, the film shows his introspection, the aloneness he has to face in this life-then-death situation.

One of the qualities of the film is Sarah Watt’s ability to suggest and explore experiences of introspection. In her previous short films, she has demonstrated her ability at animation, not so much animated characters as paintings in motion, in rhythms, in patterns, as in her award-winning, Small Treasures (1995)). This is particularly true of the other central character in Look Both Ways, Meryl (Justine Clark). Meryl is also grieving, not for herself, but for the death of her father from whose funeral she is returning home. Animated inserts suggest Meryl’s anguish and pain.

It is death which brings Nick and Meryl together, a death on the railway lines, perhaps accidental, perhaps deliberate. Meryl has seen it. Nick has come, immediately after his diagnosis, to photograph the aftermath.

Nick returns to the scene later to meet Meryl. The suggestion is that they might be soul-mates, aspects of death bringing them together, some kind of complementarity in compassion in love. The difficulty is that Nick is unable to communicate to Meryl either his condition or the desperate bewilderment he is feeling.

Once again, Sarah Watt dramatises introspection by inserting flashbacks of Nick’s father and his terminal illness, the son remembering his father’s stubbornness and asserting of independence the more helpless he became and his mother’s tenderness and exasperation in her continued care. The film brings this interiorising of his fears and comparisons with his father into the actual world when Nick takes Meryl to meet his mother.

The Australian inarticulate male almost ruins the relationship which has brought such love and affirmation to the warm Australian female – and to physical ruin as Meryl runs from the emotion and tongue-tied Nick and is almost knocked over by a car. The resolution comes with Nick’s freedom to express the truth about himself inviting Meryl to share his illness, welcoming her in to the deepest parts of his life.

While the core of Look Both Ways is powerful in engaging its audience in the vulnerability of the central characters, Sarah Watt invites the audience to identify with a briefly but clearly-drawn group of supporting characters, all of whom are concerned with death and life issues.

The editor, in whom Nick has confided and who has been caught off guard by the news and struggles with what he should say and do, has been busy with work and is challenged to come closer to his wife and children. The rather gung-ho journalist friend, (Anthony Hayes winning the Best Supporting Actor award), has been writing cavalierly on suicide and death wishes, finding the rail lines death grist for his journalistic theories and articles. Meanwhile, estranged from his wife and child, he has been involved in an affair and is confronted with his girlfriend’s unexpected pregnancy. Abortion or not? Death of the child or not? His choice or not? Her choice and responsibility. (And she tells him that his theories about suicide are rubbish.)

And, grieving in the background, is the wife of the dead man, who has been photographed for the paper. More enigmatically, is the grieving man at home with his silent family, who gets into his car with his son – and who, it emerges, is the train driver whose life has changed because of the accident. The scene where the driver visits the widow and she reassures him that the accident was not his responsibility is a moving sequence of understanding and the lifting of a burden.

That is the world of Look Both Ways. It is not afraid of introducing the often shunned or avoided theme of mortality and death, of terminal illness and of accident. Australian audiences were able to receive this film and its themes and be moved. They have responded to being led into Sarah Watt’s world of vulnerability, of a world where logic and principles go only so far, where deep human feeling and feelings are the means of coping.

1.The impact of the film? In Australia? Overseas? Awards? Australian interest, universal themes?

2.The visual style: the straightforward narration, the sense of realism, the insertion of animation to illustrate Meryl’s imagination? Imaginative touches? The collages? The flashbacks? The musical score and the songs?

3.The title, accidents, needing to look both ways? Forward and back? Right and left? The motif of the railway and the rail lines? Illness and crises? Life and death?

4.The focus on a small group of characters, insight into the characters, into their inner selves, their inner lives? Their interactions? The relationship of each character to issues of life and to death?

5.The action taking place over a couple of days, the events? The range of deaths and the influence on each of the characters?

6.The world of the newspapers, reporters, editors, photographers? Popular articles – and bias? The public’s reaction? The media and the intrusion into people’s lives? People disagreeing with journalists and their perspectives?

7.Meryl, her age, background? On the train? Her imagination – with the touch of death and doom? The influence of her father dying? Her place in the family? Her walking from the station, the impact of the accident, the arrival of the photographer? At home, memories of her family? The encounter with Nick, the bond between them? Talking? His visit? The build-up to the sexual encounter, their loneliness, needs, complementarity? The visit to Nick’s mother? Her reaction when she felt he was dropping her? Running, almost run over? In the rain? Her weeping? Meeting again with Nick and the bonds between the two – healing and hope for the future?

8.Nick, as a character, age, experience? The interview with the doctor, the discussion about cancer, its being indefinite? The reference to the specialist? His telling the editor and the editor’s reaction? The encounter with the photojournalist, going to the accident? The journalist not knowing? Seeing Meryl, going home, his reflection, serious reflection? His return to the scene? Meeting Meryl again? The interplacing of the memories of his father, his illness, his mother helping, the father wanting to be independent? His wanting to be more positive than his father?

9.Andy, his work at the paper, the articles, his theories about suicide? His going to the scene? Nick’s photographs? The article, the visit of the family, his children, his wife, the separation? His meeting with his girlfriend? Her character, relationship, her love for him, explaining her pregnancy? His detached response? The issue of abortion? The visits home, the interplay of these problems? His playing cricket? In the rain, meeting his girlfriend again, her challenge to him, his weeping in the rain? His wife seeing him with his girlfriend? His going back? What had he learnt? Issues of life and death? His suicide theories and his girlfriend’s rejection of them?

10.Andy’s girlfriend, her relationship with Andy, her work, her pregnancy, talking with him, his inability to respond? Her life, her choices? Her seeing his wife?

11.The glimpse of Andy’s wife, at home, the separation, the children, his bonds with them? Her response to his being at cricket? With the girlfriend?

12.The editor, his role at the paper, his love for his family, his work, the birthday for his daughter, the gifts, his watching the party, being content? His response to Nick, to Andy?

13.The glimpse of the accident victim’s widow, her grief, the photo in the paper, meeting Meryl? The visit of the driver of the train, the pathos and sadness, the reconciliation?

14.The driver, his being stunned by what had happened, at home, his inability to act, his wife, his son sitting reflecting? The decision to go to visit the widow, speaking to her, his son in the background? The acknowledgment of grief, her saying that it was not his fault? The need for this kind of human contact in such a tragedy?

15.Nick’s mother, the memories of his father, his wanting to be independent, the hospital, bed, the mother helping, her exasperation?

16.The move towards reconciliation? The characters having time to reflect on themselves, on their interactions, on the significance of deaths? An affirmation of life? The collages to capture for the audience the reality of what they had experienced in the film?

VIEW FROM THE TOP

US, 2003, 95 minutes, Colour.
Gwyneth Paltrow, Mark Ruffalo, Christina Applegate, Mike Myers, Candice Bergen, Kelly Preston, Rob Lowe, George Kennedy.
Directed by Bruno Barretto.

View From The Top is a slight comedy, a romantic comedy for a women’s audience, which becomes a bit serious as the film moves on.

It is a star vehicle for Gwyneth Paltrow – although not as substantial as so many of her roles from her Oscar-winning Shakespeare in Love to such other films as Sylvia where she portrayed Sylvia Plath. She is supported by Christina Applegate and Kelly Preston as the other flight attendants. There is a strong cameo appearance by Mike Myers. Mark Ruffalo (You Can Count on Me, Just Like Heaven, Rumour Has It, Thirteen Going on Thirty) is the romantic interest.

The film was directed by Argentinian Bruno Barretto (Allegro Non Troppo).

All in all it is a glimpse into the world of flight attendants, their hopes and ambitions, their having to face the reality of career and love.

1.A woman’s story? The target audience? Romance, comedy? Work, career? Destiny?

2.The title, destiny, Donna and her wanting to be on top? The range of songs, the musical score, Time after Time?

3.The opening in Nevada, Cleveland, Paris? The local flavour? Domestic flights, international flights?

4.Donna’s story, her voice-over, her style? Her story being predictable or not?

5.Donna’s childhood, the harshness, the party and the candles, her ambitions, wanting to get out of Nevada? The contrast with the visit to Ted’s family, the whole family present, the range of gifts, their all wearing the same pullover? A sense of family that she never experienced?

6.The auditions for the local company, the range of girls, the boss, Rob Lowe doing a cameo as the pilot, her fears, screaming, the effect on the passengers, the aftermath?

7.The desire to go to a higher company, going to Royalty? The interviews, her repeating the same answers, the up-front attitude? The girls, Christine, the other flight attendants? John Whitney, his eye and its being awkward, their embarrassment? The interviews and the training, the attention to detail in the training? The exams? The irony of Donna’s failure, her being upset? The discussions with Whitney and his strong stance on procedures?

8.Mike Myers as John Whitney, the Mike Myers comedy style, manner? His experience, being penalised because of his eye? Donna finally affirming him?

9.The girls and their meeting Ted, the romantic attitudes, Christine, the other girl? Donna and her sense of destiny? His falling in love with her? Taking her to visit his family? His arriving in Cleveland to study – and his crediting Donna for having given him motivation? Together in Cleveland, the law, the gift of the watch?

10.Donna’s disappointment in not getting the international routes, her reaction, confronting Whitney? Meeting Sally Weston, reading Sally Weston’s book, the motivational style, Candice Bergen as Sally Weston? Her suspicions about Christine, realising that Christine had cheated? Talking it over with Ted, the possibility of a lawyer? Her decision to do something about it, going to see Sally Weston, Sally pulling strings? Her doing the exam against? The antagonism of John Whitney? Yet her work in Cleveland, employee of the month? Her success?

11.The encounter with Christine, Christine stealing things, her bad reputation, the physical fight with Donna on the plane?

12.Donna going to New York, the discussions with Sally, her making the choice, her sadness of having to leave Ted, the discussion with Ted, his dismay? In Paris, the range of flights, her experience, stepping in for people, the Christmas party Sally in Paris, taking over her route, urging her to go back to Ted?

13.The Christmas, Cleveland, her going to visit Ted’s grandmother, the old lady not hearing her, Ted hearing her, the reconciliation? Love?

14.The message about women, the workplace, ambitions? Destiny? Work, love and commitment?

THE PRIZEFIGHTER AND THE LADY

US, 1933, 118 minutes, Black and white.
Myrna Loy, Max Baer, Jack Dempsey, Primo Carnera, Walter Huston, Otto Kruger.
Directed by W.S. van Dyke.

The Prizefighter and the Lady is one of the earliest Hollywood boxing films. It featured Max Baer who was a champion at the time as well as champions Jack Dempsey and Primo Carnera as himself.

The film began a long line of boxing films that included such features as Body and Soul, The Set- Up, Champion, The Harder They Fall and later classics like Raging Bull, Million Dollar Baby and Cinderella Man.

Cinderella Man is particularly relevant because actor and fighter Max Baer appears as a central character in that film. The final culminating fight is between James Braddock (played by Russell Crowe) and Baer (played by Craig Bierko) - who bears a strong resemblance to Baer). Baer appears as an obnoxious character in the film, full of himself, insulting to Braddock and his wife.

In this light, the plot of The Prizefighter and the Lady does seem to bear some similarity to Baer’s own life and celebrity – although the events in Cinderella Man took place two years after this film was made and released. In Cinderella Man, there is also reference to Primo Carnera and his fights with Braddock.

This film has the conventional story of the young man seen by a has-been promoter (a good performance by Walter Houston) who sees his potential and brings him up to championship standard. However, the fighter is his own man, arrogant, wayward, even with his loving wife who had been the girlfriend of a gangster boss (Otto Kruger). Given the circumstances, the gangster boss behaves in a very gentlemanly and good-sporting way. Myrna Loy is the star and the gangster’s girlfriend – and has the opportunity to sing.

The film shows the development of sound films during the first half of the 30s. The director is W.S. van Dyke, director of many films at MGM at this time – including the Thin Man stories which was about to start, featuring Myrna Loy and William Powell.

1.The popularity of boxing films? The long tradition of boxing films? This film as a pioneer film?

2.The black and white photography, the cinema styles of 1933? Editing and pace? The angles for the boxing? The boxing choreography? The musical score – and the song Downstream Drifter? Its meaning for the characters?

3.The title, the tone? The clash of classes?

4.A film about boxing, boxing as a sport in the 1930s, during the Depression? The Champions? Max Baer himself, Jack Dempsey, Primo Carnera and the others? The fact that they would also appear in films? The training, the bouts, the fights? Tactics? Referees?

5.The focus on Belle, the accident? Her being Nick’s girlfriend? Singing at the club? The arrangement with Nick? The rescue by Steve Morgan? The bargain to come to his fight? The attraction? Nick and his dominance? His being prepared to let her go? Her marrying Steve? Her keeping away from the fights, the Professor’s advice? Her love for Steve, at home? His philandering? Her discovery of the truth, facing it? Her being upset? His being obtuse – her realising he was immature? The final straw, going back to Nick, singing at the club? Going to the fight, her saying she didn't want him to win, her still being in love with him, support, the draw? The reunion?

6.Steve, strong, the Professor noticing him? His being a sailor, not professional? Interested in the invitation? The training, the bouts? His becoming a celebrity, press conference? Taking himself too seriously? Women’s attentions? His flirting? The marriage, his love for Belle? Her absence? Going out, the gifts? His being caught? His reaction, the build-up to the fight, letting the Professor go? The bouts, the support? The Professor and Belle coming to his assistance, the draw? An appropriate ending for the fight theme? A future with Belle?

7.The Professor, his drinking, remembering the old days, noticing Steve, signing him up, going to the promoter, looking at the set-up fight, Steve and his ability to KO people? The Professor training him, entering him in the competitions, Steve insulting him? Steve using him as an excuse to be out with the girl instead of at home, Belle knowing the truth, telling him? The Professor and his upset? Helping him in the final fight?

8.Nick, the suave gangster, the club, the relationship with Belle? Jealousy of Steve? Threatening him? Good manners and letting Belle go? Her returning to him, the fight, his letting her go again?

9.The world of boxing, trainers, referees? The public? Avid desire to watch bouts? The assistants?

10.An interesting drama – from the early sound era? Creating a precedent for Hollywood boxing films?

RUNNING WITH SCISSORS

US, 2006, 118 minutes, Colour.
Annette Bening, Brian Cox, Joseph Fiennes, Evan Rachel Wood, Alec Baldwin, Joseph Cross, Jill Clayburgh, Gwyneth Paltrow, Gabrielle Union, Patrick Wilson, Kristin Chenoweth, Dagmara Dominczyk, Colleen Camp.
Directed by Ryan Murphy.

What image does a title like Running with Scissors evoke? Something a bit mad, to say the least.

Which means that it probably is a very good title for this piece of cinema of the absurd.

There has been something of a fringe tradition of eccentric American films which not only highlight the absurdities of the human condition (especially the American variety) but also a tradition of films that take on the absurd in their style and ways of communicating characters and themes. To go back only over the last forty years, one might think of Dr Strangelove, Catch 22 and some of the oddities of the 1970s. In more recent times, Wes Anderson has created a niche for himself in this tradition with Rushmore, The Royal Tennenbaums (which seems something like a cousin to Running with Scissors) and The Life Aquatic with Steve Zissou.

This is a memoir by Augusten Burroughs – who himself appears during the end credits with the actor who portrays him, Joseph Cross. The film begins preciously with his voiceover about his mother leaving him and his leaving his mother. There follows an introduction to his increasingly strange mother, Deidre (Annette Bening), a would-be poet who lives in her dreams of fame and success but whose appreciative audience is her little boy, Augusten, and whose unappreciative audience is her continually frustrated and now alcoholic husband (Alec Baldwin).

Annette Bening gives a tour-de-force performance as the mad and maddening mother, something like an amalgam of some of her impressive roles in American Beauty and Being Julia.

Running with Scissors has touches of the surreal, the oddball, the queer, the satirical, the frustrating – it is like being lost in bonkers.

Where mother and son are lost is in the mad hatter’s kind of pink house of Dr Finch, Deidre’s psychiatrist – who qualifies as the most likely to be deregistered. The household is somewhat controlled by his haggard wife, Agnes. Dr Finch has a tendency towards incorporating or adopting clients into his household. He has two daughters, the standoffish and almost normal Natalie and the older, repressed disciple, Hope. The audience also spends a lot of time incorporated into this mad household.

What makes the stay so persuasive, even while we feel alienated from what is going on, are the performances. Brian Cox can turn his hand to most roles. He really makes us believe that such a character as Dr Finch could exist. Jill Clayburgh, in a rare screen role, opts out of glamour as Agnes. Evan Rachel Wood is the frequently deadpan Natalie. The surprise is that the supporting role of Hope is well played by Gwyneth Paltrow.

The cast is really very strong, especially with the addition of Joseph Fiennes as another adoptee, a gay schizophrenic who has a relationship with the young Augusten and who is the character who gets the opportunity almost to run with scissors, literally.

The screenplay is an accumulation of memories rather than plot-driven, so one could opt in and out much as Deirdre does and as Augusten does. The effect of the film depends on whether you get caught up with Deirdre or with Augusten – and Joseph Cross tries his best to be independent of them all while really dependent. But he survived to remember and invent this tale from the madhouse.

1.The film based on a famous book? Memoir? An adaptation to the screen? The story of Augusten Burroughs? Surreal? The ending with the real Burroughs and Joseph Cross?

2.The title, evocation, the scene with Neil Bookman?

3.The visual style of the film, the opening and the comments, the darkness, the voice, the glimpses? The characters and caricatures? The odd situations? The blend of the real and the imaginary? The style of the dialogue? Humour? Black humour and satire? A satire on America, American families? American values?

4.The re-creation of the 70s and 80s, the style, visuals, images, clothes and hair? The issues?

5.The portrait of Augusten, the voice-over and the perspective of his mother, his birth, growing up, small, listening to his mother and her poetry performance, the clashes with his father, his own writing, diary, codes? His activities – not masculine and his father puzzling? His growing into teenage, fourteen turning fifteen? The clashes with his father, his father leaving? Being alone with his mother, her narcissism, the growing alienation, going to Doctor Finch?

6.Deirdre and her histrionics, ambitions, wanting acclaim, celebrity? Her image of herself? Her poetry and the readings? The clashes with Norman, her going to the doctor? The introduction to Doctor Finch, balanced or not, his two daughters and his hold over them, Agnes and the bond between the two? His helping people? The eccentric house at the end of the street, things on the lawn, the pink house? His adopting Neil? The rituals at home, Agnes, Augusten and his liking for Agnes, the relationship with Neil, discovering his sexuality? Going out with Neil, the world of art, literature? The effect on him?

7.The change of Augusten’s attitude towards his mother? Seeing her at home, with the women’s group and the poetry? His father not wanting to see him? The role of the doctor – wanting to be a substitute father figure, adopt him? His mother, going to the doctor’s, the breakdown, the valium, her zombie-like state? In the house, with the women friends? Going to hospital? His decisions as to what he should do? His final exasperation, his asking Natalie to go with him, Neil’s attempt on the doctor’s life, Agnes coming to the bus station, giving him the money, getting on the bus – going to a future? At age fifteen? Knowing that he became a writer – and seeing him at the end of the film?

8.The portrait of Deirdre, the drama queen, her poetry, performance, clashes with Norman and abuse of him? Publishers and rejection slips? Augusten listening to her, even as a boy? Her relying on him? Her being cantankerous, verbal clashes, the fights? The decision to go to the doctor, her dependence on him, the pills, living in the house? The sessions, the revelations? Her manner? Sexual? Her moving in and out of the house? The poetry groups, their adulation, her being critical, the women in tears? The beginnings of sexual experimentation, with Fern, with Dorothy? Dorothy moving in? Augusten and his clashes with Dorothy? Agnes and her confrontation of her? Suicide attempts, breakdowns, going to hospital? Her meeting with Norman and his fiancée, the continued clashes? Living in her own world, imagining success at Carnegie Hall?

9.Doctor Finch, his person, his charm, treatment of people, invitations, the house, his relationship with Agnes, with the girls, with Neil? Adopting people? His room, blunt and frank talk? Sexually frank? His treatments, the valium tablets? The discussions with each of the characters? His wanting to adopt Augusten? Causing havoc, a quack, his reputation? Neil and the attack with the scissors?

10.Agnes and her being dowdy, eating the dog food, watching the television, her life, patient, with the two girls, with her husband? The humdrum reality? Her talking about dreams and not fulfilling them? Her confronting Deirdre? Her wanting to change the house? Assert herself, giving the money to Augusten for his journey?

11.The two girls, Hope, her name, devoted to her father, the cat, Freud, his death, the joke about him being in the stew? Mournful? Helping her father? Her way of talking, Augusten and his hairstyle for her? Her staying? Natalie, seemingly normal, the interest in shock treatment, her age, hopes, Augusten and the relationship, his invitation for her to go with him? Her not going?

12.Augusten, his hopes, wanting to do hairdressing, the gift of the book? His experimentation with the haircuts, with Hope and with Natalie? His relationship with Neil, sexual, their frank discussions?

13.Neil, his mental state, his appearance, adopted by the doctor, the treatment, his apartment, the relationship to Augusten, the homosexual orientation, the sexual relationship, their discussions, going out together? His being taunted, the episode with the scissors and his threat to Doctor Finch? His motivation? His disappearance?

14.A surreal film, an oddball world, audiences identifying with the characters and situations or not? Insight? The effect of this kind of black humour entertainment?