RUNDOWN/ WELCOME TO THE JUNGLE

US, 2003, 100 minutes, Colour.
The Rock, Seann William Scott, Rosario Dawson, Christopher Walken, Ewen Bremner.
Directed by Peter Berg.

Welcome to the Jungle as a star vehicle for The Rock. Duane Johnson was a renowned wrestler with his show name, The Rock. He appeared in the Mummy films and The Scorpion King and developed a film career with a rather wider range than might have been expected: the comedy in Be Cool as well as the video game, Doom.

Peter Berg, actor in such films as The Last Seduction and director of Very Bad Things, gives us a kind of free-for-all in the jungle, with many set pieces of fights and bouts. The action adventure borrows somewhat from the Indiana Jones series.

Seann William Scott had appeared in the American Pie films and such films as Road Trip. He has had a varied career with high comedy in Evolution as well as action in Bulletproof Monk. Rosario Dawson appeared in Larry Clark’s Kids and has appeared in many films including Sin City. Christopher Walken is an ever-reliable villain.

The plot is slight, Hawaii stands in for the Amazon jungle, there are chases as well as action sequences – and an ironic twist at the end.

1.Popular feature? Saturday matinee action? 21st century style?

2.The film as a star vehicle for The Rock, his screen presence, the opening with his getting the ring? His mission? In the jungle, his fighting abilities (and not using a gun)? His heroic stances, his back-story and saving the day?

3.The locations, in the United States, California, nightclubs? In the jungle, the mountain scenery, the jungle and the rivers? The encounters with the monkeys (Animatronic monkeys)? The musical score?

4.The character of Mr Beck, his work, his tough stances, his fight in the club, Walker giving him the commission, going to South America, the flight and the sticking-tape keeping the plane together? His seeing the slaves, the encounter with Hatcher? The money? Hatcher going back on his word? Searching for Travis, finding Mariana, and Travis? Taking him? The crash in the jungle, in the water, with the ropes and the monkeys? The verbal clashes? Their meeting the rebels, the fight with the rebels? Mariana as a leader? The attack by Hatcher and his men? The expedition, finding the archaeological treasure? Being paralysed, going to the airport, going to Mariana’s rescue, the fight? His taking Travis home, the encounter with his father, paralysing the father and the henchmen, a future between the two?

5.Travis, spoilt, getting himself in a mess, his father wanting him back? In the Amazon, searching for the treasure? The relationship with Mariana? With Hatcher? The clash with Mr Beck? Trying to get away from him, the incessant talking, the comic episodes, trying to pee, with the monkeys? His bad translation to the rebels and putting Mr Beck in? Finding the treasure? Paralysed? Going to Mariana’s rescue? His honourable intentions? Return to his father, his father’s stances, Mr Beck rescuing him? His pretending to take a strong stand? A future?

6.Hatcher, his henchmen, their cruelty, the money control, the borrowings, the slavery? The whips? Hatcher and his tough stances, going back on his word with Mr Beck? Attacking the camp? Attacking Mariana, taking her? The fights with Mr Beck, the cruel henchmen, the victory by Beck?

7.Mariana, working in the bar, with Travis, using him, the leader of the rebels? Her social stand? Taking the treasure? Captured? Travis giving it to her, the future for the rebels?

8.The world of clubs, Mr Beck getting the ring, debts, fights? The brutality in South America? The need for revolution?

9.Matinee material, mach and boys’ own excitement?

THE OYSTER FARMER

Australia, 2005, 86 minutes, Colour.
David Field, Kerry Armstrong.
Directed by Anna Grieve.

This is a small-budget feature that both surprises and pleases.

North of Sydney, in the Hawkesbury River area, there are communities which depend on the river, some of them oyster farmers. Small dramas take place. The farmers are dependent on their skills as well as their hunches about the weather and the river. The markets process and sell their produce. Marriages break. Outsiders come in for casual work. The locals are sometimes suspicious, sometimes welcoming.

David Field plays an oyster farmer who has fallen out with his wife, Kerry Armstrong. His work is hard slog. She works on intuition. This has damaged their marriage, especially as he is so preoccupied with his work. They have a son. He also has a father who looks on and makes wise comments. Into this world comes a young man from Sydney caring for his sister who is ill after an accident. He needs money for her operation.

Nothing particularly startling. However, the characters are well drawn and well played. The attention to detail, especially for the oyster farming (offering audiences more than they ever need to know), creates an authentic atmosphere. The mundane details of interactions, friendships, flirtations, suspicions, fights, jealousies build up a picture of a community that rings true. There is also a robbery and its aftermath (with ironic poetic justice) that gives some edge to life in the community.

The Hawkesbury looks beautiful, providing a striking setting for these small dramas.

1.A small Australian drama? Ordinary people? Daily lives? Choices? Moral choices?

2.The use of the Hawkesbury River, its beauty, the land and waterscapes? The oyster beds and the oyster farms? The piers and docks, the works, the markets? People’s homes? An authentic and realistic atmosphere? Semi-documentary? The musical score?

3.The title and its application to the central characters? To the oyster farmer, to his wife, to Jack? To the farmer’s father?

4.The glimpse of working life on the Hawkesbury, the detail of the oyster farming, the labour involved, the difficulties, the attention to detail about caring for the oysters, heat and shelter? The risks? Farming oysters according to abilities and skills – and the value of intuition?

5.Jack as the focus of the film? The title with reference to him? His background, aged twenty-four, work in the city, casual jobs? New at the oyster farm? His relationship with his sister, her health, his caring for her, his promising to get the money? The encounter with Pearl, the sparring relationship, falling in love? The farmer and his employing him, the work, the father and the talk? Jack and his making mistakes? The planning of the robbery, the assault of the men, getting the money, putting it in the box, in the post? His going to the post office, his anxiety, the offhand attitude of the staff, the old postie – and then the delivering of the parcel, his heart attack, the mail going in the water? The search? The futility of the waterlogged envelopes? Feeling that he had failed his sister? The farmer and his wife, their separation, his meeting with the wife, the frank talk, comfortable with her, the issue of the bath? Her dilemmas? The detail of life in the town, going to the bar, Pearl and the relationship with the sewerage collector, the fights? His plan? The gathering of the oysters? The old father, the shredding of the notes? The father giving him advice? His desperation? The prospect of staying, his decision to leave? In the train, talking with his sister, the decision to return? His being welcomed? Another chance?

6.The sketch of the sister, the background of the accident, her disability, her need for medical help, the need for money, Jack and his decision to help his sister? Her letting him go back?

7.Pearl, belonging to the environment, the meeting with Jack, the boat? Their talking together, the growing relationship, the visits, her advances? Her story, the sewerage collector, the child? Their clashes? The sexual relationship? Everybody knowing? The future – and Jack’s return?

8.The oyster farmer, the title as applying to him? Middle-aged, in himself, the hard work, the leasing of the fields? His hopes? The workers, the interaction with Jack, with his father? The separation from his wife? Meetings with his son? The wife and the rivalry in getting the oysters, her intuition? His sexist attitudes, the expectations on his wife, especially staying at home? His father’s criticism and his reactions? Taking on Jack, exasperated, changing attitudes? The meeting with his wife, their talking, being together? The night together? The judging of the oysters, his success and his winning? His decision about his father, wanting Jack to take him? Letting Jack go, the return? His relationship with his wife and son?

9.His wife, in herself, the experience of fifteen years, the different issues, her wanting to work, her husband and his old-fashioned ideas? The issue of the bath? Her talking to Jack? The reconciliation, the blindfold and the opening of the bath, her delight, her father-in-law and his making it? The reconciliation, the competition and the win?

10.The farmer’s father, his age, mental abilities and forgetting, the experience of work? The plans, that Jack should take him on? His shredding the money, giving advice to Jack?

11.The details of life in the town, the workers, the market, the bar, the fights?

12.Jack and the robbery, the quick execution of it, seeming success? The accident of the heart attack? The police and the interview and the questions?

13.A glimpse of ordinary working people and their troubles? A slice of life?

ALIAS JESSE JAMES

US, 1959, 90 minutes, Colour.
Bob Hope, Rhonda Fleming, Wendell Corey.
Directed by Norman Z. Mc Leod.

Alias Jesse James comes from a very successful period in Bob Hope’s film career. After emerging as a comedian in the 1930s, he made a number of very popular comedies in the 1940s and teamed with Bing Crosby in the Road series. In the 1950s he also made a successful range of comedies. Later, while still in films, he moved to television.

At this stage Bob Hope was fifty-five. However, he appeared younger and stronger. Important for his films were the wisecracks and his timing – and there are plenty of these in this film (although the timing is a bit slow for later tastes).

Usually he is the rather weaker heroic figure – and this time he is an unsuccessful insurance salesman. However, when he sells a policy to Jesse James who has plans to rob the firm, he goes west in order to protect him. Actually, at the end of this film, he wins the girl, played by Rhonda Fleming.

There are the expected comedy pieces, the spoof of the western. This is particularly true at the end when in the shoot-out, he thinks he has killed all Jesse James’s men but we get glimpses of a whole range of television and film stars of the time doing the shooting for him. These include Gary Cooper and Fess Parker as Daniel Boone – culminating in Bing Crosby. An enjoyable example of Bob Hope comedy.

1.The popularity of Bob Hope in the 1950s? His screen persona? The weak hero, making good? Mistakes? Winning the heroine?

2.The prologue, New York City in the 1950s, the insurance firms – and the parody of the travelogue with the reference to the history of insurance firms? Going back to the 1880s?

3.The insurance firm, Plymouth Rock? Mr Queasy and his attitude towards his salesmen, reading the charts, praising them, finding Milford Farnsworth as failing? Sacking him? His later change when Milford signed up Jesse James? The newspaper headlines? Sending Farnsworth to protect Jesse James? On the train being robbed? At the end and Farnsworth’s future?

4.Bob Hope as Milford Farnsworth, failure, resilient? Sacked? Talking in the bar, incessantly? Meeting Jesse James, signing him up, the triumph with Mr Queasy? Being sent west, robbed on the train by Jesse James, his watch? Jesse later giving it to him as a gift? His arrival in the town, the people setting him up, the card game and the goat chewing the cards, taking his clothes, rushing through Cora Lee’s room? Being saved by Jesse? His being the target of Jesse’s scam? Attracted towards Cora Lee, singing with her at the meal? In her room? Jesse’s friendship, the warnings about Cora Lee? The robbing of the train, Milford having to take part, robbing Mr Queasy? Being shot at – and his escaping, riding the cow home, wearing Jesse’s armour? The plan then to ambush him and shoot him, the Indian girl and the rescue? His final confrontation with Jesse and the gang, helped by Cora Lee, the cowboys helping him? The wedding, his abduction of the minister, putting the mushrooms in the punch, the failure of his disguise as the minister? The final happy ending, back in New York, the big family? A genial Bob Hope character?

5.Jesse James and his reputation, in New York, listening to Milford, taking the policy? His plan? On the train, the robbery? Taking Milford in, his mother and her care for her son, over-mothering him? Taking Milford for the robbery, intending to kill him? His turning up at the wedding, the mushrooms in the punch? The shoot-out? The play on the historic character?

6.Cora Lee, singing in the saloon, her room, the encounter with Milford, not wanting to marry Jesse James, helping Milford, warning him about the ambush, the wedding ceremony, helping him with the shooting? The happy ending and the family?

7.The men of the west, in fear of Jesse James, the telegraph operator, the saloon, the gamblers? Jesse’s gang?

8.Mrs James, keeping house, fussing over Jesse, her amoral attitude towards his plans?

9.The popularity of westerns – and spoof on westerns?

THE PRODUCERS

US, 2005, 130 minutes, Colour.
Nathan Lane, Matthew Broderick, Uma Thurman, Will Ferrell, Gary Beach, Roger Bart.
Directed by Susan Stroman.

In 1968 Mel Brooks won a surprising Oscar for his screenplay, The Producers, a potentially controversial comedy which ran the risk of bad taste (and won) and of upsetting Jewish and other sensibilities about Hitler and World War II. But, Brooks, taking a cue from Chaplin’s mockery of his look-alike, Hitler, in The Great Dictator, has always thought that an effective way of attacking is by satire and mockery – making a fool of Hitler. So, not only did The Producers pay off, it moved Brooks from a TV writer and performer to a screen director and actor for almost three decades.

Well, when The Producers was turned into a Broadway show, a musical comedy, it lacked the surprise element of the earlier film. On the other hand, it now had a bigger, brighter and more lavish opportunity to flaunt its satire and mockery – and was an award-winning success. There was a version of the jaw-dropping Springtime for Hitler song and dance routine in 1968. But, now, along with some other spoofing songs, it is a show-stopper.

But, not quite. That, of course, is the intention of impresario, Max Biallystock and his mousy accountant, Leopold Bloom. By raising huge money for a huge show and its closing after opening night, their literal understanding of show-stopper, the loss means that they don’t have to pay back investors. When people start to walk out of Springtime, disgusted, someone suggests it is a send-up. The audience returns to their seats and they applaud it. Success – and disaster for the producers.

Mel Brooks has made some very funny films (Blazing Saddles – even with its Warner Brothers lot musical extravaganza finale – Young Frankenstein, High Anxiety, History of the World Part I). But, he loves to makes jokes in bad taste. The usual word is ‘outrageous’. And there is no let up here in the vulgar, the innuendo and the just plain corny. He is no Noel Coward but he has ‘a talent to amuse’.

The film version of the Broadway show is quite theatrical in style (from the theatre’s director, Susan Stroman). In many ways (too many ways?), it is a widescreen close-up of the musical. Much of the acting and enunciation could seem over-acting. Rather, it is hyper-acting. Nathan Lane and Matthew Broderick are re-creating their stage performances. Uma Thurman, surprising with her singing and dancing, is just right as Ula. The camp aspects are played to the hilt (or wherever), mocking the gay theatrical culture flamboyantly. Gary Beach is in-your-face memorable as the director/actor. Will Ferrell does a funny turn as dumb Nazi loyalist.

Which brings us back to the Hitler theme. Those who have suffered under tyrants need to draw desperately on a sense of humour when their tormentor is the stuff of comedy (like Iraqis who experienced Saddam Hussein while watching the South Park send-ups). But the Jewish Brooks proves that the sincerest form of attack is mockery.

1.1968, the film, Oscar for best screenplay? Mel Brooks and his writing and directing? The controversies, the war, the Holocaust? Bad taste? Mel Brooks and his theories of mockery of Hitler and the Third Reich? The film becoming a cult film?

2.The success of the theatrical production, Mel Brooks and his writing the book, music and lyrics? The awards?

3.The film as a close-up version of the theatrical event? The wide screen, the close-ups, hyperacting? The choreography?

4.The humour of the film: the jokes, Brooks taking risks as regards taste? Jewish sensibilities (and his own Jewish background)? The mockery and making a fool of Hitler? Mocking theatrical personalities, their pretensions? Producers and their schemes? The casting couch? Camp and gay sensibilities in the theatre? Flamboyance? The risque jokes, innuendo, the clever and corny jokes?

5.The choreography, costumes, décor – and the exaggerated style for humour and spoof?

6.The songs: the usherettes and the Opening Night song? Leo and Max with We Can Do It and Leo and his office song as well as I Want to Be a Producer; the encounter with Liebkind and his singing of Der Guten The Clop; the gay entourage and Keep it Gay; Ulla and When You Got It, Flaunt It; Leo and his singing That Face for Ulla; the old ladies singing Along Came Bialy; Liebkind and the Deutsche Band: You Never Say Good Luck on Opening Night; the performance of Springtime for Hitler in Germany and Heil Myself; the final songs, Betrayed, Till Him? And the grand finale with the prisoners in Sing Sing?

7.Nathan Lane’s award-winning performance as Max Bialystock – both shady and endearing, ambitious, greedy, the money, the schemes? The failure of Funny Boy, the musical version of Hamlet? The notices for his other plays, King Leer and The Breaking Wind? His getting a fright with Leo, attacking him? Listening to his scheme? The decision to go into action, his explanations, the raising money from the ladies? The old lady with Touch Me, Feel Me? His conning the old ladies? The interview with the director and the encounter with the camp group? The meeting with Liebkind on the roof, the difficulties, wearing the swastikas, the oath? The auditions and the poor Hitlers? Liebkind and his singing? The build-up to the performance, hoping for the failure, the applause, the dismay with the reviews? His arrest, in prison, feeling betrayed, going to the court, his speeches, Leo’s arrival, the reconciliation? Serving their time in Sing Sing – and getting all the money for the promotion of the musical?

8.Leo, Matthew Broderick’s award-winning performance? The mousy type, his shyness, eccentric tics, phobias, his comfort blanket? His explanation of the plan? Watching Max with the old lady? Going to work, reading all the plays, becoming exhausted? Springtime for Hitler? The contrast with his life in the office, the office song with the men all in unison with their machines – and John Lovatz as the boss and his dismissing Leo? The auditions? Going to visit Liebkind? Partly neurotic? Joining in the songs, with the gay group? The audition of Ulla, attracted towards her, the relationship? The failure, going to Rio with Ulla, the postcard, the happy times in Rio, every luxury – but returning to the court, giving himself up? Till Him and the reuniting with Max? Their deals in Sing Sing?

9.Liebkind, insane, his helmet, the singing pigeons? His talking to them? On the roof, his song, the lederhosen, the hats, the oath, the swastikas? The auditions and his doing the Hitler song? His devotion to Hitler, denial of anything bad about him? Rushing in to perform, breaking his leg? His later denials that he had anything to do with the Nazis?

10.Ulla, Uma Thurman and her strong presence, her appearance, costumes? The song and and dance, Flaunting It? As secretary, painting the whole office white? Her understanding the scheme? Her love for Leo, their relationship? The proper relationship? The performance, her role in the play? Going to Rio, marrying Leo, returning with him?

11.The old ladies, their being similarly dressed, appearance? Their song and dance with their supports walking through the streets of New York? High kicks? Their presence in the court case and always supporting Max?

12.The camp director, his dress, his entourage, his introduction of his team, his social secretary and the exaggerated camp? Keep it Gay? The director and the rehearsals? The opening night, their all afraid of saying good luck? Liebkind breaking his leg, the director being persuaded to go on – the performance of a lifetime? His enjoying it?

13.The court case, the judge, his bemused presence, his verdicts? The jury?

14.Max and Leo in prison – and the inmates all performing, getting shares in the production – including the warden? Production all over again?

LES RIVIERES POURPRES (CRIMSON RIVERS)

France, 2000, 106 minutes, Colour.
Jean Reno, Vincent Cassel, Nadia Fares, Dominique Sanda, Jean Pierre Cassel.
Directed by Matthieu Kassovitz.

Crimson Rivers made a strong impact when it was released in 2000. It was a French version of a very popular genre in English-language cinema: the serial killer.

The film is complex in its plot, far more complex than the individual serial killer and his pursuit by the police. Rather, the film shows an isolated environment, a university in the alps which was quite inbred and was investigating developments in eugenics. The dean, the professors and many of the staff were involved in these processes – without any respect for human feelings and the dignity of the human person. The consequence is that at some stage, retribution takes place.

The police investigation is led by veteran actor Jean Reno, a striking screen presence, taciturn, severe (Nikita, The Professional) as well as an ability at comedy (The Visitors, French Kiss, Tais- Toi). He also appeared in a number of international productions including such big-budget films as Rollerball, Mission Impossible 2, Godzilla, The Pink Panther and The da Vinci Code). He is matched by Vincent Cassel as the younger investigator. Cassel also had an international career as well as a strong presence in French films (Doberman, The Apartment, Elizabeth, The Brotherhood of the Wolf, Irreversible).

Also appearing in the film are the veterans Dominique Sanda and Jean- Pierre Cassel.

The film is quite graphic, always interesting, complex and exciting. The location photography in the alps is at times quite breathtaking. This is a superior film of its type.

Director Matthieu Kassovitz made some celebrated films including La Haine as well as Gothika. He has had a long career as an actor in such films as Amelie, Birthday Girl and was the Jesuit priest in Amen. He also appeared in such international films as The Fifth Element and Jakob the Liar and Munich.

1.The popularity of this French thriller? Police story? Serial killer investigation? Its style?

2.The alpine locations, the beauty of the scenery, the action within this scenery? The town, the university? The isolated university – its staff, personnel, credibility? The atmospheric score?

3.The title, the reference to the blood, the issue of eugenics and the sources of blood for continually improved physiological human beings? The eugenics theme?

4.The introduction into this world, the deaths, the graphic autopsies and close-ups? Appropriate for a world of science and investigations, eugenic developments? The later visuals of the corpses? Reminding audiences of the graphic reality of these killings?

5.The serial killer genre, audience interest, curiosity, disgust? The mystery? The psychology of the perpetrator? The skills of detection? Solutions? This plot as different from other serial killer films?

6.The first death, the heights, the information, Fanny and her finding the body? The different locations? Pierre Neimann and his arrival, type, appearance? The initial interactions with the locals? Their suspicion?

7.Neimann and his reputation, his personality, his styles of investigation, the interviews at the institute, with the dean, meeting his son, the professor? The girl and her skills at climbing? His going to the locations, the girl’s help, the cave? The build-up of the clues?

8.Max as the alternate policeman, younger? His own investigation? His arrival, the clashes with the locals, the later fights with the skinheads and his martial arts skills? The incident in the village, going to the cemetery, the investigation about the dead girl – and later exhuming her body? The attacks on him? Going to the school, the headmistress, the missing documents? Working on his leads?

9.Max and Pierre encountering each other, suspicious? Max’s admiration? Two loners having to collaborate?

10.The increasing dangers, the further deaths and the detail? The graphic death of the professor in his laboratory? The behaviour of the staff? The mysterious death of the professor, the pursuit in the car by the dean’s son?

11.Pierre’s visit to the monastery, discussion with the nuns, meeting the dead girl’s mother, the interview? Her story and the cloister?

12.The girl herself, the climax, her not shooting Pierre dead, the bullets around him? The reasons?

13.The revelation that there were two girls, the story of the twins, the photos? One being involved in the eugenics experiments? The other not? The effect on the mother? The university trying to disguise what had happened? The confrontation, the two women, the shootings – and the death of the assassin?

14.The university itself, inbred, the town? Being opened up by these events?

15.A satisfying picture of an aspect of French society, a satisfying police detective thriller, serial killer genre?

MRS HENDERSON PRESENTS

UK, 2005, 103 minutes, Colour.
Judi Dench, Bob Hoskins, Will Young, Kelly Riley, Thelma Barlow, Christopher Guest.
Directed by Stephen Frears.

Stephen Frears has been making films for television, small budget features and big-budget Hollywood features since the early 1970s (like Bloody Kids, My Beautiful Laundrette, Dangerous Liaisons, Liam, Dirty Pretty Things). You cannot predict his next project, although most of them tend to be serious with social comment. You could not predict his choice of Mrs Henderson Presents.

While Mrs Henderson Presents is interested in surfaces (especially bare human surfaces) and the film can give the impression of being a cheerful bit of nostalgic fluff, it does in fact go below the surfaces.

Best to say straight out that its subject is the Windmill Theatre in Soho which introduced naked women on stage just before World War II – with great success. Laura Henderson, widow of a businessman who had made a fortune in India, bought an old theatre, refurbished it, hired Vivian Van Damm to manage it and produce the shows.

A fair amount of the dialogue concerns the human body and our attitudes when an issue like the Windmill nudes comes up. Nowadays, very few people are going to be upset by the subject. Does that mean we have become too permissive, that anything goes on stage, screen and TV set? There may be something in that. But that would be to miss the point of Mrs Henderson Presents. The film is more interested in acknowledging that, whether we approve of it or not, we are bodily people. God made us this way. While privacy is important, prudery is an excess of it and can be dangerously repressive with some dire consequences when people break out of it. Prudery seems to get bodyliness and privacy out of proportion.

The Lord Chamberlain, until the 1960s, had to make decisions about what was permitted on the London state and what forbidden. The compromise in the 1930s was that the models had to remain perfectly still – and so the analogy was with the classics of pictorial or statue art (forgetting that across the channel in Paris, they had long since worked out these problems at the Moulin Rouge and other clubs). The film’s screenplay has several speeches along these
While there are moments of total nudity (where the producer and the stagehands strip, for instance, to make the models feel more at ease), if you blink you will miss them. The tableaux on stage are designed to resemble art works. It should be noted that the British censor gave the film a 12 A certificate.

Mrs Henderson is played by Judi Dench, bombastic, complacently upper-class yet invigorated by her theatre and challenged by the issues of nudity. Bob Hoskins plays Van Damm. The Lord Chamberlain is played for genteel caricature by Christopher Guest (writer director of such hilarious spoofs as Best In Show and A Mighty Wind). Should someone suggest he is miscast, others will let them know that he is fact a member of the House of Lords, Lord Haden Guest!

But there is a lot more below the surfaces. This is a portrait of London and British society in the 1930s, the generation that had to face the war while many were still grieving over World War I losses. In the latter part of the film, this is quite strong as it turns into a story of London, the Blitz and the Windmill never closing as it boosted morale. There is quite some pathos towards the end.

However, it is a film of nostalgia for a period that is long gone. Walking around Picadilly Circus and Great Windmill Street where the film is set, you now see a mixture of ethnic groups that are not to be found in the film. This film is a tribute to the undaunted spirit of the British past.

1.A piece of history from the United Kingdom, from London? A memoir? Nostalgia? Morale-boosting? Moral issues?

2.The re-creation of the 30s, the sets and décor, costumes? The city of London? The affluent world? The world of Soho, Windmill Street and the Windmill Theatre? The world of government? The effect of the blitz on London?

3.The musical score, the range of songs, of the period? The acts in the Windmill Theatre? The memories of those performances?

4.The title, the sign outside the theatre, the world of the stage and its style, the heightened performances? The film echoing the performances in its own style – histrionic, sometimes overplayed? The staging and the rehearsals, the performances? Tableaux?

5.Judi Dench as Mrs Henderson: the background in India, her successful husband, being a widow, wealth, the funeral? Her friendship and conversations with Lady Conway? The discussions about hobbies, her crocheting? Her wanting more excitement? Stopped outside the theatre, seeing it for sale, the decision to buy? The discussion with her solicitors? The introduction to Vivian van Damm? The clash of personalities, her dismissive tone, talking to him in the corridor? Her decision to hire him, her imperious manner? Her kindly intentions? The contradictions in her personality – the influence of class and British tradition and arrogance? The more humane qualities?

6.Bob Hoskins as van Damm? The Dutch background, his being quiet about the Jewish connections? The effect of the Nazi persecution of the Jews? His skills as a manager, the first meeting with Mrs Henderson, their clash? His agreeing to work for her, his wanting total control about the presentations? The range of auditions, his relying on Bertie and his opinions? The decisions as to who was to perform, the changes? The success of vaudeville, the continuous shows? The popularity and the audiences? The other theatres imitating them? Mrs Henderson’s decisions about the nude shows? A man of the vaudeville era?

7.The humour of the auditions, the range of singers, dancers, comedy acts, the jugglers? Bertie and his own talent and singing?

8.The theatres imitating the Windmill, Mrs Henderson and her brainwave, the issue of nudity? Her going to see Lord Cromer, knowing him personally, his foppish manner? The discussions, the meal laid on for him? Her powers of persuasion? His rationalisations – and the nudes being completely still? The contrast with Paris and the Moulin Rouge and the acceptance of this kind of show?

9.The issues of morals, standards, prudery? The issue of nudity, the body? The auditions, the rehearsals? The girls wanting everyone, including the stagehands and van Damm, to strip? Mrs Henderson’s? surprise? The tableaux and their style? The audiences and the response? The men? High society? The Lord Chamberlain coming – and the prurient touch with his visiting the dressing rooms and meeting the actresses? The reaction to the closing of the theatre during the war, the show must go on?

10.The success of the Windmill Theatre, going into the war years, the morale-boosting role, the patriotic songs and tableaux? The Chamberlain and the demonstration against the closing of the theatre, the press? Mrs Henderson’s speech and her explanation of the theatre, patriotism?

11.Mrs Henderson herself, the chats with Lady Conway, sitting in on the auditions, her meeting the girls, listening to their stories – and van Damm banning her?

12.The decision to go out into the countryside to recruit the girls, ordinary girls? Maureen of symbolic of the group? Their motives for going to the theatre, an opportunity and life? Their nervousness? Acting? Their personal lives, the strict regime? Maureen and the boy at the door and his going into the military? Mrs Henderson and her intervention? Their going out, sexual relationship, Maureen’s pregnancy – and her being killed? Van Damm blaming Mrs Henderson?

13.The various characters in the theatre, Bertie and his homosexual orientation? His helping with the staging, his singing? The actresses who sang – in the manner of the Andrews Sisters? The girls for the tableaux, the stagehands?

14.Van Damm and the clashes with Mrs Henderson, yet the bonds with her? The upset when Mrs Henderson snubbed van Damm’s wife? Going up onto the roof, looking over London, the blitz, the two dancing together?

15.The perspective on the Windmill Theatre and its experience in retrospect? Judgment? The changes through the rest of the 20th century – with permits and permissiveness? The seeming innocence of the Windmill days?

THE WORLD’S FASTEST INDIAN

New Zealand/US, 2005, 116 minutes, Colour.
Anthony Hopkins, Aaron Murphy, Diane Ladd, Christopher Lawford, Paul Rodriguez, Chris Williams.
Directed by Roger Donaldson.

Roger Donaldson left Australia at the time of conscription for the Vietnam War. He moved to New Zealand and made documentaries and the feature films, Sleeping Dogs and Smash Palace. With The Bounty, he began an international career that has lasted over twenty years. During his documentary days, he met Burt Munro, a veteran of motorcycle racing and breaking speed records.

Now he has returned to New Zealand and his love for his adoptive country to make a feature film on Burt Munro. It needs to be said at once that the Indian of the title refers to Burt’s bike (or motorcicle as he pronounces it), made in Massachusetts in the 1930s and is not a reference to actual native American Indians. Donaldson has not just directed. He wrote the screenplay as well and consulted Burt Munro’s three children.

The Burt who emerges from the film is a cheerful, older bloke from the Southern hemisphere who is not used to American ways and who bemuses and amuses the Yanks. He never misses an opportunity to tell them that he is from the other side of the world, proud of New Zealand.

We find him in Invercargill, revving up his cicle, disturbing the neighbour’s peace but someone whom their young son, Tom (a natural performance by Aaron Murphy) likes spending time with. Burt’s aim is to get to Bonneville, the dry lake speed course in Utah. Between several jigs and quite some reels, he actually gets the money and sets __off – with everyone’s good wishes though not with everyone’s expectations that he could break a record.

The New Zealand 1960s sequences have the homely touch.

The rest of the film is Burt’s arrival in LA (not a world he is used to) , his road journey to Utah and his endeavours at Bonneville – which sometimes leaves the spectators aghast.

This is a genial film, a Rocky for the older generation (or, as 79 year old Stan Freberg remarked, ‘the chronologically gifted’). Burt meets all kinds of people along the way and wins them over (except the disgruntled LA taxi driver). The people include the screen’s most genial and kindly transvestite, a nice used car salesman, an actual Indian and his family and a very eager and lonely widow.

There is a credit for Anthony Hopkins’ dialogue coach, but his accent (while definitely from the Southern hemisphere, seems a sometimes bizarre mixture). But Hopkins gives his character a warmth and sincere naiveté that is engaging. Just as Burt wins over all the people he meets, so he wins over the audience (except anyone who resembles the grumbling taxi driver).

1.A feelgood film? A sense of achievement? The Rocky tradition – and the ordinary and the underdog achieving wonders?

2.A New Zealand story, South Island, Invercargill? The spirit of New Zealand – and the references in the screenplay? Burt Munro and his continued reference to himself as a Kiwi and his references to New Zealand?

3.New Zealand in the 1960s, Invercargill, the attention to detail of the town, the suburbs, the banks, the halls? Authentic? The musical score and the songs of the 60s?

4.The American settings, California, Hollywood, the motel, the garage, Longbeach and the customs house? The Nevada desert, the service stations, the cafés? Utah and Bonneville? The feel for America in the 60s? Utah and the salt plains?

5.The title, the meaning, the motor cycle and its vintage status? The Indian? The overtones of American Indians – and Burt and his meeting the Indian family?

6.The world of speed, engines, motorcycles, racing, the breaking of records? The Speed Week at Bonneville, the drawing of people all over the world, people active, spectators?

7.The film based on a true story, an actual character?

8.Burt: Anthony Hopkins’ presence and performance, accent? Age, experience, the background of his family? His getting up in the morning, his shed, working out on the beach? Testing out his machines and the noise in the early morning? The complaints of the neighbours? His not mowing his grass? At work in his shed, Tom and his devotion and helping him, good friends? The cycle club and the range of friends in the suburb? His relationship with Fran, the sexual relationship? Going to the bank, wanting a loan, Fran’s suggestions? The interview with the bank manager? The issue of the mortgage? Getting his money to go to America? The friends and their support? Going to the dance, the twist, the speeches? The bikies and their challenge, the race – and his failing? Their giving him the money for the journey? Seeing him make the piston in his shed? Tom getting his mother’s knives, his mother reclaiming them? Burt’s personality, sense of humour, straightforward? His heart attack, going to the hospital? His setting fire to the lawn to clear it? The farewells? Everybody expecting him to fail?

9.Going on the boat, the cargo ship? His being assigned to be the cook, his lack of experience, the meals and people’s reactions? The offhand attitude of the captain? His making friends with the crew, trying to get them off smoking, watching the movies with them? An enjoyable voyage and making friends?

10.Passport control, his explanations and the official’s suspicions? The man who had read the magazine article about him? Their letting him through, wishing him well? His going back to customs? The bad packing of the bike, opening it, everybody helping him, no damage?

11.Longbeach, getting the taxi to Los Angeles, the taxi driver and his not helping, criticisms? Tina and her help at the motel? Helping him with the breakfast? The transvestite and her personality, friendly? Burt mistaking her for a girl, her explanation? Her driving him around, helping him take delivery of the bike? A sympathetic presentation of Tina?

12.His going to buy the car, discussions with Fernando, his genial attitude, his bargain, fixing the car, Fernando working all night with him, sleeping in the car? His helping fix other cars? Fernando offering him a job?

13.The trip, the range of people he encountered? An American odyssey through California, Nevada and Utah? Wanting a cup of tea at the diner and everybody’s reaction? The wheel coming off and his recovering it, the help from the Indian, going to his house, the discussions, being given the token? His gratitude? The various people and their hospitality?

14.His visit to Ada, her life story, widow? Helping him with the bike? Her talking, spending the night, her wanting him to return?

15.His arrival, the achievement of just getting to Bonneville? The issue of registration and his not knowing, the officials and their reaction? Jim Moffett and his being the champion, friendly with Burt? The other men at the rally, their friendship, supporting him? The girls? The rules, the discussions, getting Jim on-side, Jim trying to persuade the officials? Burt sleeping in his car?

16.The test, the bike failing the regulations? Jim and the rules, the friends giving him the room at the hotel?

17.The officials allowing him to bend the rules, the first test, it not being sufficient? Getting the batteries, making the new piston? The suggestion about asbestos for his legs – but his not being able to fit in the cabin?

18.The achievement, the ride, the speed, the people and their support, his burning his legs? The trophy and the celebration of his win?

19.The phone call to Tom, his return to Invercargill, Tom’s father mowing the lawn? The gathering of friends, Fran bringing him home? His great sense of achievement?

20.The postscript about his career, his return trips to Bonneville, his record still standing? The achievement of the ordinary citizen, the old man and people considering him beyond achievement? The tradition of the Rocky films and this sense of achievement?

THE CHRONICLES OF NARNIA: THE LION, THE WITCH AND THE WARDROBE

US, 2005, 140 minutes, Colour.
Georgie Henley, Skandar Keens, William Mosely, Anna Popplewell, Tilda Swinton, James Mc Evoy, Jim Broadbent, James Cosmo.
Voices of: Liam Neeson, Ray Winston, Dawn French, Rupert Everett, Cameron Rhodes.
Directed by Andrew Adamson.

Narnia is an impressive achievement.

Clearly, it will appeal to audiences who liked The Lord of the Rings trilogy. It is a story of imagination and of values. However, it does not have the scope or depth of Tolkein’s work. Rather, C.S. Lewis wrote a children’s story that he hoped would appeal to children of all ages and the child within the adult readers.

This is a review by someone who read Lewis’s theological writings, including his fantasy of good and evil, The Screwtape Letters as well as his biography, Surprised by Joy, and appreciates Shadowlands, but never read the Narnia books. The first impression is one of surprise at how ‘childlike’ the film is – in the sense that the characters are young and that all the action and the issues are pictured from their point of view rather than an adult perspective. This is quite a difference from Tolkein’s adult storytelling. Adults who read the books as children will have no difficulty relishing what it was that delighted them when they were young.

Another surprise is how firmly the Narnia experience is rooted in British war history, the evacuation of the children from London to the countryside, to fostering in homes and estates. Lewis was wanting his readers (after the War) to remember that, no matter what the difficulty, there was always hope – and imagination.

Lucy and Susan, Peter and Edmond Pevensie are called the sons of Adam and the daughters of Eve – they are Everychild figures. The youngest, Lucy, is the innocent who discovers Narnia. Edmond, the mischievous, is the betrayer. Susan is the voice of reason (which in Narnia is not enough). Peter, the eldest is the responsible one who becomes the knight leader. Together (including the repentant and reconciled Edmond) they overcome the powers of evil and eternal winter embodied by the white Witch and her cohorts.

However, they cannot conquer by themselves. On the one hand, Mr and Mrs Beaver, are their playful guides. On the other, the majestic lion, Aslan, is the king who is willing to lay down his life for Edmond but whose inner strength and power enables him to rise again.

Tilda Swinton is Jadis, the witch. Aslan is voiced by Liam Neeson with great dignity. Mr Beaver is Ray Winstone displaying a delightful sense of humour, with Dawn French as Mrs Beaver.

Douglas Gresham, Lewis’s stepson and head of the author’s estate, is a producer of Narnia which means that it is a respectful adaptation of the novel (remembering that it is a ‘version’ and a visual interpretation, not the novel itself). New Zealander, Andrew Adamson (director of the two Shrek films) has co-written the screenplay and directed (joining fellow-kiwi Peter Jackson in adapting beloved British classics for the screen). The effects and the computer graphics are state of the art, creating a wonderful world of snowscapes, creatures and battles.

There has been a lot of publicity given to the fact that Church groups in the United States have been promoting Narnia extensively. This is a little surprising given many of this constituency’s alarm about witchcraft and Harry Potter. On the other hand, many critics are saying either that there is no religious content or that Lewis was evangelising.

Lewis was not only a committed Christian, he tried to find literary ways of communicating the meaning of the Gospel. With this frame of mind, he was able to imbue his tales with Christian references. Some may not recognise these but will appreciate the values the story embodies. Christians will be able to recognise the references (especially with the character of the noble lion, Aslan, and his sacrificial death and rising) and connect them with their beliefs.

1.The popularity of these stories? Children reading them for half a century? Adults? The universal appeal? The religious dimension – and the support of religious groups for the distribution of the film?

2.The work of C.S. Lewis, audiences who have seen Shadowlands? C.S. Lewis as a writer, apologist for the church, his particular Christianity after being away from the church? His inventiveness of stories for children, drawing on myths, the influence of his J.R. Tolkien? The religious dimensions of the film or not? The message – and the allegorical aspects of Christianity?

3.The series of books? The information about the place of Narnia itself? The idea of Narnia as a fallen world, a world in winter and need of redemption? The sons of Adam and daughters of Eve? Edmund as a betraying Judas? The fight between good and evil? Aslan as leader – giving his life in sacrifice for someone unworthy? His rising from the dead? The apocalyptic battles? The rule of the four children and the fulfilment of prophecy? Restoration of order in Narnia? The incongruity of Father Christmas suddenly appearing in this context?

4.The visualising of the world of Narnia, the location photography in New Zealand, the computer graphics and special effects? The magical world? The stunts, the effects, the animation? Spectacle and adventure? The rousing score?

5.The film as directed towards children, towards adults?

6.The World War Two setting, London and the blitz, the separation of families, the children almost as orphans, the railway station and the mother farewelling the children? The alienation for the children? The context of war and hostilities? The train ride, their being met by the housekeeper? Her instructions about the house itself and Professor Kirke? The children settling in, exploring the house, playing inside and outside, their quarrelling? Their experiences? The visit by Lucy to Narnia and their not believing? Each of them finding Narnia – and responding to it according to their particular personality?

7.Peter as oldest, leader, his mother giving responsibility? Susan and her rationalistic approach to everything? Edmund as cantankerous, mean, independent, making choices? Lucy, the youngest, her innocence? The fact that Lucy went to Narnia first? Edmund going with her, his scepticism, being snared by the white witch? Peter and Susan and their succumbing to the world of Narnia?

8.Lucy, playing hidings, in the cupboard, going through to Narnia? The audience sharing her discovery on the other side of the wardrobe? Winter, the lamppost – and its significance in the history of the family and of Narnia? Her encounter with Mr Tumnus, the faun? His talk, going to his cave, his explaining about winter? The later disappearance – and his confession of having betrayed them? His being imprisoned? His escape and joining the forces of good? Lucy and her devotion to Mr Tumnus?

9.Lucy and Edmund returning to Narnia? Edmund and his disbelief, the encounter with the white witch, travelling with her, her assistant? Her plausible arguments? His being deceived by the white witch? His being led into betrayal? His agreement with her? Later disappearing from the group, going to the white witch, her deceptions and the results? His repentance and needing redemption?

10.The four children in Narnia, the shock for Peter and Susan, verifying the reality, discovering what had happened to Mr Tumnus? The encounter with the white witch? Edmund and his betrayal, taken, used, imprisoned? His needing to be rescued? Aslan laying down his life for Edmund, Edmund rejoining the others and in the crusade?

11.The encounter with the Badgers, the personality of Mr and Mrs Badger, the humorous patter, their explanation of the situation and the history of Narnia, going on their travels, encountering the dangers, especially the wolves? Their house, their leading the children to Aslan and the forces of good?

12.The history of Narnia, the role of the white witch, her entourage, her adviser? The wolves and their sinister mission, chasing the children? The other animals in Narnia: the fox and his voice, the gryphon, Philip the horse, Vardan?

13.The forces of Aslan? Aslan himself, the dignified lion, majestic? Liam Neeson’s voice? A leader – and the suggestions of the symbolism of Christ? His forces, the variety, the dwarfs and fauns, the centaurs? The force of good for the salvation of Narnia?

14.The confrontation between the white witch and Aslan, their truce, the witch’s betrayal, Aslan and his being willing to die for Edmund, his rising again, leader of the good?

15.The visualising of the battles, the heroics – and the irony that they were just children from Finchley?

16.The fulfilment of prophecy, the four children and their thrones? The meaning of their ruling of Narnia – and the hopes of the residents of Narnia that they would come and restore peace? The gradual transformation of Narnia from winter to spring and summer? The children spending their years in Narnia, growing up, the riding of the horses? The finding of the lamppost?

17.Their return, the irony that no time had passed, the meeting with Professor Kirke? The interpretation of Narnia and the hopes for the future?

18.The experience of the children, what they had learnt, how they had been transformed – Lucy beginning to understand, Edmund and repentance, Susan and her having to use more than her reason, to use her imagination, Peter and his growing sense of responsibility? Audiences and the deeper meanings and the Christian allegory?

KING KONG

New Zealand/US, 2005, 188 minutes, Colour.
Naomi Watts, Jack Black, Adrian Brodie, Andy Serkis, Jamie Bell, Kyle Chandler, Lobo Chan, Thomas Kretschmann, Evan Parke, Colin Hanks.
Directed by Peter Jackson.

Peter Jackson has done it again. Of course, it is not Lord of the Rings with its extraordinary sweep and vision, but King Kong is a reverent re-make of the 1933 classic – if 188 minutes, colour, continuous excitement, cliffhanger after cliffhanger, spectacular stunts, extraordinary sets, a wonderful use of cinema technology (all done in New Zealand) could be simply called ‘reverent’. It is really a very entertaining homage.

Jackson has said that while the film is fantasy he wanted to anchor it in a sense of realism. While this could not happen, it might have happened!

The story is familiar to most moviegoers (and Jackson saw it on TV when he was twelve, was so passionately moved that he decided to become a film-maker and got his mother to give him props to make his own version). This version has a wonderful New York opening giving us powerful glimpses of the Depression and its effect, giving a context to the adventure which is to follow.

The main characters are all desperate in their own ways. Naomi Watts is the new Ann Darrow (and gets a chance to scream even more than her famous predecessor, Fay Wray), a down-and-own vaudeville entertainer who is offered the chance to star in an adventure film by quick-thinking conman movie director, Carl Denham, played by Jack Black. Trapped on board the ship which will take them to the unchartered Skull Island is playwright, Jack Driscoll (Adrien Brody). (In the original Driscoll was a crew member rather than a writer.)

The three principal performers are very good. Naomi Watts is just right as the charming but feisty heroine who is able to stand her ground with Kong, charm him and become his champion. Jack Black utilises his cheeky screen personal to fine effect but has to give it more depth than usual. Adrien Brody moves from meek writer to courageous hero.

And he has a lot to be courageous about. Skull Island turns out to be peopled by a fearsome tribe. They are right out of those Tarzan type of tale so popular in the past, only more so. The island also turns out to be another Jurassic Park with more dinosaurs, pterodactyls, giant bats, fearful scorpions and gorging leeches than any other film. And more breathtaking battles (and that’s just the audience being breathless let alone the on-screen struggles) than ever before. They are spectacular, edge-of-the-seat feats that also make you wonder how ever they did it, so credible it all looks. There are so many cliffhangers (literally) that keep us in constant amazement.

Andy Serkis, who made Gollum so memorable, gave his expressions to Kong and was always present so that Naomi Watts could act with him. The scene where she performs her stage routines for Kong and he responds by playing with her makes the bonds between Ann and Kong quite poignant.

There are explicit references to Beauty and the Beast, as well as Conrad’s Heart of Darkness.

We remember it all culminates with Kong on display in New York City and a pursuit which culminates on top of the newly built Empire State Building. And this climax is breathtaking too. And dizzy-making as our heroine climbs to the top to be with Kong. In fact, so much of the action could make you experience vertigo in your comfortable seat.

Maybe at 188 minutes it is a bit long. But, never mind. If you enjoy this kind of film, you will be glad that Peter Jackson is probably giving us his full director’s cut on the big screen rather than keeping it for the DVD.

1.The epic scale of the film? Popularity and acclaim? The work of Peter Jackson, the New Zealand achievement?

2.The status of the original film, as an icon, as a classic? The 1930s-style plot – echoes of Tarzan and other adventures? The famous images – of Kong himself, of King Kong atop the Empire State Building? The tribute to Fay Wray – and her influence as the heroine who tamed the beast?

3.The return to the original story and time? The possibility in the 30s of geographical discoveries? The atmosphere of the Depression? Early sound film-making? The world of show business and entrepreneurs at the time? The American love for the dollar?

4.The US ethos: the Depression, the movies, capitalism, the US and its sense of superiority, conquering everyone? Animals and zoos? The capturing and exploitation of wild animals? Sensationalism and circus mentality? The use of the gun, the shoot to kill?

5.The locations, creating the US of the 30s? Locations at sea? Skull Island? The atmosphere of forest and jungle? The musical score and its atmosphere? The insertion of songs of the period – especially concerning the Depression?

6.The opening, the collage of images of the Depression, New York City? The return to New York at the end? The world of affluent society, the air force, the police? The Depression atmosphere as a context for the plot and the characters?

7.Ann and her performance in the vaudeville, partnership with Harry, the staging of the routines? The dressing rooms, the girls, everybody hungry? Friendship with Harry, his sneezes – and going to have a meal with him? The closing of the theatre? Her pursuing the entrepreneur, her admiration for Jack Driscoll’s plays, his fobbing her off, giving her the ticket to go to the burlesque, the girls going in, her decision not to go in? Her being pursued by Carl? The meal, offended by his seeming advances? Her sadness, her wanting to make people laugh? Her being caught up in Carl’s story? The plays of Driscoll and his imagination? Her being hooked by Carl?

8.The introduction to Carl, watching the film footage, the negative reaction of the producers, the parody of the cigar-smoking producers and their lack of sensitivity and sensibility? Carl arguing with them? Their wanting the film back? His continually being advised by the cautious Preston? Going to the ship? His meeting with Ann, his meal and explaining things to her, his gauche actions? On board, the discussions with Jack, keeping him on board, tearing up the cheques? Bribing the captain? Getting the actor on board?

9.The captain, his background, hard, the capturing of animals, exploitation, the hold full of chloroform? His putting Jack Driscoll down in the cages, and Jack working in these conditions? The members of the crew, their relationship with the captain, the voyage? His wanting to go to Rangoon? The decision to go to Skull Island?

10.Jimmy, the young boy and his background, his reading Joseph Conrad, his friendship with Hayes, Hayes always protecting him, Choy and his friendship with Lumpy? The kitchen? The meals? The other members of the crew and their interactions?

11.Jack Driscoll, the background of his plays, writing the film script, fifteen pages, the cheque, his being trapped on board? Ann and her gaffe about her admiration? And her apology? The bond with Ann, his working in the cage area, falling in love with Ann?

12.Sailing to Skull Island, their being drawn there, partly wrecked, the dangers of the reefs, the appearance of the island? The wild child and Jack and Carl trying to give the child chocolate, the violent reaction? The picturing of the tribespeople, on drugs, religious background, fanaticism, their pursuit of the expedition? Ann and her being taken by the tribe? Jack and his not wanting to leave her, the captain and his decisions?

13.The ritual of the tribe offering Ann as sacrifice, the elaborate temple, the worship? Kong himself and his appearance? Ann and her screaming – in the tradition of Fay Wray? Her being taken, Kong going into the heights of the jungle, seeing the bones of the other women who had been offered in sacrifice? Ann and the bumpy ride, her being calm, standing and confronting Kong? Her performing her vaudeville act? Playing with Kong, taming him? The credibility of their forming bonds of affection?

14.The expedition back to the island, Carl having seen Kong, pleading with Jack, Jack wanting to stay? Carl and the crew taking the camera and filming? Preston and his caution?

15.The captain, the crew, the guns, firing at the tribe, scattering them?

16.Skull Island and its prehistoric park, the spectacle, the dinosaurs, the chase, the physical impact of the stampede? The other creatures on the island, the pterodactyls, the other monsters? The giant scorpions, the cockroaches, the spiders, the leeches? The many fights with these creatures – the technological skill in presenting these, creating breathless excitement for the audience? The members of the crew and their deaths – especially Lumpy and the leeches?

17.The number of cliffhangers, the literal cliffs, the dangers, the bridges? Ann and her falling – and Kong catching her? The echoes of the Tarzan films and swinging through the jungle?

18.Kong and his being pursued, fighting with the creatures, defending Ann?

19.The disappearance of the camera, the ruining of the film? Carl’s plan to lure Kong down to the boat? The role of the actor, his performance, his fears – returning and trying to be the film-like hero? Jack and his wanting to rescue Ann, his heroics and climbing the cliff? Kong being captured?

20.The return to New York, Carl’s triumph, the elaborate theatre, the crowds? Carl’s moneymaking attitude, the producers and their arriving and praising Carl? The theatre, the spectacle, Kong on-stage? The intercutting with Jack and his watching his play and listening to his dialogue echoing his relationship with Ann? Ann at the theatre and her performing in the chorus line, looking in the mirror, coming to find Kong?

21.Jack, his play, leaving, going in the taxi? The pursuit of Kong – and his climbing up the Empire State Building?

22.Ann, in the chorus, her sadness, the scene in the street and her meeting with Kong, going up in the elevator, climbing to the top to be with Kong?

23.Audience sympathy with Kong, the pathos of his being in the theatre, his reaction to the actress playing Ann’s role, breaking free, the people frightened, fleeing into the streets? The scenes of the destruction in New York City? The police? Kong and the Empire State Building? The planes and their attack?

24.The picture of Kong atop the building, the significance of the Empire State Building at the time, the firing on him, his reaching out for the planes, his being wounded? His trying to save Ann? His death, his fall?

25.The end, Carl’s comment about beauty taming the beast? The overtones of King Kong’s creation of myth in the 20th century? The 21st century? The overtones of the Beauty and the Beast theme, the quoting of Joseph Conrad’s Heart of Darkness? An exotic – pre-globalised world? A focus on American capitalism and exploitation? An appeal to sentiment and decency?

CAPOTE

US, 2005, 110 minutes, Colour.
Philip Seymour Hoffman, Catherine Keener, Clifton Collins Jnr, Chris Cooper, Bruce Greenwood, Bob Baliban, Mark Pellegrino.
Directed by Bennett Miller.

Older audiences may remember the striking film of Truman Capote’s book In Cold Blood. The book was published in 1965 and the film released in 1968, a time of discussion about human rights and capital punishment. In Cold Blood was a literary work of documentation and interpretation, what we might now call a ‘docudrama’, a novel based on fact.

Truman Capote was basking in the fame of Breakfast at Tiffany’s and was feted as a Manhattan celebrity. In late 1959, he noticed a news item about the ruthless slaying of a quietly respectable Kansas family, the Clutters, and had an intuition that investigating this crime and the motives of the perpetrators was to be one of his life’s major tasks. It was. He spent five years researching, interviewing the killers, writing. He transformed ways of writing factual books, influencing the next generation of American writers.

It might not seem to be the subject of a feature film, but this period of Truman Capote’s life is what Bennett Miller’s film focuses on. It is absorbing.

Capote is a portrait rather than a biography. Some of his Alabama background is referred to and there is a postscript about his death twenty years later from complications due to alcoholism. Other than that we have his quest for completing In Cold Blood.

It should be said that this film reminds us strongly of the events, the investigations, the imprisonment of the killers, the appeals and the execution. It depends on one’s stand on capital punishment as to whether the film is for or against. It presents the reality.

The next thing that should be said is that Truman Capote was a complete narcissist. He saw everything in reference to himself. He was not the kind of person that most of us would like to encounter in real life. Smart, witty, caustic, he could be entertaining but his charm would wear thin very quickly. That is why Philip Seymour Hoffman’s award-winning performance is so good. He is able to mimic the mannerisms of Capote – his high pitched, pinched voice, his eccentric way of enunciating, his idiosyncrasies – and keep us fascinated.

The screenplay does not attempt to whitewash Capote. It is a warts and all portrait. On the one hand, when he is writing, he is serious-minded, diligent, hard-working. On the other, he is continually vain and attention-seeking. He is intrusive and exploitative, especially of the killers, even though he is attracted to (at times infatuated) with the better educated and cultured of the two, Perry Smith. His friend and associate, Harper Lee (To Kill a Mockingbird) serves as some kind of conscience for him

What In Cold Blood did (and what this film does in its way) is to enable the audience to share Capote’s inquiry. What happened? Why did it happen? Can we understand the motivation? The urges that drove two burglars to such violence? It is not so much stressed in this film, but Capote pointed out that neither of them could have murdered in this way just by himself. Rather, their pairing produced a killer.

The film has a fine cast. Catherine Keener is a strong, supportive and critical Harper Lee – self-absorbed Capote cannot bring himself to enjoy the premiere of the film of To Kill a Mockingbird. Clifton Powell Jr makes an intriguing Perry Smith. Chris Cooper is the Kansas investigator.

So, the film works on its intended two levels. The story of the writing of In Cold Blood gives insight into the American way of life, of crime, justice and execution. The story of Capote gives insight into eccentric genius and the toll it takes as well as the gaudy and fashionable temptations of celebrity and that toll that this takes.

1.The great acclaim for the film? The many awards? Audience popularity?

2.Audience interest in Truman Capote, his life, personality, his literature, his role in cinema, as an American celebrity? As a researcher and writer of In Cold Blood and its influence on American literature?

3.The focusing on 1959 to 1965, the key years in Capote’s career? Capote as a character in this context, writer, New York personality, celebrity, his sense of mission about In Cold Blood, a sense of vocation? His concerns or not for justice?

4.Philip Seymour Hoffman’s performance, the awards? His capturing the look, the speech mannerisms, the appearance? His comment on Capote’s appearance, seeing him hard at work and being creative, seeing him flippant and with the gossip? His vanity, gross attitudes and language, becoming involved, curious about people and situations, exercising his imagination? Perry Smith and the friendship, the infatuation? The project of the book, the interviews with all concerned, the time spent in Kansas, the time spent away from Kansas and his often reluctance to return, the toll that the writing of the book took on him, the aftermath, his drinking and death? His relationships: with Harper Lee, with Jack, with William Shawn?

5.The opening with the Kansas fields, the house, the context for In Cold Blood? The pervading atmosphere of the murders, the Texas settings throughout the whole film?

6.The transition to Capote and New York, at parties, his chatter? His cutting out the article, phoning Shawn, going with Harper Lee on the train, the irony of her recognising that he had paid the porter to flatter him?

7.The presumptuous New Yorker as he visited Kansas, claiming attention, the issue of the press badge, having to go to the press conference with everyone else, listening to Alvin Dewey, meeting him? His interviewing the witnesses, Laura, the young man who was the boyfriend of the murdered girl? The discussions? Harper Lee getting Laura’s diary, reading it? The friendship with the Deweys, Mrs Dewey? happy to have a celebrity, Alvin Dewey buying Breakfast at Tiffany’s (which was banned in Kansas)? His charm, manners in the household, the meals, Dewey, the phone calls, the children? The later meeting with the Deweys, the on-off relationship with Alvin Dewey, Alvin Dewey’s questions about the title of In Cold Blood?

8.Capote and his research, living in Kansas, his descriptions of this and his reactions? Harper Lee working with him, the human face of the research? Discussions, files? The years passing and his not writing anything? His interviews with Perry Smith and with Richard Hickock? The cumulative effect, his beginning to write, the public reading, the acclaim, his waiting for their execution so that the book could be finished?

9.The portrait of the Clutter household, the film taking the audience through the murders, the visuals of each of the members of the family, their deaths? The reaction to Perry Smith and Richard Hickock? Their background, in prison together? The fact that each could not have murdered as an individual but together they formed a murdering individual? The arrest, Capote and Harper Lee watching? The issue of the reward? Dewey and the sheriffs? The issue of the book, permissions to meet Perry? Going to the sheriff’s house and presenting the autographed book? The different reaction to Hickock? Not thinking he was intelligent enough, bringing him the magazines – and Perry’s rather prim comment about the magazines? The attraction to Perry? Perry as a personality, a certain charm, his sister’s comment and saying he had charm but would also murder? Capote seeing Perry alone, bringing him the books, the intelligent discussions? Capote visiting Smith’s sister, her disdain, the photo album, his bringing it back to Perry? Their discussions, books, vocabulary? Capote becoming more desperate to get the details of the night of the killing so that he could complete the book? His dramatic walk-out and threatening of Perry? His going to Spain, the letters, his unreliability in answering the letters? His returning, Perry describing the night and the visualising of the flashbacks? His guilt? The history of the imprisonment, the nature of the appeals, Capote getting them good lawyers and prolonging their lives, their stays in prison, his research for the book? The final telegram and his not wanting to go to the execution? His not having helped finally to get the lawyer, his seeming to prefer that they should die and he complete the book? Harper Lee’s phone call, his going to Kansas, with Shawn? Perry and the phone call, his meeting him in prison, the five minutes and their talk, his promise to watch? Watching the hanging? The repercussions for him – and his assessing it in terms of his own pain? His satisfaction that everything was complete and he could finish the book?

10.Capote as narcissistic, the execution and its shock, the stays contributing to his own personal insecurity and breakdown, his wanting an ending, his selfishness?

11.The portrait of Harper Lee, a good woman, in herself, her strength and character, helping in the research, her skills, friendship with the Deweys? With the young girl, the diary? The work in Kansas? Her writing of To Kill a Mockingbird? Her going to Spain, the discussions with Jack and Capote? The issue of the film premiere, Capote being present, preoccupied with himself, not able to congratulate her? Her phone calls, her challenge to his conscience, her telling the truth to him about his wanting the two dead?

12.Capote’s relationship with Jack, companion, the phone calls, Jack and his own work, their going to Spain? Jack understanding him, tolerating him, urging him to do the right thing?

13.Shawn, as publisher, agreeing to the project in the first place, the article? His encouraging of the writing of the book? Arranging the public reading, New York society going to the reading, the acclaim? Satisfying for Capote? The marketing issues? His going to Kansas for the execution?

14.Alvin Dewey, his role in investigation, the years passing and his connection with the case, at the execution? The police? The warders in the jail, the atmosphere?

15.New York society, the flippant attitudes, listening to every word from Capote, his jokes, the sexual innuendo, his being feted? The praise for In Cold Blood? The earnest man who came in and praised him – and Capote joking as if he was his father?

16.How well did the film develop interest in Capote’s character, explanations of his background, his parents, guardian, in the south? His accent and way of speaking and his comment about this, his appearance, short, his clothes and his being a fop about his coat, scarf?

17.The film and capital punishment, the presentation of prison, sentences, the execution itself and the visuals? Leaving it to audiences and their opinion about capital punishment?

18.A portrait of an American literary character? A portrait of the creative aspects of writing – and their toll on a literary genius?