LA DOUBLURE (THE VALET)

France, 2006, 85 minutes, Colour.
Gad Elmaleh, Alice Taglioni, Daniel Auteuil, Kristen Scott Thomas, Richard Berry, Virginie Ledoyen, Dany Boone, Michael Jonasz, Michelle Aumont.
Directed by Francis Veber.

Francis Veber has been writing comedies for over thirty years. Many of them have become classics (La Cage aux Folles, The Tall Blond Man with the One Black Shoe, Le Placard, Tais Toi). Many of them have been remade in the US (Buddy, Buddy, The Birdcage, Three Fugitives). Veber has himself made several films in the US (Partners, Out on a Limb)

La Doublure, which might have had a better English title with The Stand-in, is firmly in the tradition of the
comedies he has long been making. There is an odd couple, some farcical situations, some comic lines, some mistaken identities and an underlying critique of hypocrisy.

La Doublure is more than a bit on the light side. What if a very successful businessman who has been deceiving his wealthy wife of twenty years during an affair with a top model for over two years? What if the model was sick of the deception and wanted the businessman to get a divorce? What if the smart corporate lawyer advised the model to move in with a valet nonentity, the Stand-in, to make the wife jealous and ask for the divorce? What if it did not work out at all as planned? There you have it.

Moroccan born comedian and mime, Gad Elmaleh is the slightly forlorn valet, desperately in love with his childhood sweetheart (Virginie Ledoyen) who happens to walk past the secretive couple as a photo is taken for a magazine and finds himself embroiled in the deception. Elmaleh looks fairly nondescript but invests his character with warmth and decency. Alice Taglioni (a Gallic Elle MacPherson? lookalike) is also quite charming and genial as the model who goes along with the plot and shows she has a very nice side to her character.

On the other hand, Daniel Auteuil, one of the great French actors who can turn his hand to any role, makes the businessman a monster of selfish rage and manipulation. Kristin Scott Thomas has no trouble in playing his icy and shrewd wife. Richard Berry is the conniving and smooth lawyer.

Many of Veber’s comedies are laugh out loud farces. This is, rather, a smiling comedy with a touch of the bitters. Imagining who might star in the US remake highlights how the film works. Suggestions: Michael Douglas knows how to do the Wall St hypocrite and Glenn Close can do icy wives. Why not Elle MacPherson? herself with Adrien Brody doing the lovelorn hero, pining after Jennifer Love Hewitt? That should work.

1.The comedies of Francis Veber? Odd couples? Criticisms of hypocrisy? Farcical touches, comic touches, mistaken identities? This film in Veber’s tradition?

2.The Paris settings, the Eiffel Tower, the restaurant opposite the Eiffel Tower? Homes? Business offices? The rich and the middle class? The credibility of the locations? For this kind of farce? The jaunty musical score?

3.The title, Francois as a double, as a stand-in? His work as a valet? The situation in which he found himself? Transforming him? His life?

4.The focus on the Levasseur family? Pierre, the business executive, mergers, strikes in his factory at Lille? His business associates? Maitre Foix and his advice? His being the CEO? His relationship with his wife, the twenty years of marriage? The domestic scenes and the formality? Their affection for each other? His wife having sixty percent ownership of the company? The situation for the farce? His going to meet Elena? The rendezvous in the car? The room? The gift? The affair for two years? Her being the top model on all the billboards? Her breaking off with him? His desperation? Elena and the demands? The twenty million euros? His getting a divorce and her giving the money back? Her hopes for their future? Pierre and his cover-up, lying to his wife? The irony of his wife knowing, having her own spies, getting the information? Her testing out her husband? Her intervening, getting the reports, putting up the curtains in the apartment? Her finally confronting her husband, taping him and his confession? Elena and her hearing the confession? Sending Francois? The final comeuppance for Pierre? Christine and her winning?

5.Francois, his work with Richard, seeing them in the swanky cars, discovering that they were valets? Their friendship, Richard boarding with him, his alcoholic mother? Francois and his love for Emilie? The proposal and her refusal? Her opening the bookshop, her debt? Her chatting with her friend at the shop? Her friend putting Francois down? His visits, the lunches? Francois and his parents, his love for his parents, the doctor and his hypochondria, talking with Francois’ father, giving him the bill? The irony of Emilie having to come and take her father home? The irony of Francois walking past Elena and Pierre as they were photographed? In the paper? Pierre and his lies about Francois?

6.The scheme Maitre Foix and his ability manipulate situations? Pierre and the twenty million for Elena? The money for Francois to pay for Emilie’s shop? The proposal? Francois and his shock, his agreement? Elena and her moving in?

7.The odd couple, Francois as a nice man, not handsome, a valet, pining over Emilie? Elena and her beauty, heads turning? Going out with Francois, the posing, the surveillance, the photos? The restaurants, at the club? In the apartment, kissing, in the bed? The photographs – and Pierre’s anger, interrupting the conference in Lille?

8.Richard, his moving out, with his mother, discovering Francois and Elena, his being upset? At work, the other model coming and Richard being amazed? The boss and the waiters and their all gawking?

9.Elena, her character, tall, beautiful, her being with Pierre? Rejecting him? Going along with the plan? Playing up to the photographers? Her getting to understand Francois, the discussions about Emilie, her certainty about the phone calls? Emilie seeing them in the restaurant, Francois seeing Emile with Pasquale? Elena and her explaining everything to Emilie? Going to Francois’ father’s birthday party? The happy ending? Elena thinking all was well with Pierre, the gift from Christine of the tape, his comeuppance? A future for Elena?

10.Francois, his going along with the situation, talking with Richard, Richard’s visitors, his parents and their concern, his mother thinking he was handsome? His coping, going to the fashion show, the restaurants, the curtains in the room? His becoming desperate, Pierre insulting him on the phone? His pining for Emilie, the happy reunion, the birthday party, the happy ending? Richard and his moving into the flat?

11.Richard, as a character, jealous, work? The contrast with Pasquale, the man about town, mobile phones and their music, wooing Emilie, taking her to the restaurant, his spiel, wanting a photo of Elena? Finishing up with Emilie’s assistant?

12.Maitre Foix, power behind the scenes, the negotiations, mediating, facilitating? His sinister role?

13.The doctor, the comedy about his hypochondria? Francois’ parents and their simple lives?

14.The media, the photos, the gossip? People believing the gossip?

15.The finale, the photo of Pierre with the transsexual prostitute? The film ending on a farcical tone – but the exploration of hypocrisies? Decent people? Veber and his comedy on the side of the angels?

SCOOP

UK, 2006, 96 minutes, Colour.
Scarlett Johansson, Hugh Jackman, Woody Allen, Ian Mc Shane, Charles Dance, Romola Garai, Fenella Woolgar, Julian Glover, John Standing.
Directed by Woody Allen.

It was Evelyn Waugh who wrote the celebrated satire on journalism, Scoop. But, this is not a film version of Waugh’s novel, even though some of the characters here could well have populated it. This is a Woody Allen creation and it is said that he wrote it especially for Scarlett Johansson who had so impressed him when he made Match Point with her.

She is a student journalist over from the US and staying in London. She gets the chance to land a scoop – the trouble is that the information comes from the ghost of a dead journalist (Ian Mc Shane) who received some important information from one of his fellow dead (on what looks like a dark boat ride with the Grim Reaper on the Styx). He feels an affinity for Sondra (Johansson) and appears to her in the middle of a trick on a London stage performed by eccentric prestidigiteur, Sidney (Woody Allen). He keeps returning to urge on the investigation into a wealthy son of an aristocrat, Peter Lyman (Hugh Jackman) who may have committed a series of killings, the Tarot Card Murders.

Sondra does a bit of amateur sleuthing, pretending that Sidney is her father – and Woody Allen has a high old time pretending to be nouveau riche American while still eager to show his card tricks to the nobs. Peter Lyman is charming. Sondra falls for him. Did he or didn’t he?

Woody Allen knows how to do comedy but his plotting for a serial killer mystery is not too expert. Nevertheless, it is a soufflé of a comedy drama with the cast enjoying their characterisations and the opportunity to enunciate some Allen one-liners.

This is Woody Allen’s second British film and, while there are some satirical moments, his screenplay seems to be in some awe and reverence for the ‘upper classes’ and their lifestyle. Only an American…

After less that memorable turns in The Prestige and The Black Dahlia, Scarlett Johansson reminds us that she can act. Hugh Jackman has no trouble in being debonair.

This is a moderate helping rather than a scoop.

1.This film in Woody Allen’s career? His making films in the UK? The UK atmosphere and style? Humour, insights into human nature? Situations, characters, farcical aspects, one-liners? The Woody Allen tradition?

2.The London locations, London society, the emphasis on class, British customs, an American in the UK? The musical score, Tchaikovsky and The Nutcracker Suite?

3.The title, Evelyn Waugh’s title, journalism, scoops? Motivations, eagerness? Investigative journalism? The role of editors? Law and libel? The truth?

4.How well did the film work as comedy: style and situations, the initial death, the Land of the Dead, the discussions of the dead, information, escape from the dead, appearances? The ghost appearing on stage? Information from the grave? The end, Woody Allen and his card? Talking to the dead?

5.How well did the film work as drama? The focus on Peter? On Sondra, on Sidney, on relationships, the romance, the comic, the sinister?

6.How well did the film work as illustrating investigative journalism? The clues, the alibis, the situations, believing people or not, the house, the cards, the lies, Peter’s absences, the final confession? Success?

7.The initial focus on Joe Strombel? People talking about his style, journalism, scoops, the funeral, the mourners? Beyond the grave? In the Boat of the Dead, his discussions with Jane Cook? Her revelation about her work as secretary, her suspicions of Peter Lyman? His appearances, on stage, finding Sondra congenial, his appearing to Sidney, urging the truth and the investigation? The fact that he was dead leading to doubt?

8.Sidney, a Woody Allen character, in the theatre, the kids and the tricks, getting Sondra to the stage, in the box, Joe’s appearance, bewilderment, audience response? Sondra’s return, the discussions with Sid, the searching of the box, the stage? Working together, her persuasiveness? His becoming a surrogate father? She a surrogate daughter? Staking out Peter, following the man, the wrong identity? Peter, the club, her going swimming, pretending to drown, his saving her, attraction, inviting her to the party, Sid coming as well, the beautiful house, Sid and his comments? Peter in love, the sexual encounter? Sid’s views on the relationships, his comments? Sondra and her infatuation with Peter? Sid and his gauche posing as the rich American, discussion about his wealth, oil, real estate? Showing his tricks to the society people? His success – and the shots at anti-Semitism? His getting the document, finding the code, the secret room, getting locked in? The Albert Hall, the environment, going to interview the people in the building, finding the key, going to the room, phoning, going to the rescue, driving fast, his death? A humorous Woody Allen character?

9.Sondra, Scarlett Johansson, her age, inexperience, meeting the director, his womanising, her drinking, the sex, his discarding her? Her friendship with Vivian, the discussions? Her background in America, family? Her talk, the connection with Vivian? The appearance on stage, her going back, getting Sidney’s help, following the man – the wrong man? At the club, the plan about the swimming, her being saved? Her visits to the house, the socials, pretending that Sid was her father? Inventive, winging the way? Her stories, Peter believing her? The birthday, the gift? His going away, her seeing him? Suspicions? The vault, the cards, the code? The weekend? Confronting him with the truth, his admitting the truth, his trying to drown her? His neglecting to see if she could actually swim? Her final appearance and his being arrested?

10.Peter, tall, dark and handsome, rich? His dead secretary and her stories? Audience disbelief? Joe’s appearance and urging Sondra to investigate? With Sid, looking at Peter through their eyes? The audience believing him or not? Style, rich, saving Sondra in the pool, the party, his father, the gracious host, the tour of the house, the sexual advances, the socials, her birthday, his lies, the absence? Her seeing him? The Albert Hall? The truth, his trying to drown Sondra? His being deceived? His type?

11.The presentation of British types – American or the British class system? The presentation of the aristocracy, social events, parties, Peter’s father?

12.Going to the editor, the discussions about the investigation, the fact that the serial killer confessed? Going back to the editor, the end, Sondra and her success?

13.The different types, the film director and his womanising, Peter’s family, the audience at the theatre, the editor and his disbelief?

14.An entertaining film, not particularly well plotted as investigation – Woody Allen light?

CONUNDRUM

US, 1996, 97 minutes, Colour.
Michael Biehn, Marg Helgenberger, Ron White.
Directed by Douglas Barr.

Conundrum is a routine police thriller – set in a Vietnamese community with the police investigating a gambling racket. The action turns violent during police investigations.

However, there is a twist in the plot and, in some sense, the Vietnamese investigation is a red herring.

Michael Biehn and Marg Helgenberger are partners – interested in the Vietnamese situation, but the action takes a different turn when Biehn’s wife is murdered.

Michael Biehn is good in the central role – but the film is Marg Helgenberger’s, interesting in her portrayal of the detective years before she rose to stardom with CSI. The direction is by Douglas Barr, actor, writer and director of many telemovies from the late 90s onwards.

1.Entertaining telemovie? Police thriller? Murder mystery? Investigation?

2.The urban settings, the Vietnamese culture, migrants to the United States, gambling dens? Vietnamese crime? The police precincts? Homes? The streets? The musical score?

3.The police investigation, Stash and Rose as partners, the clashes with Mulvaney, the support of Kirkland? Investigations, surveillance? The attacks, the deaths? Going back to the office? The criticisms of Rose?

4.Rose, her background, her relationship, the separation, her daughter in another city, the contact? Watching the video? Stash and his wife, her pregnancy? His love for her? The bond between Stash and Rose? Working together? The impact of his wife’s death on Stash? The discovery, his collapse? Going to Rose? Her sympathy? Putting him up? The sexual encounter? The suspicions of Mulvaney? The clues going towards Stash? The clues going towards Rose?

5.Rose, as a character, her police work, clashes with authorities? The stakeout, her seeing the girl being attacked, her decision to go in on the raid? The consequent deaths? The girl thanking her? Her reaction to Stash, comforting him? The evidence beginning to point towards him, the discovery of the address, the parking ticket? Her continuing investigations, discovering the truth about Stash? His impotency? The weapon in her locker? The information about the fingerprints? The timing? The warning by Jimmy? Her confronting Mulvaney, handcuffing him to the bed? Her further investigations? The confrontation with Stash? The attack on the Vietnamese, his shooting her? His death?

6.Stash, the good cop, the Vietnam experience? With the Vietnamese? Partnership with Rose? The decent cop? The snitch and the photos? The attack, the shootings? His alibi, drunk, coming to Rose? Rationalising the situation? The funeral? The aftermath, asking for a new partner, the plausibility of his comments? The discovery of the truth, the confrontation with Rose, his murdering his wife, the photos and the scratches on the face of his wife? The final confrontation?

7.Mulvaney, tough, the clashes with Rose, audiences’ suspicions? His criticisms, being handcuffed, the finale and the finding of the negatives? His support of Rose? Kirkland and his running of the office? The other members of the staff, Americans, Vietnamese?

8.The Vietnamese community, the initial attack, the brutality, the rackets? The stakeout, the photographing of the trucks? The attack and the shoot-out? The snitches? The finale and the shootings?

9.Saturday night entertainment – police investigations, police characters? The tradition of American films and television with the presentation of police? The variations on the theme? The Vietnamese setting?

 

 

 

 

IRRESISTIBLE

Australia, 2006, 103 minutes, Colour.
Susan Sarandon, Sam Neill, Emily Blunt, Bud Tingwell, William Mc Innes, Georgie Parker, Terry Norris, Lauren Mikkor, Heather Mitchell, Jill Forster.
Directed by Ann Turner.

There are three central characters in this domestic drama (which has a kind of terror film edge as it develops). There is the wife and mother of two, an illustrator, who is married to her husband, a successful architect, who is the object of fascination by one of his secretaries who is also intrigued by the wife. But, it is not easy to say which of these characters is irresistible let alone to whom.

That description is meant to be intriguing. Who are these characters and what are the connections?

First of all, the married couple seem perfectly normal, married for ten years with two nice daughters. Both are more than competent in their jobs. However, the wife has just lost her mother and her grief sends her into depressive moods in which she seems to be imagining things. The husband meanwhile deals honourably with the advances of his secretary. She, however, does not seem to be too worried about feeling guilty.

In fact, there are several secrets which come to light gradually, especially in the explanations of the weird experiences of the wife. The hauntings have a more than very natural explanation.

The setting is Melbourne. The stars are Susan Sarandon as the wife (with an explanation for her American accent), Sam Neill as the husband and Emily Blunt (My Summer of Love, The Devil Wears Prada) as the enigmatic secretary.

Direction is by Ann Turner who has made only a few feature films during the last 18 years: Celia, Hammers over the Anvil (which starred Charlotte Rampling and Russell Crowe) and Dallas Doll. As the film veers towards the madness and violence ending, secrets are revealed – especially with one final unexpected twist that has shock emotional impact.

1.The blend of drama, psychological thriller, melodrama?

2.The Australian setting, the Melbourne locations, homes, streets, workplaces? The musical score?

3.The impact for Australian audiences? Worldwide audiences? Universal themes?

4.The title, references? To each of the main characters?

5.Susan Sarandon as Sophie? The portrait of Sophie? First seeing her with the children, in the street, hopscotch? Her relationship to her girls? Going into the house, the fear about the iron, its being off, the suggestions of madness – noises, photos disappearing? Her relationship with Craig, pleasant, the ten years? Her work as an illustrator? Her mother’s death, her grief? Her art and her success, her creative block? The pressures from her editor? The awards? The expectations, her going out for the anniversary celebration? Craig and his insisting she buy the dress, the choice? Meeting Mara, at the party, wearing the same dress, Mara’s reaction and change? At the party, talking, drinking, outside with Mara, uncomfortable with Mara? The dancing? At home, the missing dress? The advice that she should join AA? Ruby’s doll and its being missing? Ruby’s tantrums, her being distracting, overdosing Ruby and having to get her to be sick? Getting upset, the explanations? The gift of the owl, her birthday, the wasps? Her memories, the dreams, imagining the wasps and the owls?

6.The revelation of the past, her American background, her father, marrying her American mother, the mother coming to Melbourne, feeling isolated? Her studies at the university, becoming pregnant, the child taken from her? Being young, going to work? Meeting Craig, marrying, the girls, the passing of the years and her not telling him the truth?

7.The wasps, the effect on her, going to the hospital? Mara’s visits? Her beginning to be suspicious of Mara, the car, the dresses? Following her, going to the art exhibition, running away? Following her to the house? To the cemetery? Mara’s visits? The being in the house, being caught, the court case, her behaviour in the court, the judge’s reaction? The girls and their reaction, Craig and his disbelief? The girls going to her father’s place? Her relationship with her father, discussions, sympathy? The growing clashes with Craig and his not understanding? Her anger and suspicions, ousting him?

8.The house, its being locked, the discoveries, the disappearance of the cat, the doll, her going into Mara’s house again? In the crawlspace, locked in? The truth, the documents, her realisation? Trying to attract the girls’ attention, the fire?

9.The portrait of the girls, their relationship to their mother, playing with her, wariness, her moodiness? The mystery and her being paranoid? The growing tensions?

10.Craig, pleasant man, architect and his gifts, at the office, the admiration of the women, Mara and her flattery? At home, the celebration, ten years married, going to the party, the dress? Ordinary, working, working at home, Sophie going to the weekender to work, the phone call and her discovering Mara at home, ousting her? His not believing his wife? The owl, the wasps? The tension at the office, Mara and her attempts at seduction, saved by the phone? Sophie’s anger? In the court? His going away, his bond with the girls?

11.Mara, attractive, at the office, her support of Craig? Her own husband, daughter? The party, the same dress as Sophie, changing, talking with Sophie, dancing, going outside, making Sophie uncomfortable? The visits? The car parked in the street? The other dresses and the disappearance? The mystery, her seeing Sophie following her to the art exhibition? The injunction, her testimony in the court? At home, the visits to the house, working with Craig, at the office, the attempt at seduction? Her relationship with her husband? Knowing Sophie was in the basement, locking her in? Dancing with the girls, the loud noise? Her picking them up from school? The fire, the confrontation?

12.At the hospital, Sophie and the truth, telling Craig? The documents? Visiting Mara, hearing the story? The bond? Her explaining her life to Mara, her youth, the baby taken away, the reason for her not telling? Her refusal to give information to her daughter?

13.Mara’s husband, his suspicions, the court case, animosity?

14.Sophie’s father, her friends and the discussion about AA, Sophie and her seeming to be mad, paranoid, the audience knowing the truth? Her being haunted by Mara?

15.Mara and her friend, Kosovo, the photos? Her talking to Sophie? The bond between mother and daughter? The background of the orphanage, the friendship – and the irony of the audience realising that the daughter was dead and that Mara was taking the daughter’s identity?

16.The finale – and a suitable ending for the blending of drama and melodrama?

PERFUME: THE STORY OF A MURDERER

Germany, 2006, 147 minutes, Colour.
Ben Whishaw, Dustin Hoffman, Alan Rickman, Rachel Hurd Wood, David Calder.
Directed by Tom Tykwer.

Perfume is a skilful adaptation of a celebrated novel by Patrick Suskind who is said to have resisted the idea of making a film of his book – which many considered to be unfilmable. Now director Tom Tykwer (Run, Lola, Run, Princess and the Warrior, Heaven) in collaboration with British writer-director, Andrew Birkin, and German producer Bernd Eichenger have filmed the unfilmable.

One of the reasons for declaring that the novel could not be filmed was that it is about a sense that does not lend itself to cinema (except by means of a gimmick): the sense of smell. However, Tykwer rightly stated that a printed book is not a medium for smell either. The communication is in the writing and its evocations. So, for a film, the evocation is in the images.

Perfume is primarily about smell and touch, much less so about sight and hearing, though they are not, of course, irrelevant to the film. Rather, the evocation of audience imagination is by suggestion through sight and hearing. Film lecturers talk about the camera and ‘point of view’. In Perfume, the audience is offered the central character’s ‘point of scent’.

Before considering how Tykwer communicates this experience of scent and smell on the part of Jean Baptiste, it is necessary to focus on who that character is. It is Paris in the 18th century, the most populated city in Europe, a city which, so the elegant narration (from the prose of the novel) by John Hurt reminds us, stank. Personal hygiene, urban garbage and pollution, the welcome as well as noisome odours from places like the fish market meant a distinctive and sometimes overwhelming aroma. (The word choice available to suggest this already has its limitations: smell, odour, scent, aroma and, of course, perfume.)

Perfume is what motivates Jean Baptiste, an unwanted baby born under a counter amongst the fish waste as his mother took some minutes off from her work. Growing up in an orphanage, he became more and more aware of his giftedness, his ability to detect and relish a vast variety of odours. After working in a tannery for years during his adolescence, he has the opportunity to come across some tantalising and beautiful odours amongst the rich and Parisian society: perfumes. Perfume becomes the be-all and end-all (literally) of his life.

It can be said, without spoiling the plot, that we know from the opening of the film (where Tykwer immediately limits our vision with darkness and silhouette but focuses on an inhaling nose) that Jean Baptiste has been accused of murder and is to be tortured and executed, to the delight of a crowd baying for blood and vengeance.

Then the flashback to his birth and the narration. The first half of the film then shows how Jean Baptiste impressed an ageing and out-of-date perfume creator and becomes an expert in recipes for perfumes that become the talk of Paris. The old man is played with some relish (and some peculiar variations of broken Italian and American accents) by Dustin Hoffman.

It is in this context that Jean Baptiste, fascinated by a young serving woman wearing a perfume, kills his first victim. He does not want to murder her but to keep her quiet. He strangles her. But, Jean Baptiste has very little moral sense and is not much bothered by what he has done.

The second half of the film has him go to Grasse, a perfume-making town in Provence where fields of lavender and other plants are cultivated. After demonstrating his skills, he is employed there but he has become obsessed with creating the perfect perfume - which are made from the personal odours of beautiful women. Thus, he begins a hidden and solitary career as a serial killer. The culminating victim is to be the beautiful daughter of the lord of the local manor (Alan Rickman).

While he pursues his goals, the audience focuses on a version of an 18th century panic, hysteria, the attempt to cope with a serial killer in a village and the investigation. Finally, there is an execution scene which takes us from reality and goes into the mind and imagination of Jean Baptiste: everybody understands what he has done, asks his pardon and are so influenced by his perfect perfume that they love everyone near them, throw off inhibitions and clothes and indulge in a love-in (which might have made Ken Russell in his heyday rather jealous).

The running time of the film is quite long, almost two and a half hours. For those not drawn into the themes and the pace of the film, it will seem very long indeed and give them time to disapprove and even think the film and its style pretentious. For those attracted and intrigued by theme and treatment, the length will not matter too much as they have entered into another world, into the 18th century settings, into the mind and morbid imagination of Jean Baptiste as well as the fears of the society he has intimidated.

But, most of all, this audience will have been seduced, sometimes subtly, sometimes obviously, by the visual evocation of so many smell experiences, a range of odours from the vile to the exquisite, that are the idiosyncratic experiences of Jean Baptiste. That is the skill of the screenplay, of Tykwer’s directing style and the editing and the performance of Ben Wishaw who, with his skinny build and air of being perpetually put upon, has chosen to make his character something of a ‘tabula rasa’, someone who passively absorbs rather than being proactive (except for his grotesque series of murders and his bizarre methods of using animal fats to absorb the essence of his victims).

Tom Tykwer has every reason to be pleased with and proud of Perfume: the Story of a Murderer.

1.The impact of the film? Adaptation of a novel? Cinematic? The focus on perfume, the sense of smell? The murder story? Combining the two?

2.How well did the film adapt the novel? Images instead of words to evoke smells and memories of scents? And the life of Jean Baptiste Grenouille?

3.The re-creation of 18th century Paris, its squalor, the markets, the smells, the world of the rich, the world of the perfume maker? The French countryside? The mountains, the sea? Provence? The town of Grasse? Authentic? The creation of the feel and atmosphere of the 18th century? Immersing the audience in this atmosphere?

4.The importance of costumes, décor, colour photography, the musical score?

5.The title and expectations? The initial focus on Jean Baptiste’s nose, his breathing? His profile in the darkness? His being in prison – and led out for torture and execution? The contrast with the ending, his being dragged out, beaten, in the square, his beautiful scent, his living in the world of his imagination and people overcome by the scent?

6.The structure of the film: the opening, going back in time, the two halves with the perfumier and the village of Grasse, the ending? The narrative and the 21st century perspective, John Hurt’s tone? The interaction of the narrator with the audience?

7.The introduction of Jean Baptiste, scrawny, small, his sense of smell, being dragged out, his reactions, the people and their denunciations, the bloodlust crowds? Information as to what he had done?

8.Going back to his birth, his pregnant mother, the squalor in the market, her giving birth, coming back to serve the customers, wanting to abandon the baby, not sure whether it was breathing, the police, the woman calling out that there was a baby, the mother and her being arrested, executed? Jean Baptiste as an orphan, growing up, his skills? In the orphanage, the woman in charge, the other children and their jealousies, trying to smother him? His being saved? His identity? As a teenager, indentured at the tannery, the hard labour with the tannery, his decision to do it properly, to survive? The deliveries, the perfumes in the town, seeing rich society, the girl wearing the perfume, wanting to learn? Following the girl, not wanting to be detected, his strangling her? His learning about people’s scents and beauty and scent?

9.Dustin Hoffman as the maker of perfumes, Italian, living in Paris, his wife? His age, his reputation, going down, his assistant arriving, the rival and his creations, the customers flocking to him? Jean Baptiste, the meeting with the perfumier, his suggestions, his being taken up on the offer, his talking about the ingredients, the swift setting up of the perfume? His method, recipe? His being flogged by the master for being late? His being bought? The great success, the recipes, the customers, fashionable people? The celebration? The death of the perfumier?

10.The perfumier himself, his character, his interest in Jean Baptiste, amazement, the creativity, success, his death?

11.Jean Baptiste and his journey, the countryside, coming to Grasse, the town itself, meeting Laura and her father, his being fascinated by her beauty? The town itself, the authorities? The crops and the lavender, harvesting the crops, the factories, the making of scent? The proprietress and her assistant, their relationship? Antoine Richis and his style, love for his daughter?

12.Jean Baptiste and his work in the town, keeping to himself, his discovery that he had no scent himself, his watching the girls, stalking them, abducting them, killing them, the fat, discarding the girls when he had no further use?

13.The atmosphere of fear in the town, the beginnings of panic, the role of the authorities, suspicions – and even the lynching of the proprietress’s assistant because he worked there? The police, the authorities, the curfews?

14.Antoine and Laura, his protectiveness, the town joyful with the news of the arrest, Antoine and his knowing the reality? The discussion with the authorities – and their not wanting to create panic? The meetings, the economic situation? Laura and her dancing, his slapping her, their going home, the decision to flee, the methods taken to evade being followed? Antoine locking Laura in her room, his nightmare, his discovery of her absence? Her death?

15.Jean Baptiste, his stalking, his fascination with Laura, leaving the town, the information, being able to follow the scent, finding the family, watching them, going into the house, to the room? Killing Laura?

16.His being caught, prison, the people’s reaction, in the square, the death wish? The bloodlust?

17.The climax in the square, his being dragged out, the scent and everybody being affected, the hangman asking his pardon, the people kneeling, in favour of him, Antoine coming to apologise? The effect of the scent, the crowd’s disrobing, the sexual behaviour? His disappearance? Waking and his being gone? The effect on the people?

18.The effect on Jean Baptiste, going into his mind, centred on himself, his achievement, the scent and the culmination of beauty?

19.The blend of the real and realities with fantasy and the moral fable?

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?

BLOOD DIAMOND

US, 2006, 138 minutes, Colour.
Leonardo di Caprio, Djimon Hounsou, Jennifer Connelly, Arnold Vosloo, David Harewood, Basil Wallace, Jimi Mystery, Michael Sheen, Marius Weyers, Stephen Collins.
Directed by Edward Zwick.

The title is quite evocative. It sounds like a violent story as well as a story of greed. And it is.

The film is principally set in Sierra Leone in the recent past. It is 1999. The country is in the turmoil of civil war. International diamond companies are interested in exploiting the diamond fields and rebels want to exploit the diamond trade so that they can buy arms. The jewels at the centre of this struggle are called ‘conflict diamonds’. There was a movement to ban or curtail this trade for weapons – which, the film tells us at the end, was signed by forty countries in 2003.

Blood Diamond is an action thriller with a message – or several messages.

The principal message is that customers in search of diamonds, even for an engagement ring, need to check whether the stones are the product of social injustice and exploitation. The second message is the obvious one that there are greedy smugglers as well as industrialists and corporations ready to bypass laws and conventions.

The third and underlying message is about the status of Africa and the results of the colonial era that has left in its wake, civil wars and tribal conflicts, massacres, oppression and the dismaying phenomenon of the abduction of children and brainwashing them into becoming fanatical soldiers. This is quite an agenda for an action film starring Leonardo di Caprio.

Di Caprio appears as a bitter thirty year old mercenary, born in Rhodesia where his parents were brutally murdered, and who has seen action in Angola and South Africa. With the end of apartheid and limited fields of action, he has become involved in diamonds for arms smuggling between Sierra Leone and Liberia. Arrested, he overhears information from a rebel confronting a fisherman (Djimon Hounsou) who had been forced into mining and who had hidden a blood diamond. This could be his answer for a new life.

When he encounters a strong-minded American journalist (Jennifer Connolly), he travels with her and the fisherman to find the diamond. Along the way, they encounter ambushes, the child soldiers, a kind teacher trying to rehabilitate the young abductees, and the mercenary colonel who wants the diamond.

The action sequences are staged with power and flair.

The journey becomes a journey of conscience for the young man. He is challenged by the journalist who wants to write to change attitudes. He is especially challenged by the fisherman whose son has been taken by the rebels and has become a bitter boy, despising and confronting his father.

Films appeal to the emotions and heart more than to the mind and the head. Some tough American commentators have dismissed Blood Diamond as a ‘Liberal Lefty’s dream’. They say that hard-headed policies are needed for development in Africa and the facing of economic necessities. The film, on the other hand, wants to focus on the human cost, enslavement, brutality and murder and exploitation by power-hungry authorities in both the developed and developing worlds. It wants audiences to be moved by people in desperate plight, the powerless, and the bringing down of the exploiters, the powerful.

Djimon Hounsou has a strong reputation in a variety of roles (Amistad, Gladiator, In America , Constantine) and he is impressive here. Leonardo di Caprio proves again that he is a fine actor who can immerse himself in all kinds of roles, from romantic heartthrob in Romeo and Juliet and Titanic to comedy in Catch Me if You Can, to gangster and police roles for Martin Scorsese. Here he shows how he can be an action star and, more deeply, portray a man on a conscience journey from ruthless to compassionate to self-sacrificing.

1.An exciting thriller? Action adventure? Message film? A message via the thriller conventions?

2.The portrait of Africa at the beginning of the 21st century? The impact of colonialism, the aftermath of colonialism, national independence, the civil wars? African history in the 20th century? The world of big business, exploitation, global corporations? Wars and arms deals, the use of diamonds to buy weapons? The use of children as soldiers? The role of the United Nations? How well did the screenplay blend all these elements?

3.Audience response to the thriller aspects, the excitement? The trek and the quest for the diamond? Issues of justice? Hearts and minds responding to the thriller as well as the issues?

4.The African locations, the use of South Africa and Mozambique for Sierra Leone, for Liberia? Authentic, the mountain scenery, the rivers? The towns and cities? The atmospheric score?

5.The title and its meaning, the conflict diamonds, the literal Blood Diamond? Symbolic?

6.The international setting, the political discussions, the companies and their representatives, the exploitation? The cover-ups? The deals behind the scenes? The meeting, the speeches? The issue of diamonds for arms? The title of conflict diamonds? The ending, Solomon and his setting up the executives, the photographs, the media? The expose? The final information about the treaty concerning diamonds and weapons?

7.Leonardo di Caprio as Danny Archer, thirty-year-old, his background of Rhodesia, growing up in the 1970s and experiencing independence, the shocking deaths and brutality meted out to his mother and father? Deaths? The patronage of the colonel? His becoming a mercenary, fighting in Angola? The effect of peace and the end of apartheid? The mercenary, his motivations? Fearless? His contacts, going into Liberia, coming on the plane, confronting the Africans, getting the diamonds, putting pressure on the deceiving African, the trek, his arrest, in jail, hearing the information about the Blood Diamond? His connection and getting Solomon out of jail? His freedom and pursuing the Blood Diamond? The colonel and his assistant, his being called to account for the failure, his visit to South Africa? His plan for the diamond?

8.The contrast with Solomon, the life of the Mende tribesmen, fishing, idyllic, with his son, the family happiness, the boy going to school? The invasion of the rebels, he and his son on the way back, the violence, the brutality of the attack, the slaughter, the rape, the burning? The taking of the children for mercenaries? Solomon and his being taken to mine diamonds in the river? The overseers, the shooting of anyone who stole a diamond? Solomon and his discovery of the Blood Diamond, his hiding it, the official seeing him – and knowing? The invasion of the troops, Solomon and his arrest, going to jail? The confrontation with the authority in the jail? His being freed – going to find the diamond, wanting his son?

9.The rebels, their authority, their weapons, their brutality, the executions, the chopping off of hands, the decision to send able men to mine the diamonds? The children as mercenaries? The scenes of training the children, the weapons, the brainwashing, turning them into mini-adults, their playing cards, drinking, being injected with drugs? Trained to be vicious? Turning against their families, alternate father figures? Seeing them in action, shootings at the roadblocks, the attacks with the other soldiers?

10.Danny, his meeting Maddy, their talk, the interaction, her background, Bosnia and other stories? Always having adventure? Her interest, investigations? Meeting Danny again, becoming more attached to him? His promise of documents? Her offering a cover for Danny and for Solomon as the cameraman for their travels?

11.The attack in the city, the arms and the invasion, the deaths? Danny and his survival? Solomon? Drawing up the plan, going on the trek, Solomon as the cameraman, his being unwilling, wanting his son, deciding to go? The media junket, the dangers, the roadblocks, the attacks, the vehicles crashing? The car chase and Danny driving, the crash in the bush?

12.The bonds between Danny and Solomon, the motivations, dividing the money from the diamond? Maddy and her quest? The clashes, going through the bush, surviving in the bush?

13.The roadblock, running the roadblock, meeting Benjamin, his help, his school, the rehabilitation of the soldiers, their trust in him? His being wounded, Danny and Maddy saving him?

14.The dangers in the trek, Solomon seeing his son and calling out, the dangers for Danny? The continued quest? The effect on Danny, changing his motivation?

15.Going to the river, watching the miners, Solomon seeing Danny and going into the camp, the troops, the attack? Danny phoning, the helicopter coming? Solomon and his rescue of his son? Danny and the colonel, the confrontation, the shooting? Danny wounded?

16.Danny organising Solomon’s escape with his son, Solomon and his trying to persuade his son who he was, to draw him back to himself? Danny and his wound, climbing the mountain, phoning Maddy, arranging for the plane and Solomon’s rescue? His death? His experience, dying with a good conscience?

17.The transition to London, Solomon and his dealing with the executives, the buying of the diamonds, the set-up, the photos, the media expose? His being well dressed, going to the meeting, Maddy present, his speech and the applause?

18.The final information about the treaty and the agreement about money for arms? Conflict diamonds?

FLAGS OF OUR FATHERS

US, 2006, 132 minutes, Colour.
Ryan Philippe, Jesse Bradford, Adam Veitch, John Benjamin Hickey, John Slattery, Barry Pepper, Jamie Bell, Paul Walker, Robert Patrick, Neil Mc Donough, Melanie Lynskey, Thomas Mc Carthy, Judith Ivey, Joseph Cross, George Grizzard, Harve Presnell, Len Cariou, Beth Grant, David Patrick Kelly, Jon Polito, David Clennon, David Resche, Tom Mason.
Directed by Clint Eastwood.

While Flags of our Fathers can stand alone, it was made back-to-back and is a companion piece to Letters from Iwo Jima. Each film focuses on the battle for Iwo Jima in early 1945, Flags as a re-creation of the fighting and a memoir about the soldiers as well as a reflection on the famous photograph of the raising of the US flag. Letters is in Japanese and is a Japanese perspective on the events.

When each film was released, Clint Eastwood was 76. He has become not only one of the screen icons of American cinema but one of its most prolific and celebrated directors, winning Oscars for Unforgiven and Million Dollar Baby. Since 2000, his four films (including Mystic River) have shown a maturity of storytelling and reflection that has been appreciated worldwide.

Both storytelling and reflection are important elements in Flags of Our Fathers. In fact, the storytelling is not presented chronologically so that we do not know when we will be on Iwo Jima, when we will be accompanying the three young men who were sent on tour of America as heroes and to raise bonds for the war effort, when we will be flashing back to incidents on the island and when we will be listening to interviews and reminiscences fifty years later. This complex way of narration keeps us attentive while continually challenging us to test our feelings and to gauge what we are thinking about war, about maiming and death, about the reasons for war, about heroism and heroic behaviour.

This is one of the main themes of the film, heroism. The men who raised the flag originally on Iwo Jima simply acted spontaneously in a deadly situation. They were photographed. However, the photo was damaged and an opportunity arose for six men who had gone to the top for other reasons (laying a phone cable) were asked to re-enact the former raising. Something small became something enormous, especially for American morale and propaganda. This is the nature of symbolic actions. They are not symbolic until they are imbued with meaning. The photo of Iwo Jima became a rallying cry for the American forces and people. They had a felt need for a symbol and this was it. And it was managed with US showbiz pizzazz.

The three young men, inexperienced even in war, were feted by President Truman, politicians and ordinary people. They were celebrities for a time. Rene Gagnon (Jess Bradford) loved it, a dapper man who had simply been a runner; ‘Doc’ Bradley (Ryan Philippe) who observed people and did his medical duties quietly and with courage; Ira Hayes, the native American Indian who experienced racism, who felt guilty that he was feted and who drank and died tragically (Adam Beach in a very fine performance). (Ira Hayes was the subject of the 1961 film, The Outsider, with Tony Curtis.)

Steven Spielberg co-produced this film with Clint Eastwood and the reconstructing of the landing on the island and the battle sequences will remind war movie aficionados of the graphic depictions of D- Day in Saving Private Ryan. The audience is not spared the bloodshed and death. However, since it is constantly intercut with the bonds tour and the interviews, the audience is not mired in it as the soldiers themselves were.

There is a very strong cast of character actors. The colour is desaturated, made to look like photos of the period (and the final credits should be watched for actual photos and a final panorama of Iwo Jima). Clint Eastwood composed the score and included contemporary songs like I’ll Walk Alone.

The screenplay by William Broyles Jr and Paul Haggis (writer of Million Dollar Baby and Crash) keeps reminding the audience of the ambiguities of war, of young inexperienced fighters, of officers and decision-making, of the financial debt incurred by the US and the need for bonds, heroism, duty, the exploitation of heroism and the distinction between heroes (in the grandiose sense) and ordinary men and women behaving heroically when required.

1.The impact of the film? Its acclaim? A perspective on World War Two? Re-creation of a battle? Re-creation of a symbolic event? A revision of history from the point of view of the 21st century?

2.Clint Eastwood and his work, his perspective, an American icon? His perspective on war? On heroism?

3.The re-creation of the war, the detail, the graphic nature of the battles, the dead and wounded? 1945? The re-creation of the tour for getting bonds? The later decades and the old men being interviewed?

4.The style of the colour, desaturated? The colour of different moods? Editing and pace? The musical score? Clint Eastwood’s melodies? The use of contemporary songs, ‘I Walk Alone’, the Andrew Sisters…?

5.The structure of the film: a memoir, James Bradley and his interviews, voice-over and comment, his quest about his father, discovering more about the war, about Iwo Jima, about the raising of the flag? The range of interviews? The end and John Bradley’s death? The insertion of the war flashbacks? Of the tour? The flashbacks within the tour as each of the three remembered their war experiences? The brief cuts, intercutting the narrative? The build-up of the comments with the action?

6.John Bradley, the opening nightmare, Iwo Jima and the black sand, his searching for Iggy? His waking, his collapse on the steps, his son, going to hospital? His talking with his son, his death? James Bradley and the interviews with Captain Severance, with the other members of the entourage? With Keyes Beech? The variety of comments and the audience absorbing these?

7.The strategy for taking Iwo Jima, the Japanese hold, the Pacific, the attack on Japan? The military chiefs and the discussions? The maps, the size of Iwo Jima, the mountain? The tactics? The ships and the troops being sent?

8.The presentation of the personnel, Mike Strank and his leadership, Captain Severance and his overall supervision? The variety of officers? Their personalities? Men in war? The variety of the young men? John Bradley, Rennie Gagnon, Ira Hayes, Iggy, Hank Hansen, Franklin Sousley, Harlon Block? The men and their talk, the haircuts, playing cards, teasing Franklin, Iggy and his optimism? Each of the characters? Their bonding – and ready for action, together?

9.The visuals of the landing of the troops, the holes and the guns, the big guns from the mountain, the slaughter, the men and the strategy, Doc and his work? Rennie as a runner? The progress along the beach, the number of men killed? Climbing the hill? The squad and its being sent on ahead? Mike and his leadership? The sudden shock of his death? Iggy and his disappearance? Hank and Harlon and their deaths? The putting up of the flag, the initial photo? The powers-that-be wanting the flag, Rennie taking the substitute flag, their getting the pole, those who happened to be there raising it? The new photo? The role of the photographers and propaganda? The war effort?

10.The photo itself, the background of the raising of the flag, the second raising? Small events becoming symbolic? The impact, the collecting of the flag? The newspapers? The collage of the American people getting the paper, the families and their looking at the photos, the reactions, the demand for the photo, Roosevelt and his seeing it as a breakthrough? The use of the photo?

11.The calling of the three back to the United States? Keyes Beech and his chaperoning them? Bud Gerber and his overall strategies for the bonds? Ira being unwilling? Their meeting with Gerber, the telling of the truth? His reactions? The plan, the boosting of morale, raising bond money? The meeting with Truman? Ira and his drinking, Doc looking after him? Rene pleased with all the attention? His always wanting to look smart? Pauline and her intrusion into the entourage? Doc and his observing things? Their age, lack of experience, becoming celebrities, the meetings, autographs on the trains, people giving business cards (and later not following them up)? The parties, Times Square and the parade, the reconstructed hill and their having to perform, Ira and his being drunk, persuaded to go back? Pauline and her continued presence, the proposal? Newsworthy? The mothers of the soldiers, their coming to the reception? Ira and his greeting Mike’s mother, his grief? Ira and his not being served in the bar, getting drunk and sick? Being sent back without being allowed to see his mother?

12.The three men and their personalities, Doc in himself, his work, serious, his searching for Iggy? Rene and his being smart? The marriage? Ira and his Indian background, people calling him Chief, the racist remarks, as a good friend, Doc supporting him, his drinking, the reality about the flag-raising and its effect on him? Mike’s death? Mike’s mother? His return to fight?

13.The aftermath for the three: Doc, best man at the wedding, return home, marrying, the undertakers? Rennie, his wanting jobs, wanting to follow up the references, yesterday’s hero, becoming a janitor? Ira and his return home, working in the fields, people stopping for autographs, with the Indians, their pride in him, his drinking, in jail, walking along the road – and Beech’s memory of seeing him on the road, Ira seeing him and his driving on? His going to tell the mother about her son truly raising the flag? The three gathered together for the final ceremony of the statue? The pathos of his death?

14.The issue of heroism: heroic behaviour by ordinary people, situations making demands, otherwise people acting ordinarily? Actions becoming symbolic? The public’s need for symbols, the reaction to symbols, the crowds and enthusiasm, morale-boosting, propaganda – especially for raising money from bonds?

15.The explanation of the American predicament in the war, debt, the need for weapons, loans, the raising of bond money, the need for morale? The Japanese and their tenacity? The irony that within a few months the atomic bombs would be dropped?

16.The final collage of photos of the characters, of Iwo Jima itself and action? The final panorama of the island? The history of war films and their impact? Flags of Our Fathers in the tradition? The companion piece of Letters From Iwo Jima?

THE KINGDOM

US, 2007, 109 minutes, Colour.
Jamie Foxx, Chris Cooper, Jennifer Garner, Jason Bateman, Ashraf Barhom, Ali Suliman, Jeremy Pivan, Richard Jenkins, Kyle Chandler, Frances Fisher, Danny Huston.
Directed by Peter Berg.

The pre-credits sequence is very interesting in itself. It traces the 20th century history of Saudi Arabia (The Kingdom), especially in terms of its relationship with the US and its oil power. Then there is an expertly staged, if quite ghastly, attack on the American compound in Ryadh, first shooters, then a tremendous explosion. Many are killed.

Move then to the US with experts on Capitol Hill debating the response: the hawks eager to take action, the doves reminding hawks about diplomacy and national sensibilities. However, a team of FBI investigators is able to arrange an entry, though they are hampered by protocols and permissions at first, finally persuading one of the many princes to support their search for evidence and gain some police collaboration. They bring some American know-how but also a great deal of American superiority attitude which means they need a little sensitivity and inculturation.

So far, so good – with Arizona and Abu Dabi locations standing in for the Kingdom. The investigation is interesting. But, when they find the suspects, as they say, all hell breaks loose. It seems the film implodes in its shift from intelligent drama to an all-out action show, lots of chases, explosions, shooting, the abduction of one of the team, the breakthrough in discovering the perpetrators and general confusion and mayhem.

The makers have opted for action for the multiplex rather than stay with the politics, diplomacy and intrigue of a film like Syriana.

Much is made of Jamie Foxx’s character as a loving father and children are a motif throughout the film, including offering the key evidence for the climax. Other team members are the tough older hands-on-and- get-dirty expert, Chris Cooper, wisecracking Jason Bateman and, for glamour, Jennifer Garner. Ashraf Barhom (an Israeli actor) is particularly sympathetic as the Saudi police liaison.

The final lines of the film bring us back to the harsh realities of extremists, whether they be terrorists or US officials.

1.A topical film? The Arab world? The United States? Oil, relationships, the Kingdom? The post-2001 world? The background of the Iraq war?

2.The locations, the Arizona desert, Abu Dabi standing in for Riyadh? The musical score?

3.The title, Saudi Arabia, the prologue and the outline of its history in itself, its place in the world, oil, the relationship with the United States, Islamic beliefs, practice? Terrorism? Osama bin Laden?

4.The introduction, the city of Riyadh, the vistas, the American compound, the softball game, the Saudi police? The attack, the massacre, people and their running away, the deaths? The final explosion? The huge death toll?

5.The verandah, the group watching, their talk, making the video, the young man and the camera? The later identification of where the film was taken? The building? Tracking down the perpetrators?

6.Washington DC, Ronald Fleury in the class, talking, his son, the news, called out? The government meetings? The attorney-general, the FBI chief? The officials, the meeting, the discussions, the different attitude of the Hawks and the Doves, diplomacy?

7.Fleury and his team, Sykes, Janet Mayes, Adam Leavitt? Their working together? Their personalities? The plan, Fleury going to the journalist, getting information, working the favour, the emotional and political blackmail, flying out to Saudi Arabia?

8.Saudi Arabia, the authorities, the suspects, policeman taken and tortured and interrogated, the officer in charge? The protocols, diplomacy?

9.The arrival of the team, their American presumptions, wanting to go to the site, the various skills that they brought? The restrictions? Their reaction? Going to the prince, getting the permits? Their language, the Saudi officer and his asking them to restrain, to be modest? The insults?

10.The forensic investigation, the detail? Each member of the team and their skills? Sykes, practical, going into the pool, the discovery of the ambulance? Fleury and his contacts? Janet and the clinical aspects? The bodies?

11.The officer in charge, his dealing with the Americans, his task, loyalties, difficulties? Going to the prince? Getting the go-ahead?

12.Fleury and the interviews with the Americans, the situations, their fears, hatred for the Arabs?

13.The information about the perpetrators, the film, working out where the balcony was, the evidence?

14.The visit to the building, the chase throughout the streets? The family, the old man, the tension, the little girl and the gift, realising that this was the material for the explosives? The shootings? The information about bomb-makers and their injured fingers? The flashbacks to the bomb-making?

15.The abduction of Leavitt, his previous wisecracks, his humiliation, the preparation of the video?

16.The film moving into fight, shoot-em-up? The death of the sympathetic Arab? His family?

17.The achievement of the team? The return to the United States? The role of the United States – destiny, domination, respect for other cultures?

18.The ironic ending: the whispering of the old man before he died that they would all die? Asking Fleury what his word to comfort Janet was at the meeting: that they would all die?

HALLOWEEN

US, 2007, 109 minutes, Colour.
Malcolm Mc Dowell, Brad Dourif, Tyler Mane, Daeg Faerch, Sheri Moon, William Forsyth, Richard Lynch, Udo Kier, Clint Howard, Danny Treyjo.
Directed by Rob Zombie.

Rob Zombie’s excursions from the music world into film directing are marked by a ruthless obsession with blood and gore in the context of extreme horror movie conventions. The House of a Thousand Corpses and The Devil’s Rejects (much of the same in both) were experiences of the ghastly.

It is easy to understand what impelled him to write an update of John Carpenter’s 1978 classic as well as to direct it. After all, there were four sequels to Halloween and an update to 1998, Halloween H2O. While Carpenter’s film was a ‘breakthrough’ in visual terror and horror in the 1970s, it was violent in its way and, of course, paved the way for various imitations as well as the Friday the 13th franchise and Wes Craven’s Nightmare on Elm St series (and all the variations on those films) as well as for Rod Zombie.

His version of Halloween keeps close to the original for a lot of the time as well as developing for almost an hour, the more interesting themes of the childhood of Michael Myers (and his clown mask) and the killing reasons for his internment in the mental institution. William Forsythe as his stepfather is loathsomely murderable. His mother, played by Sherri Moon Zombie, is far more sympathetic. There is gore but more Carpenter-like than Zombie-like.

However, as Myers escapes from the institution, the body count rises as does the blood flow, though no more than in other like films. But the film sorely lacks the presence of Jamie Lee Curtis and her strong screen impact. This time the sister is a screamer but not as sympathetic or interesting. However, we do have Malcolm Mc Dowell in the Donald Pleasence role of Dr Loomis. He orates with great gusto, enunciating and declaiming as if the screenplay were by Shakespeare.

What drags the impact down is that syndrome of terror movies, the interchangeable young adults who are sex-obsessed and readily disposable (and are disposed of). Some more ‘ordinary’ characters or characters behaving ordinarily would be far more effective that this knife-a-victim lot. (But, it was already in 1980 that Friday the 13th introduced this group of characters so they have been with us – before being sliced and gutted – for almost thirty years.

This Halloween was better and more thought through (despite its limitations) than expected.

1.The status of John Carpenter’s Halloween? An icon of the 1970s? The influence on sequels? On other horror films in the succeeding decades? This film as a remake and as a tribute?

2.The film staying close to the original film? Using some of the musical score? The characters, the situations? The changes, the 21st century? The victims and their being callow young people, in themselves, in relationships? Killed off?

3.The setting: the town, the past, the homes, school? The woods? The town after fifteen years? On Halloween? The homes, the abandoned home? The streets? The night? The contrast with the scenes in the institution, highly institutionalised, sinister? The musical score?

4.The title, expectations? The opening, the young Michael Myers, his clown mask, his relationship with the other children, bullied? Wanting to go Trick or Treating? The later Halloween, Michael Myers’ return, tracking down his sister? The atmosphere of Halloween?

5.The film amplifying the earlier years of Michael Myers? The ten-year-old, his appearance? At home? The callow attitudes of Ronnie White, the brutality at home? The language, the insults, slovenly? His being murdered? Michael and his devotion to his mother, her love for him, his sister? The baby? Her arguments with her husband? Her being a pole dancer? The criticism of the other children in the town? The ridicule to Michael, his revenge on them, his tormenting the boy and killing him?

6.Doctor Loomis, his personality, wild in appearance? Sympathy? Treating Michael? The principal of the school, the discussions, the mother coming to the school? Being institutionalised? Doctor Loomis and his concern? His writing the book and publishing it?

7.Michael and his anger, his mental states? His brutality and his murders? His sister and the boyfriend? His stepfather? The rampage? His seeming innocence when talking about it with Doctor Loomis – or his silence?

8.The passing of the years, Ismael Cruz and his kindness towards Michael Myers? The institution? The others ridiculing him? Yet his being killed?

9.Michael Myers as grown up, the mask used to kill his sister? Taking it with him? The manoeuvres in order to escape from the institution?

10.The concern, Doctor Loomis, going to the town? Trying to track Michael down? The other doctors and their opinions?

11.Michael Myers and his getting to the town, the confrontation with the black man and killing him? His arrival? The sheriff, his concern? The daughter, her being adopted? Doctor Loomis having to track her down? The death of her adoptive parents?

12.The young people, sexual preoccupations, chatter? Callow? The daughter and her part of this? A bit different? Their being gradually killed off? The gory scenes?

13.The final confrontation, Doctor Loomis’s death? The daughter defending herself against her brother? His wanting to bond with her? His seeming death?

and14.Why has this Halloween story become so popular in world consciousness? In film-making?