L'ARMEE DU CRIME (THE ARMY OF CRIME)

France, 2009, 139 minutes, Colour.
Simon Abkarian, Virginie Ledoyen, Robinson Stevenen, Jann Tregouet.
Directed by Robert Guediguian.

A film about the French Resistance, centred principally on Paris and its surroundings. It begins with a long list of names of people who are declared to have died for France.

Once the Germans occupy Paris, they begin, with the help of the French police, to target the Jews, sudden round-ups, visits to police stations and disappearances, then the wearing of the star, then bus loads to local camps and then to Poland.

While the scope of the film is large and runs for well over two hours, the focus is principally on three groups. Simon Akbarian portrays an Armenian intellectual exile who lost his family in the Turkish genocide. (Guedigian is of Armenian origins and stresses Hitler's words of 1936: 'who remembers the Armenians?'.) His wife is played by Virginie Ledoyen. A second family runs a restaurant and the son, insulted at school and angry, is ripe for the Resistance. A third family sees the father disappear, the mother confined to home. The older son (Robinson Stevenin) is a champion swimmer under a less Jewish name and is protective of his fourteen year old brother. He is also trigger happy and begins to shoot German soldiers in the street.

Once the Resistance is organised, with the Armenian in charge of the local group, acts of sabotage proliferate. German officials and the press brand the perpetrators as terrorist Jews, Communists and immigrants.

It is inevitable that they will all be caught and executed. However, the dynamic of the film is to see them planning, in action, squabbling amongst themselves concerning tactics. Very striking is the liason between the swimmer's girlfriend and an ingratiating, ambitious policeman who begins an affair, showers her with gifts and gleans information from her. As the drama goes on, the personal stories become more telling enabling the audience to respond emotionally to the arrests, the graphic torture and the grief in persecution and scapegoating.

Robert Guedigian usually makes dramas about his city, Marseilles. More recently, he made a film about Mitterand. The Army of Crime (the title of the booklet produced by the Nazis to vilify the Resistance) broadens his scope and interests.

1.The title, the book prepared by the Nazis to condemn the Resistance? The images of the cover, the denunciations, the photos?

2.Audience knowledge of World War Two, of the French Resistance, of occupied France? Sufficient information supplied, illustrated?

3.The director and his Armenian background, quoting Hitler in 1936 that no-one remembers the Armenians? His passion for the story, for the Armenian leader?

4.The introduction, the bus, the passengers, the list of names, the statement that they had died for their country?

5.Paris, the 1940s, ordinary, the parks, pools, music, homes and shops? Yet the occupation, the swastika on the Eiffel Tower? The role of the French police, collaboration with the Gestapo? The extent of torture? The rise of the Resistance? Their going into action? The place of the Jews, the roundups? The buses taking them to the camps?

6.The three central stories: Missak Manouchian, with Melinee? Marcel and the Reiman family? Thomas and the Elak family? The arrests, the insults, the disappearances, angers? The characters and their coming together in the Resistance?

7.The officials, the Germans, the French police? The Nazis and the soldiers in uniform? Guarding the camps? The ordinary German soldiers but still declaring they were enemies? The Minister for Intelligence, the recruiting of officials, promotions? The torturers? Pujol? His role, judgment on him? On the collaborating French?

8.Missak, at home, his love for Melinee, being taken, in prison, his having saved Melinee’s life when she got a cramp, her decision to save Missak’s? Her riding the bike to the camp, taking the food, confronting the soldier? Missak getting out, his decision, the Resistance, taking part in the organisation? His contacts, the codes, the meetings? The importance of discipline? The variety of action? The higher officials demanding better results? The killing of the general? His meeting with the leaders?

9.Marcel and Monique, their relationship? Marcel and his concern about Simon? Simon at fourteen? The father and his disappearance? The mother and her coping? Protective? Marcel changing his name, the swimming training, his winning the Paris championship, the possibility for Olympics? His friends and their work in the Resistance? His anger about his father’s disappearance, shooting Germans in the street? Missak explaining that he had to be a member of a team? Going to the club – his bravado being challenged, not able to set off the detonator because of the women in the club? The grenade pin – and having to search in the sewing box for a pin to save the grenade? His love for Monique, her sharing so much with him, the swimming and his championship? Her coming to see him, well dressed, explaining her situation, yet betraying him?

10.Thomas, his parents in the restaurant, his father’s continual reading? His painting sickles on the university walls? His being insulted as a ‘dirty Yid’? The discussion with the principal, his potential to become a physicist?

11.The other young men, going into action, members of the Communist Party, the arrests? Their torture, singeing their bodies, electrodes? Their being taken out to be shot?

12.The treatment of the Jews, the greater persecution, having to wear the star? Closing shops and restaurants? The threats? Their finally being rounded up – and the procession of buses taking them to the camps?

13.The blame and scapegoating by the French, the communists, migrants, the Jews, the inferior people from Eastern Europe?

14.Petra, in command, strong, his orders? Being arrested, the torture, his giving the information?

15.Pujol, his being promoted, his work with David? The attraction to Monique? Using her, the sexual relationship, giving her presents? The information about Marcel? His trying to save him – but the women being suspicious of such information and not warning him?

16.David, young, ambitious, merciless? His participating in the torture?

17.The information, the arrests, the rounding up of the Resistance? Missak and the others?

18.The interrogations, their holding fast, not giving information?

19.The photos, the book, The Army of Crime?

20.The execution of the central characters? Their last stances and words? The quoting of Missak’s last letter to Melinee before he was executed?

21.The end, the reprise of the list of names, dying for their country, despite the scapegoating by the Vichy government and the Nazis?

EYES WIDE OPEN

Israel, 2009, 90 minutes, Colour.
Zohar Strauss, Ran Danker.
Directed by Chaim Tabakman.

It must have been risky to make a film with the help of the Israel Film Commission about the ultraorthodox community in Jerusalem. It must have been even more risky when the theme was homosexuality.

With only a scene at a bathing spring in the hills, the action is confined to a house, a shop, a synagogue and the streets of Jerusalem. Aaron has a butcher's shop there. He has a wife and four children. After the death of his father, he opens the shop again and encounters Ezri, a rather sullen young man, and gives him shelter. While some momentary indications of Ezri's sexual orientation are suggested, Aaron is affected by his presence, puzzled and, despite his attendance at synagogue and Talmud interpretation classes, he does not know what to do.

The neighbours are suspicious of Ezri, gossip about him and Aaron, the hotheads in training with the Rabbi want to declare the butcher's shop non-kosher. Aaron's wife is aware that something is not right.

Aaron goes with his feelings, with his eyes wide open to where he is going.

The film is respectful of Jewish prayer, bible study and Talmud. However, the screenplay raises issues of what God's word says about sin and sexuality, how a person on the verge of sin discovers more about their real self as well as the nature of sin and guilt in the community. While the implication is that the ultraorthodox have fixed and unnuanced ideas, the film does not preach but by telling its story, delving into the feelings and crises of its characters, it asks its audience to reflect.

1.Audience interest in Israel, the ultra-orthodox in Jerusalem, their lifestyle, religious beliefs, principles?

2.The Jerusalem setting, restricted to the house, shop, synagogue, streets? The spring in the hills and the countryside? The score and the Israeli tones?

3.The title, Aaron and his knowing what he was doing, looking at himself, as if into oncoming traffic – the potential for a crash yet fascinated by the movement and the lights?

4.Aaron in the rain, taking down the notice of his father’s death, unlocking the shop, opening it again, his reverence for his father (and later visiting his grave), honouring his father? Continuing his work as a butcher, his skills, the details of the work, the deliveries, cutting up the meat? The range of customers and their requests?

5.Ezri, in the rain, coming into the shop, borrowing the phone, the intimations of broken relationship in his conversation? His needing shelter, Aaron offering him a place, his father’s room? Ezri helping, learning to slice and to serve the meat?

6.The bond between the two men? Aaron and his religious background, his age, strict, going to synagogue, leading prayer, the rituals of entry into the house, of waking up, sexual relationships? Interpreting the Talmud? The hospital? The attraction to Ezri? Touching him when teaching him how to slice? His bleeding? Using time for himself, refusing the rabbi the trip, yet driving him? The local gossip, the hostility? His not taking any notice? Inviting Ezri to his home, to the meal with the family, the introduction to the family? His staying at the shop, coming home for late meals?

7.Ezri, going to the spring, inviting Aaron to go, a situation for change and decision? Ezri stripping, bathing? Aaron hesitant, going into the water, playing around? His decision time?

8.The passion between the two men, the scenes? Aaron and the effect on him, shutting the shop, coming home late, saying to the rabbi that he felt alive? That he needed Ezri?

9.The zealots, their opinions, coming into the shop, the threats, the Talmud students, threatening to say that the meat was not kosher? The rabbi and his attack on them – and Aaron telling the rabbi the truth?

10.Aaron’s wife, the relationship, loving, her reticence, the sexual behaviour, her going to the shop, her puzzling, the boys going to the shop, their results, Aaron’s ambiguous behaviour towards them? Talking with his wife? Her accepting the situation?

11.Sarah, Israel, the rabbi’s disapproval, people’s condemnation, her coming to prayer? The final confrontation at the shop?

12.Ezri and Aaron and their talking, Ezri and his study, prayer, support? His decision to go? Aaron hoping that he would go – and the reasons for this?

13.The situation, Aaron and his self-awareness, religious dimension, principles? The discussions about sin, God, self-awareness through sin?

14.The end, Aaron’s decision, going to the spring, going into the water, immersing himself, not surfacing?

15.Audience response to the characters and themes, understanding, the religious dimension, the common humanity?

LES HERBES FOLLES (WILD GRASS)

France, 2009, 104 minutes, Colour.
Sabine Azema, Andre Dussollier, Anne Consigny, Emmanuel De Vos, Mathieu Amalric.
Directed by Alain Resnais.

Alain Resnais has an enormous reputation as a film-maker. With his 1955 short film, Night and Fog, about the concentration camps, he became a force in documentary film-making (at the age of twenty-three). His classic films of the 1960s including Hiroshima Mon Amour, Last Year at Marienbad, Muriel, The War is Over, were considered classics of French cinema of the period. In the 70s he made significant films like Stavisky and Providence. However, from the 1980s, he tended to move into more romantic, light and comic themes. Which means then that in his eighties, he actually made films which were much more soufflés than the substantial films that he used to make: Same Old Song, Not on the Lips, Private Fears and Public Places and this film, Wild Grass.

The film tends to be realistic until the end when it becomes rather surreal. It focuses on an incident where a woman’s bag is stolen, an older man finds her wallet in a parking lot and returns it to the police. What follows is a strange encounter, the obsession by the man with pursuing the woman, sight unseen, writing her letters and trying to get them back, phone calls. The woman, a dentist as well as a pilot in her spare time, is bewildered. So is the man’s wife. So is the other dentist working in partnership with the woman who lost her wallet. The police are also involved.

The film relies on some flippancy, lightness of touch, comic interpretations – and some existential dialogue, questions about the meaning of life, and the intricacies of language.

Resnais has an excellent cast led by Andre Dussollier, always reliable. Sabine Azema is sometimes irritating – and her red hair in this film looks as if she has seen too many ghosts or experienced electric shock. Anne Consigny is charming as Dussollier’s wife. In the supporting cast are top-liners, Emmanuel De Vos as the dentist and Matthieu Amalric as the police officer.

The film works on a light level, probing ageing, relationships, generations (with the children of the older couple coming to dinner). There is also acknowledgment of cinema as the older man goes to see The Bridges at Toko-Ri?, assessing it from the time that he saw it as a boy.

The film ends quite surrealistically, the central characters on a flight – and a crash. While there had been an embrace with Fin on the screen, there is another ending about a little girl speaking about something entirely different which leaves the audience up in the air.

1.A frothy entertainment? Very French? Wit, comedy, surrealism?

2.The work of the director? From the 1950s, his reputation for serious films? In his eighties? Comedy and slight films?

3.France, the settings, the city, the shops, the police station, parking lots, homes, cinema, restaurants? The musical score?

4.The aviation background? Georges and his knowledge, his background of planes? Marguerite and her pilot’s licence? The aerial sequences at the end?

5.The voice-over, the old man, his comments, style, memory lapses…?

6.Marguerite, the focus on her feet, buying the shoes, enjoying the experience, her purse being stolen, her going home, having a bath? Her excitement at its being returned? Her contacting the police, finding out the identity, ringing him? Her work as a dentist? Her skills as a pilot?

7.Georges, his age, shopping, getting the batteries for his watch, finding the wallet? His imagination? His references to killing and his hesitation? His existential language, asking questions, meaning of life, meaning of language? His relationship with his wife, her getting him to mow the lawn? Going to the police, the impression on the police, his way of speaking? The phone call from Marguerite, contacting her, writing the letter, attacking her for not giving a reward, the letter of apology, trying to get it back? The neighbour giving it to her? The phone calls, the letters, the questions, going over his conduct and behaviour? Qualifying things? The visit, staking out the house, slashing the tyres and leaving the note? The effect on him, on her?

8.Suzanne, her work, age, the dinner with the family, her patience with Georges, talking with Marguerite on the phone, the visits of Marguerite? Her puzzle about her husband?

9.Josepha, her work as a dentist, friendship with Marguerite, sharing with her, the patients, Marguerite and causing pain, Josepha taking over her clients? Going to the theatre, Marguerite’s insistence in going to Georges’ house? Her interaction with Georges? Her taking the family to the plane?

10.The Bridges at Toko- Ri, Georges going to see it, Marguerite driving to the cinema, having the coffee, waiting, talking with him, their clash? Her determination to go to his house, Josepha driving her, coming in with Georges, her talks with Suzanne?

11.The flight, everybody going to the airport, Marguerite and her friendship with the men, the buying of the plane, her going to sleep in the plane, their rousing her? Her taking people on joyrides? Taking Georges, letting him steer, the acrobatics?

12.The aerial photography, the plane and its movements, the crash?

13.The finale, the kiss with the 20th Century-Fox? anthem? ‘Fin’ coming on screen? The postscript with the little girl and her relevant, irrelevant comment?

14.The title, the images of grass: flip, frivolity, soufflé?

A BRAND NEW LIFE

Korea/France, 2009, 90 minutes, Colour.
Kim Saeron.
Directed by Ounie Lecomte.

A Brand New Life is a semi-autobiographical film by its writer-director, Ounie Lecomte.

Ounie herself was an orphan, abandoned by her natural father, in 1975 in Seoul. She spent some time at the convent orphanage of the Sisters of St Paul? of Chartres. From there she was adopted into a French family – and has lived in France most of her life, losing her knowledge of Korean.

After acting as an assistant director, production designer, she made a short film and wrote a screenplay based on her early life, not an exact account, but trying to project back into the mind of a little girl what it was like to be abandoned by her father and put in an institution. She sent the text of her screenplay to the celebrated Korean director Lee Chang Dong (Oasis, Secret Sunshine). He improved the dramatic content on the film and acted as one of the producers.

The film is very moving. Kim Saeron is quite extraordinary in her personification of the orphan, angry, spiteful, irritating to the audience at times, yet demanding compassion for the situation in which she found herself. The sisters are sympathetic, the principal of the orphanage eventually tries to track down her family but they have moved. The nurse is an interesting character insofar as she takes no nonsense from the little girl, disciplines her, but also has a sense for the little girl’s needs to vent her anger.

The film seems authentic. The children who act as orphans are quite persuasive. There are moving moments when they all sing Auld Lang Syne in Korean when one of their number is adopted.

Ultimately, the film is quite moving, and offers insight into the psychology of a little girl in such a situation. It is a tribute to herself and to her adopted family that she has been able to succeed so well in her career.

1.The work of the director, her own story, in retrospect, imagining again what it was like to be a girl of this age in such situations?

2.Seoul in 1975, the city, the countryside, the orphanage? The realism?

3.The atmosphere, the songs, the hymns, the little girl singing, the musical score?

4.The introduction to Jinhee, age nine, her bond with her father, loving him, the meal and her enjoyment, singing him a song, kissing him? The trip in the bus, her having to get out of the bus to relieve herself? Her foot stuck in the mud, her father washing her feet? Buying the cake, her choice? His leaving, his being generally seen in shadow rather than as a person?

5.The indications later of reasons for her being sent to the orphanage, the father’s new family, her injuring the baby with a safety pin? Her feelings of guilt, her explanation to the authorities of how she felt?

6.Jinhee and the orphanage, going on the tour, remembering the cake, seeing her father leave, the children eating the cake, the younger in preference to the older? Her anger, throwing the meal on the floor, Sookhee and her cleaning it up? Their playing the fortune-telling game? On the gate, wanting to run away, the nurse allowing her to leave, her going, coming back? Her refusal of the new clothes? Her tantrums, the dolls, breaking them, the nurse slapping her? Allowing her to smash the mat with the baseball? (**bat?) The principal, her interviews with him, his explanations about her father leaving her, her giving him the address, his search, not finding her family? The range of girls, their life, the dormitories, playing the fortune-telling game, the lame girl and her singing, the mass, the Christmas gifts, Jinhee smashing the dolls, going outside and digging her grave, covering herself with the dirt?

7.The portrayal of unhappiness, anger, venting the anger, scapegoating the other girls? Her hopes? The experience of betrayal by her father, assuming all people lied?

8.The genial nuns and their kindness? The principal doing his best? The nurse, her discipline, yet her insights into training Jinhee?

9.The new family, the ritual of orphans leaving and the girls singing Auld Lang Syne? The airport, the flight, her dream about her father taking her away? Meeting her new family?

10.The film as experiencing the feelings of a nine-year-old, her not having explanations, resources to deal with the crisis? The staff and their ability to help – or not? Yet the director turning out as a mature woman with a career?

DEMAIN DES L'AUBE (TOMORROW AT DAWN)

France, 2009, 100 minutes, Colour.
Vincent Perez, Jeremie Renier.
Directed by Denis Dercourt.

A duel. That is how this drama begins - 19th century Hussars fighting for honour of the regiment. In fact, they are 21st century men playing, ultra-seriously, at history war games and adhering to a creed that places military honour above every other code and belief. They are 21st century duellists.

The film is about two brothers and their bonds. The younger is a factory worker (Jeremie Renier) who loves this re-living and fighting of history. The older (Vincent Perez) is a world-renowned pianist and teacher who is undergoing what his wife and agent calls 'an existentialist crisis'. The brothers are also caring for the ill mother.

Director Denis Dercourt, a musician, player and teacher, has shown his love for music in The Page Turner and how to incorporate it into drama. It is the same here. However, there are sinister suggestions as to how far grown military-aping men (who are still childish in their games and petulance) will go to maintain the code and an interrupted duel. The ending is so open that audiences will have to discern and decide what will or should happen to the brothers.

1.Contemporary story, the emphasis on French history, on music? The blend?

2.The city settings, homes, hospitals, restaurants, recording studios? Authentic?

3.The music selection, the classics? The performances, the music lessons?

4.The countryside, the highway, the fields, the re-enactments of the battles?

5.The opening duel, Paul, 19th century uniforms, the skill of the duellists, Paul and his wounding his adversary? The surgeon-general? The supervisor of the duel? Their returning home to ordinary life?

6.Matthieu and his music lesson, his impatience, the notations, his playing? His relationship with his wife, her being his agent, love for his son? The scenes of school, picking him up? The plan to tour Japan, his backing out, going to care for his mother instead? His wife keeping up the pretence?

7.Matthieu and his relationship with Paul, the bonds between the two brothers, relating to their mother, her illness, her personality, coping, going to hospital? Their visits?

8.Paul and his work in the factory, inviting Matthieu to the re-enactments, Matthieu to go, dressing up? The code for the group, Matthieu and his experience of fencing, testing himself with Paul? His arrival, registration, uniform, the gathering, his insulting his adversary? The build-up to the duel and the challenge? His decision to go? Fighting, the fact that one should not attack the face or private parts? The fighting, the wounding his adversary in the face? Meeting the representative in the restaurant? The continuation of the duel? The irony of the surgeon-general being a nurse at the hospital? Paul going in his stead?

9.Crystelle, meeting Paul, their talking, her music lesson, later meeting Paul? A future?

10.The mother, her illness, her love for her sons, going into coma, the doctors?

11.Matthieu and the truth, his meeting with his wife, the discussion with the executives about the contract, playing Ravel? His agreement? His coming to his senses – the existential crisis? Going to record? His success?

12.His leaving, driving, seeing Paul at the duel, the adversary shooting and missing Paul? Matthieu taking over and killing his opponent?

13.The issues of honour, codes? Their meaning? The men, dress-up, masks, their identity as historical figures, in real life, the issue of being childish and not growing up? Hanging on to the creed of honour?

14.The open ending – what happened, what would the brothers do? The future for each of them?

LOS ABRAZOS ROTOS (BROKEN EMBRACES)

Spain, 2009, 129 minutes, Colour.
Penelope Cruz, Lluis Homar, Blanca Portillo, Jose Luis Gomez.
Directed by Pedro Almodovar.

Almodovar, light.

After the serious themes of his films from the last ten years or more, Almodovar takes a more relaxed approach to a film about film-making and obsessions, light with serious touches.

The film opens mysteriously with a blind screenwriter who used to be a director. When he hears news of the death of a tycoon in Madrid, it initiates a story about the tycoon's son wanting to make a film about/against his father. This leads to memories and flashbacks: the tycoon and his secretary, Lena, her becoming his mistress, her wanting to act in films, her involvement in the film and the tycoon producing, her affair with the director. The son, meanwhile, is on set and videos everything. What happens doesn't need rocket science to anticipate. Rather, it is the pleasure of watching the glossy proceedings with Almodovar's elegant and colourful touches and the performances. Jose Luis Gomez is the sinister, obsessed tycoon, Lluis Homar is the director. Blanca Portillo is very strong as the agent who has kept secrets for years.

And, of course, Penelope Cruz who can't but help illuminate the screen with her charm, beauty and presence.

Almodovar, light.

1.Almodovar with the light touch? The blend of drama, comic touches, love, relationships, film-making?

2.The background of the 1990s, social concerns in Madrid? Film-making? Holidays, Lanzarote? The contrast with 2008? Madrid, film-making and editing? The musical score?

3.The focus on relationships, the title? Love, obsession, the consequences?

4.The introduction to Matteo/Harry? The voice-over of Harry, his comment about his identities, identifying as a writer? Blind, at home, talking to the girl that helped him, the newspaper information, the death of Ernesto, the sexual encounter, Judid and her arrival, her looks and comment? The girl leaving? Diego arriving, working with Harry, their writing? Ray X and his arrival, his pitch about making the film about his father, his dislike of his father, homophobia? Matteo getting Diego to check the photo, identifying Ray X as Ernesto’s son? Diego seeing the photo of Lena? Diego and his work with Harry, the discussions of vampires – and the humorous and elaborate scenario about vampires for a film?

5.Judid, Harry’s agent, fussing about him, stern, Diego’s mother, her having to go away for her agency work? Diego and his work as a deejay, his friends in the club, the drugs, his collapse? Harry and his keeping vigil, helping Diego recover?

6.Judid and her secrets, Diego’s reaction to his mother’s secrets? His asking Harry? Harry narrating the events of the 1990s? The occasion for flashbacks?

7.The earlier introduction about Ernesto, information about his illness, his being held for fraud, his imprisonment? The past, 1992, Lena as his secretary? Her being upset while he did dictation? Her father’s illness, going to the hospital, discussions with her mother, taking the father home? The need for money? Her identity as a callgirl, the phone calls to the director, Severine? The irony of Ernesto phoning? Her anger with the madam? Two years passing, her being Ernesto’s mistress? The comment about her having to be an actress in playing this role? Her wanting an audition for the film, to be an actress? Meeting Matteo, the awkwardness of her audition? Her return? Ernesto’s suspicions, wanting her to be the equivalent of a wife, decorating the home? Lena and the success and her being employed?

8.Matteo and her being smitten, the filming, the relationship, their deceiving Ernesto, Lena performing for Ernesto?

9.Ernesto Jr, spoilt young man, the two marriages, gay, his partner, his manner? In the 90s, on the film set, his appearance, filming everything? The later information about his video, the documentary? Wanting to complete it with an interview with Matteo?

10.Ernesto, the lip-reader, spying, his producing the film, controlling it, the weekend with Lena, her reaction, his playing dead, the lip-reading and his discovering the truth about her deception?

11.Confronting Lena, pushing her down the stairs, her being in hospital, her making the deal about finishing the film? Her poor performance, Matteo’s concern? The rewrite to explain her being in a cast?

12.Matteo and Lena escaping to Lanzarote, the weeks passing, reading the bad reviews? In the car, the kiss, the lights, their being hit by the car? Lena’s death? Matteo, the surgery, blind?

13.Judid’s return, Matteo becoming himself rather than Harry? Going out to dinner to celebrate, Judid telling the complete truth, about Ernesto, her own jealousy, she and the editor ruining the film?

14.Matteo going to Ernesto Jr, his threats? Diego watching the video? The reality of the last kiss, Ernesto helping them to get to hospital?

15.Judid having all the old stock, her decision, Matteo wanting to edit it, the group watching the scene – the light and jokey nature of the film, the girls and suitcases, Lena with the older woman, the drug dealer, the comments about sexuality…?

16.The happy ending, embraces broken and repaired? Matteo and Diego being his son – finding out or not?

THIRST: CECI EST MON SANG

Korea, 2009, 133 minutes, Colour.
Song Kang- Ho, Kim Ok- Vin.
Directed by Park Chan- Wook.

Whew! (and that's an understatement). Another word that springs to mind is 'Bonkers'! And then one reads in the final credits that Thirst has been inspired by Emile Zola's Therese Raquin. Not that one would immediately notice.

Park Chan- Wook's reputation, and a strong one it is, does not depend on reticence or ordinariness. Old Boy, Sympathy for Lady Vengeance..., not exactly restrained. He goes for the full, hard-hitting melodrama.

Thirst is full of themes that will have analysts buzzing for a long time. One of the difficulties of making a film which glories in genres, conventions (and breaking them) and the absurd is that if you spend a quarter of the film in a very, very serious tone, pondering on illness, mortality, the role of the Catholic priest, self-discipline and self-sacrifice even to medical martyrdom, the transition to (or descent into) what Park Chan- Wook labels as vampire melodrama, you can just go whoosh or you can lead your audience where you want them to go. Thirst opts more for the whoosh.

Spoiling plot development a little, we can say that the priest dies a saint, and people want healings from him. But an unknown injection of blood turns him into a vampire. To be fair, he knows that he has been transformed even damned, and while he does not want to kill anyone, his vow of celibacy becomes more than a stumbling block.

Before he died, the priest was a sympathetic pastor. On his return a mother wants him to cure her son of cancer. The son is an old acquaintance, as his wife, who was also an orphan like the priest.

To avoid describing how the priest and the wife become unnatural born killers, suffice it to say that there is a lot of blood lust and the ordinary lust. Which gives the director the opportunity, not to offer us refelections on faith, commitment, sin and free will, but to explore these themes through the melodrama and the tantalising symbol of a priest unwittingly and unwillingly turned devil-figure and his moral struggles, all in the context of contemporary Korean society with its traditional religions, unbelief and the presence of Christian minorities.

The film goes on for thirty minutes or more after it has virtually ended, the director playing with horror and vampiric images, ready for a laugh as well as a gasp, the film becoming (intentionally) sillier. Finally, the sun comes up, the priest and the wife have no cover....

1.Expectations from the work of the director? Fulfilled – beyond?

2.The director and his tradition of Korean horror, melodrama? The visceral response, the emotional response? Reflection on themes?

3.The film based on the novel by Zola, Therese Raquin? Love, illicit love? His transferring the vampire film traditions? Into Korean horror?

4.The Korean city, the hospital, the streets and apartments, the shop? The monastery? The contrast with the countryside, the coast and the cliffs? The underlying realism? The sequences in Africa, the centre, the grounds?

5.The plot and treatment as absurd? The first part serious, transferring to the vampire genre, going beyond? The effect?

6.The serious establishing of the plot: the priest, a good man, patient, prayer, hospital chaplain? In the monastery, his obedience to the blind friar? Hearing the nurse’s confession, comments on suicide and depression? Her response about the physical penance and his keeping to prayer? His quest, the experience of people dying in the hospital, the discussions about martyrdom, the role of the Devil making martyrs?

7.Going to Africa, the friar not wanting him to go? His explanation of his motivation to the doctor, to the video? The centre not wanting martyrs nor suicide candidates? The regimen in the centre, playing volleyball, the room, playing the flute? Peace? His playing the flute and the blood coming? His death?

8.The serious presentation of the themes and characters to this point?

9.The priest reviving, six months later, the mystery of what happened to him, the bandage, going back to the monastery, discussions with the friar, the people approaching him, wanting miracles, the mother demanding the cure for her son’s cancer?

10.The new story, the priest, his transfusion, devout, the young man with the cancer, the discovery that he was healed? Knowing the family in the past, the young man’s wife, the orphanage? Their being friends and playing?

11.His growing need for blood, the patient in the hospital in coma, the comic touches of his search? The way that he drank the blood? The effect on him as a person, his vocation, not wanting to kill people, the temptations to lust, his beating himself in his cell? With the wife, their encounters, interrupted by the mother? The celibacy crisis?

12.His decision, being one of the undead, experiencing Hell, bloodlust, physical lust? His discussions with the friar, the friar’s desire for blood in order that he might see the sunrise? His decision to leave the monastery? The newfound freedom?

13.His dealings with the family, their characters, the possessive mother, dominating, her drinking? Her son, foolish? The shop, the mother’s domination of her daughter-in-law?

14.The group going fishing, the official and his permit? The wife and her despising of her husband? The plan to kill him? In the water, drowning, being rescued? The fishing line in the wife’s ear? The priest hiding the body, the stone over him? The reappearance of the man in the dreams?

15.The wife and the priest, painting the apartment white, staying in at daytime? Love and passion? Going to the hospital for blood? Her going to the highway, causing car crashes, the blood from the victims, burying the dead?

16.The clash between the two, their principles, the wife taunting the priest, yet the mad love?

17.The mother, the stroke, in the chair, her friends coming to gamble, the difficulties about the fishing and the dead bodies? The Filipino wife? The games, the mother and her tapping, blinking, communicating, indication of the murder?

18.The priest and the wife and the treatment of the mother – in the horror film style?

19.The fight between the two, whether to kill or not? The wife changing, the priest not? The blood and the healing of the disease? The mysterious healings? The wife and her slashes, healed? Going to the hospital? The exposure to the friends, the wife going into frenzy, killing the guests? The priest and the Filipino woman – killing her or not?

20.The priest’s decision, the car, going to the cliff, the mother in the back with the music? The wife trying to hide in the boot of the car, his throwing away the cover? Hiding under the car? Finally sitting on the car, the sun rising, the views, their deaths?

21.How well did the serious, the vampire genre, the comic and the absurd combine?

FRENCH FILM

UK, 2008, 90 minutes, Colour.
Hugh Bonneville, Victoria Hamilton, Annemarie Duff, Douglas Henshall, Jean Dell, Eric Cantona.
Directed by Jackie Oudney

Is there such a thing as a French Film? Indeed, yes, and the French would be the first to say so. In this British French film, it is the very English journalist, Jed (Hugh Bonneville) who says it first. He is watching a Master Class by a celebrated director, Thierry Grimandi (played with all the right seriousness by former footballer and now actor and the subject of Ken Loach's Looking for Eric). It is driving him mad: the ponderous musings on l'amour, the pretentious observations about the end being in the beginning, the intrusive closeups of eyes and of coffee cups. His partner of 10 years, Cheryl (Victoria Hamilton) thinks it is all romantic. In fact, they are off to see a counsellor, played with just the right laconic sympathy by Jean Deal. Jed has proposed. Cheryl has said no. Did he want to say yes or to say no?

Jed's friend Marcus (Douglas Henshall) and his girlfriend, Sophie (Anne Marie Duff) are having a meal with Jed and Cheryl despite the bad counselling session and x reveals how he and Sophie met. She saved his life as he was going to jump for a bridge. Marcus is a Grimaldi fan and this story will come up again with a twist at the end of the film.

Marcus falls in love with his childhood sweetheart who has just reappeared in his life. Sophie is bewildered. Jed and Cheryl have some breakthrough sessions which alter their lives. And, all the time, Grimandi comments are intercut and the British love story becomes more and more French, even to the cofee and the close-ups. When Jed actually interviews Grimandi on stage, the love story comes to a head.

And, if that sounds intriguing, then you will just have to see it to find out how it all works out. Nicely acted., well-written, observant with tongue-in-cheek, British light but French serious.

1.A romantic comedy, a wry romantic comedy?

2.Themes of love, beginning and end, never? Awareness of needs? Desire for company? Falling in love – and the different taste of coffee? The feeling of can’t be without the partner? Commitment? Folly? Honesty?

3.The title, the introduction, the theory about film, love and beginnings, the man spending the night with the woman, thinking she was a prostitute, the fact that she was a dentist? The truth, lies? The set-up? The beginning and the end – irony?

4.Grimandi and his master class? French, l'amour, cerebral, the heart, pretentious comments? Jed’s British reaction? Cheryl thinking he was romantic? His comments interspersed throughout the film? The experience of film, the close-ups, the eyes, the coffee, the intensity? Jed and the later interview and Grimandi and his theories? Marcus and the story of his falling in love, Sophie saving his life, using Grimandi’s film? Deception and response? True or not? Insight? The ending?

5.Jed as a journalist, his reaction to Grimandi, the difficulties of his partnership with Cheryl, going to the counsellor, unwilling, the counsellor’s techniques, his impatience, having to talk to Cheryl? The hurt? His friendship with Marcus, meeting Sophie, listening to the story of the suicide, meeting Marcus and having discussions, the news about Kate, his feeling bad not telling Sophie, the visits to the counsellor? Saying that he loved Cheryl to bits, the counsellor pointing (*out?) that this was not love? Going out with Sophie, the interview and her presence, the crisis with the film, his return, pleading with her, going to Waterloo station, his punching Marcus?

6.Cheryl, her character, the past, drinking, dependence on Jed, the ten years? Grimandi as romantic? Wanting to go to the counsellor, expressing her hurts? The proposal, her saying no? The dinner with Marcus and Sophie? Discovering that she had not been in love with Jed? The break-up? Feeling free?

7.Marcus, the Scotsman, friendship with Jed, the relationship with Sophie, the story about the attempted suicide, the flashback and visualising it, her talking him down, love? The meals, the outings with Jed? Kate and the story, the schoolgirl crush, the infatuation, keeping it a secret? Sophie being hurt? The film, her walking out? Waterloo, seeing Jed punch Marcus, having the coffee with him? Being by herself, welcoming Jed back?

8.Sophie and her life, love for Marcus, the lies, the attraction to Jed, her feeling bad, anger at his keeping the secret? Thinking things over – a future?

9.The counsellor, his presence, style, questions, getting them to address each other, his smiles? Congratulations?

10.Grimandi, the interview, French arrogance, confidence, the clips, the truth, the lies – and the beginnings?

11.A happy ending, Cheryl in the restaurant – and Grimandi being present?

NO-ONE KNOWS ABOUT PERSIAN CATS

Iran, 2009, 106 minutes, Colour.
Nagar Shagajghi, Ashkan Koashanejad, Ahmed Behdad.
Directed by Bahman Ghobady.

It seems that pets should neither be seen nor heard in Tehran. But, that is a symbol for the underground music movement in the country, neither seen nor heard. Definitely underground.

Kurdish director Bahman Ghobodi has made the fine, award-winning films, A Time for Drunken Horses and Turtles can Fly. However, a project he was working on for two years did not meet with government approval and the project collapsed in a waste of time. Should he make a film about that experience? A lover of music, he decided to make a film about the contemporary music situation (rather than music scene) in Iran, the suspicion of music by Islam and women's singing being prohibited.

With a digital camera and a type of guerrilla filming in 17 days, he has produced a film that dramatises the situation, introduces a number of groups and their song performances (and music video styles) and creates characters who have been imprisoned but who want to sing, who want to leave the country but are unable to get passports and visas, who are the mercy of agents who are at best deviously successful or, at worst, con men who themselves are conned or fall foul of the law.

There is a sympathetic lead, Ashkan. There is one of the most irritating leading ladies, the always suspicious and whining Negar, and the most exuberant amateur entrepreneur with non-stop patter, a way with persuasion and a claim to be knowledgable about the movies and movie stars.

The film basically follows the rehearsals, the planning, listening to other groups – with great exuberance despite the pessimism.

1.The work of the director? His Kurdish films? His Kurdish background? Attempting to make films in Teheran? Government interference? His decision to make this film?

2.The director’s interest in popular music? The status of music in Iran? Islamic suspicions of music? The forbidding of women singing in public? The antipathy towards contemporary styles? American styles?

3.The Iranian music underground? The film illustrating the various groups, the personalities, their singing, the different styles, traditional, modern, American, rap? Their insertion into the film – and the use of music video styles to illustrate them?

4.The opening, the director and the recording, just for morale-boosting? The women wanting to record songs?

5.The director, the encounter with Nagar and Ashkan? Ashcan in prison? His supporting them, introducing them to the agent, the link with David and the possibility of getting passports and visas?

6.Ashkan and his background, singing? Nagar, her personality, irritable and suspicious, complaining? Her support of Ashkan? Her continued worries, problems? The irony that she was justified?

7.Ashkan and Nagar and their working with the director, practising the music, with the band, discovering the other groups?

8.The agent, his comedy, spiels, English, imitation of stars? The promising the world? The director guaranteeing his word?

9.The agent, his contacts, David, the possibility of passports? The phone calls, his disappearing? His reassuring the group? The finale, the party, his being drunk, the phone call about David’s arrest? His dismay? The police taking him?

10.The concert, David’s presence, his being arrested?

11.Ashkan and the invitation to the party, the young people, the drinking and the drugs, the music? Anti-establishment? The police raid?

12.Ashkan and his falling from the window? Nagar and her waiting outside, seeing this, her killing herself? The final scene of Ashkan in the ambulance and the possibility of his living?

13.The exuberance of the music and the rebel style? The comment on Iranian society, religion? Leaders and government? The possibilities of rebellion against the contemporary leaders in the country? The overall pessimism concerning the personalities and music?

MY NEIGHBOUR, MY KILLER

US/France, 2009, 80 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Anne Aghion.

Anne Aghion has made a film about Nicaragua in the past and Antarctica in the present. In the meantime, for nine years, she has been filming on and off in Rwanda and produced three hour-long documentaries on the aftermath of the1994 genocide. This time she has made an 80 minute film on the Gacaca Tribunals set up by the Rwandan government in 2001 where open air hearings bring the accused and the survivors together, with 'citizen-judges who try their neighbours and rebuild the nation'. Is this possible?

The crew spent much of the time between 2003 and 2008 in the village of Gafumba taking 350 hours of footage. Clearly, there is a great deal of material where the women remember and still grieve. One woman says that her seven children were killed in front of her and her baby torn from her back and beaten to death. They let her live because she had become a person of suffering and sorrow and would die. How can this be forgiven?

Several of the Hutu killers also speak, describing their guard tours around their villages to suppress the Tutsis or admitting the atrocities they committed. We hear some of the sentences and the reasons, the appeals for clemency and the release of those who had served their sentences.

Where this film is more powerful and horrifying than most is not in the presentation of violence – no visuals, only verbal descriptions – but in the reality of gazing with the camera lens at the testimonies of the men and women on both sides, listening to the stories, knowing that nothing can be undone and always puzzling on how the burdens of grief and the burdens of guilt can be reconciled.

No white person appears on screen. There is no voiceover. Yes, it is edited, but it is also well-documented testimony.

1.The impact of the film? The documentation of Rwanda?

2.Audience knowledge of Rwanda, the 90s, the genocide? The role of the Hutus and the government? The massacre of three-quarters of the Tutsi population? The cruelty, the machetes? The stealing of cattle and land? The role of the United Nations, the world standing by?

3.The aftermath, the new government? The decision in 2001 to set up the Gacaca tribunals? Hearings held in the open, in the villages? The citizens becoming judges, trying their neighbours for the crimes, helping to rebuild the nation? The sittings over several years?

4.The number of prisoners? Their being in jail for years? Their being tried? The sentences, clemency?

5.The title, the reality of Hutus killing Tutsis? Within villages? Within families?

6.The director being unobtrusive, five years in filming in the village, the amount of material to be edited? Her keeping in the background? There being no voice-over but the Africans speaking for themselves?

7.The long takes, the opportunity to look at the women speaking, to listen to them, to listen to them talking to each other? The men, their being questioned? Interviews, their speeches before the tribunals?

8.The women, their suffering, the deaths of their children? Their living with grief? Their not wanting to live? Knowing the murderers? The question of whether they could forgive them or not? The mother and her baby being beaten, her being left alive as a woman of sorrows and suffering?

9.The men, the man describing his tours of duty in the village? The man denying that he was responsible for the deaths and the women saying that he was lying? The man in the tribunal and his admitting what he did?

10.The officials, the explanation of the tribunals? The judges, the sentences?

11.The cumulative effect of experiencing this testimony?

12.The model of the tribunals, some kind of forgiveness, some kind of reconciliation, some kind of rebuilding? In view of the tragedies and massacres in Africa in the 21st century?