FISH TANK

UK, 2009, 120 minutes, Colour.
Katie Jarvis, Michael Fassbinder, Kierston Wareing, Rebecca Griffiths, Harry Treadaway.
Directed by Andrea Arnold.

A slice of British urban life, with the 15 year old Mia observed as if she were in a tank, close-up, swimming in a confined space and unable to get out. Later in the film, a fish is caught in a pool, then, gasping for air, it is skewered. The kinder thing to do, one of the characters said. Later, we see the fish was not eaten by the family as intended. The pet dog is chewing on it. Metaphors and symbols. (There is also an old horse in a car junkyard that Mia wants to free.)

Andrea Arnold won the Jury Prize in Cannes 2006 for her keenly observed Scottish drama, Red Road. This time she is in Essex having lost none of this keenness of observation. This is not unlike Mike Leigh territory. He often has strong leading women characters. Leigh has his cast improvise without knowing the details of the screenplay which he forges out of these improvisations. Andrea Arnold did not reveal the plot to any of the cast. She let them know the nature of each scene step by step and the cast did their best. This is an admirable test of acting skill. It is all the more remarkable because Katie Jarvis the lead had never acted, never danced (and had to learn this key element for her character) and was sighted on a railway station. It is a standout performance.

Mia is 15, school rebel, has a younger, very cheeky sister and a mother who was probably like Mia at that age but with less determination for life. She is no role model for her daughters. Her current boyfriend, Connor (Michael Fassbender), takes a shine to Mia, though she dislikes him. After going on the car ride where the above-mentioned fish was caught, she responds positively to him. He encourages her in her interest in dancing and going to a club audition. But... sexual advances and her response to Connor on his telling her she was only 15, 'it's all right if you like someone'.

Mia makes some huge mistakes that could have ruined her life. But, underneath the constant rage and manifestations of anger – the culture depicted here in the family and beyond is 'I bicker, therefore I am' – Mia has some determination and seems to be about to act on it as she says goodbye to her family (mother and sister dancing with her) and a balloon wafts up, over and out of the estate.

Yes, it has been done before. But this telling is expertly made and Katie Jarvis' performance guarantees this.

1.The impact of the film as a slice of life? Contemporary, urban? The United Kingdom? Universal?

2.The title: Mia as in a fish tank, the life tank, confined, unable to get out? The later fish symbol? Caught, breathing, skewered, not eaten by the family, eaten by the dog? The later symbol of the white horse that was sixteen years old and Mia wanted to free? Its having to be put down?

3.The realism, authentic, the housing estate, the individual flats, the verandahs, the overall views of the facades? The streets, the club? The contrast with the paddock, the junkyard, the horse? Essex, Tilbury, homes, the pool, the sea?

4.The songs, California Dreamin’? The musical score?

5.Mia as the focus, the anchor for the film, the strength of the performance, the actress’s inexperience yet striking presence? Strong and convincing? Age, fifteen, out of school, the visit of the inspector? Her mother, careless life, not a role model, her men? Mia’s lifestyle, her room, her relationship with Tyler? The bickering in the household? Mia exercising, dancing, her talent? Phoning Keely, seeing her dancing with the girls, the insults? Wanting to free the horse? Billy, the other boys taunting her, taking her purse? Her return and meeting Billy? Establishing her character?

6.Her going in and out of the flat, Tyler at home, listening to music, rehearsing, seeing the notice, her plan for the audition, with Connor, Connor affirming this, watching the rehearsal, her going to the audition, letting her hair down, walking out? Seeing the judges, the fat lady auditioning?

7.Connor, seeing him at home, in the kitchen, his provocative presence, her mother and relationships, sexuality? The phone calls, Connor living in, Mia critical, going through his wallet, knowing where he worked? The excursion to the fish, catching the fish, Mia hurting herself, his looking after her leg, at his workplace? Playing California Dreamin’?

8.Connor, the drinking, the night with Mia, the talk, affirming her, the sexual encounter, his boasting about his prowess, his stopping, her being fifteen, his leaving?

9.Mia being upset, going to search for him, walking, finding the house, Connor coming out, his reaction, driving her to the station, giving her the money? Her standing at the station, decision to return, breaking into the house, seeing the video and learning the truth about his family, urinating on the floor, escaping when the family came back, Kiera in the video?

10.Watching Kiera on the scooter, deciding to abduct her, chasing her, the tension, the fight, her falling into the sea, rescuing her? Connor finding out, hitting her?

11.Mia and the school inspector, her intentions? Her going to the audition? Her not staying?

12.Billy, telling her about the horse dying, the prospect of taking the repaired car to Wales, inviting her to go?

13.The farewell dance in the kitchen with her mother and sister? Tyler running after the car, Mia looking back, waving?

14.The balloon, floating up, over, out of the estate? Symbolic ending?

15.Mia, her anger and rage, frustration, the bickering, lack of role models, hopeless and needing affirmation, young and inexperienced, her values, morals and lack of morals? Her looking back? But deciding to go – and knowing that there was more to life?

CHUN FENG CHEN ZUI DE YE WAN (SPRING FEVER)

China, 2009, 115 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Lou Ye.

Lies, secrets, infidelities, sexuality, identity. A great number of themes, especially for a Chinese film that deals with same-sex and bisexual relationships presented in direct and sometimes explicit ways.

However, the film is hard going, wandering at times, even meandering, and long. A plot driven by action and causes it is not. Rather, it is episodic, characters moving in and out of one another's lives, sometimes for a considerable length of screen time. The film is a co-production with France (Lou Ye has had years of difficulties with Chinese censorship and is at present banned from China for five years) which may have contributed to the visual style, often long close-ups, hand-held digital camera following the characters. Much of the footage is dark and shadowy, reflecting either and economy of production or a thematic of shadowiness.

The film does not have the hope of spring and the fever is often subdued and interiorised except for the passionate sequences. The film uses the symbol of the lotus visually and in texts read from a Chinese author in Nanjing in 1923, poetic texts, enigmatic texts which suggest that the protagonists are all floating in the uncertainties of their choices and the emotional consequences.

1.A Chinese film, French co-production? The director, controversy, his reputation, being banned in China? Controversial issues in his films?

2.The Nanjing setting, the old capital, the spirit of the city compared with Beijing or Shanghai, the author quoted and his living there in the early 20th century? His book in 1923?

3.The style of the film, visually dark, the focus on the lotus, digital camerawork, fluid movement, the emphasis on close-ups?

4.The structure: narrative, causal or not, episodic, crossed paths and journeys? The musical score, the songs?

5.Sexuality, relationships, marriage, infidelity, man to man, bisexuality, the place of women? The visuals, the psychological? Sexuality within marriage, with the young student, the transvestites and the clubs?

6.The opening and the two men, the trip, casual, the sexual encounter, the young student taking photos, bringing them to the wife? The man’s later discovering them? His deceit, meeting the other man, the cover story about the university, having the meal together, the travel agent knowing that the wife knew? The wife, her upset, the family, not willing to divorce her husband, her anger, breaking the office of the travel agent, fighting with her husband, his slapping her? His suicide and her reaction, paying off the student? Attempting to kill the lover?

7.The married man, his love, decision, his lies, loneliness, feeling bereft, the lover cutting him off, the fruitless phone calls, his going to the park, killing himself?

8.The travel agent, his life, work, relationships, the wife and her reaction, trashing his office, severing the relationship, not answering the phone? Taking refuge in the clubs, the bars, drinking, wandering? The young man and his contact, admiring him, drinking, going home, the mutual advances, leaving? The young man’s sexual image, the mirror? His deciding to stay, bringing his girlfriend? The bisexual behaviour? The shower and his relationship with the agent? The girl seeing the kiss? The three going to the bar, the songs? Three going on the road, the effect? The young woman going? The two men breaking up on the road, leaving and weeping? The wife slitting the agent’s throat? His survival, getting the lotus tattoo, with the woman at the end?

9.The factory girl, her love for the student, their dates, meals, the raid in the factory, her being told to take the money from the boss, the relationship with the boss, his coming out of prison, going to the restaurant, her being upset? Abandoning him? Her place in the threesome?

10.The end – and the agent by himself, with the woman? The meaning of sexuality? Identity? The importance of being neither male nor female but human? The impact for the perspective of Chinese people? For audiences around the world?

LA FILLE DU RER (THE GIRL ON THE TRAIN)

France, 2009, 100 minutes, Colour.
Emilie Duquenne, Catherine Deneuve, Michel Blanc.
Directed by Andre Techine.

The Girl on the Train sounds like any other drama or thriller. It is and it isn't. In the hands of veteran director, Andre Techine, it becomes a classy but sometimes ordinary French drama.

The girl in question is 20 year old Jeanne (Emilie Duquenne) who is in need of a job, lives with her mother (Catherine Deneuve) who is a nice grandmotherly child minder. Jeanne roller blades a good deal and catches the eye of champion wrestler. x. Because her mother wanted her to apply for a job with a Jewish lawyer, Samuel Bleistein (Michel Blanc), whom she and her husband knew from their army days, issues of anti-Semitism and contemporary bigotry and attacks on Jews in France are introduced.

The cast does bring their characters to life, bringing a multi-dimensional depth to their personalities and their problems, including those of the next generations of Bleisteins. Jeanne and x are used by a drug lord to caretake the building where he stores the drugs. This leads to disaster. Jeanne, who looks so attractive that we don't think of her as having mental problems then acts on stories she has heard about the attacks on Jews (getting off the train) and creates embarrassment for her mother and for the Bleistein family and a crisis for herself.

An above average ordinary film which audiences won't rush to but should feel quite satisfied after seeing it.

1.A typical French drama? Relationships? Psychological dimensions? The Jewish and anti-Semitic dimensions?

2.The title, the credits with the tunnel, the many scenes of the trains, the score intense with the trains, people travelling on the Parisian underground, the anti-Semitic attacks on the railway stations?

3.Paris, the city, homes? The offices? The contrast with the countryside, the mansion, the rivers? The weather and the rain?

4.The portrait of Jeanne? Her age, seeing her rollerblading, listening to the music, the Bob Dylan song? Her living with her mother, her mother wanting to get a job as a secretary, composing the letter, going to the interview, eager to please, but unqualified, making the family connection? The information given to her by her mother? Meeting the young man rollerblading, hiding in the shop, his conning the owner into selling her the suitcase? The phone calls, their meeting, going out, talking, the bond between them, going home to his apartment and the joke with Tom, his wrestling photos, the wrestling bout, going with her mother? The dinner, the proposal? Their caretaking the building, the young man not telling her about the drugs? Happy? The shock of discovering the young man stabbed? Going to the hospital, the reaction of the police, the interrogation, the tape and her not being arrested? Yet the humiliation of her going to the police station, stripped, changing into the garb? The effect on her? The young man not wanting to see her? Her making up the story, having heard it on the television? Cutting herself, her giving the story to the press, the reaction, the business card with the Bleistein name on it? Going to the Bleistein family, the interrogation, Samuel and his not believing her? The young boy and his knowing the truth? The night with the young boy and discussions? Samuel dictating the letter, taking it to the police, her sentence? Her promising to have treatment?

5.Louise, her life story, love for her husband, Samuel and his letter? Her looking after the children, her good manner with them? Concern about Jeanne? Writing the letter and the preparation for the interview? The letter from Bleistein? Contacting him, the concert, her not going in, his waiting? Going later to see him, concern about the young man, needing a lawyer? Her impression of the young man, watching him wrestle, talking at the dinner? Jeanne and the story about the attack, going to visit the Bleisteins, their hospitality, her weariness, not being able to believe that Jeanne did this, wondering why? The apology, going back home, minding the children?

6.The young man, rollerblades, the conning to buy the case, going out with Jeanne, taking her to the apartment, Tom and the joke, the wrestling bout, winning, taking Jeanne and her mother for the meal, the discussions with the drug lord, the taking over the building, caretakers, the happy time with Jeanne? Stopping the drug dealer, his being stabbed, in hospital? Not wanting to see Jeanne? Saying he would do it all over again – and the final interview about Jeanne and the truth with Samuel?

7.The Bleinsteins, the father coming back from Beijing, separation from his wife, concern about his son, wanting to take him to Venice? His coming back to his wife? The wife, her work for Samuel, writing his TV text? Devout, the husband the atheist, wanting the bar mitzvah for the boy? The truth about Jeanne? The joyous celebration of the bar mitzvah and the feast?

8.The young boy, relationship with his parents, seeing that they had messed up their lives, their demands that he obey them? His comments about Jeanne and the truth? Helping her in the rain, the night in his den? The bar mitzvah?

9.How interesting and satisfying the story’s drama, relationships, the focus on anti-Semitic problems, riots and bigotry – and the bringing in of the president, the media and the police making the issue political?

UP

US, 2009, 90 minutes, Colour.
Voices of: Ed Asner, Christopher Plummer, Jordan Nagai, Bob Robertson, Delroy Lindo.
Directed by Pete Docter and Bob Robertson.

A cinema delight. The American lady next to me broke into laughter many times and declared at the end that it was 'adorable'. A great choice to open the 2009 Cannes Festival in a time of recession. Money does not make the world go round!

Why a delight? An endearing plot that leads to many zany developments. Sympathetic characters: a grandfather-figure and a boy who needs a male role model. A hiss-the-villain. Bright Pixar animation and excellent voices for the characters. Some birds and animals that can take their place amongst the best of animated creatures. A thoughtful and funny screenplay with plenty of verbal and sound jokes as well as its deeper human feelings. There is 3D but, as Pete Docter noted, it is meant to be a window on to the events, not a 'lion in your lap', objects 'comin' at ya' exploitation of the technique. This is beginning to sound like a rave review – and, well, why not?

A warning. While there are some smiles in the first 20 minutes with an introduction of a 40s-style Movietown News and an introduction to two gawky kids, silent bespectacled Carl and chattering, gap-teeth, spiky hair Ellie who want to live lives of adventure when they grow up, one begins to think that this won't be a funny Pixar film at all and, we might wonder, how will the kiddies react? There follows a most moving collage of episodes in Carl's and Ellie's marriage and how they were not able to live their childhood dreams (which is reprised beautifully towards the end as Carl looks at the album of photos of their lives, the adventure of their marriage). And now that Carl is old, is it the nursing home ('Shady Oaks') for him and will the developers be able to take possession of his old house which is in the centre of a building site?

At this point, the film literally takes off, or at least Carl's house does, in the vein of The Wizard of Oz, with the myriad balloons he had sold to children over the years wafting him away. But, he is not alone. Russell, aged eight from down the street, needs another badge to become a senior in his cub-like organisation. He needs to help someone elderly. Carl has sent him on a wild goose (rather snipe) chase to get rid of him. But, Russell is hanging on to the verandah wall for dear life. He joins and shares Carl's adventure, to go to South America where Carl and Ellie wanted to go but never did.

The laugh quotient now begins to intensify. Carl has become a curmudgeon with the voice of Ed Asner. Russell is an earnest tubby little boy, voiced by Jordan Nagai. Together, they become an engaging odd couple in their flying, getting through a storm, landing in South America and dragging the house through the jungle and over rocks to get to the water fall, the hoped-for destination of the house.

And the laughs increase as we find a huge, colourful bird which Russell befriends and calls Kevin. This doesn't matter when he discovers, Kevin has chicks. Kevin is in the tradition of the Road Runner (and later could get a cartoon series of his/her own). Then there are the dogs, the funniest crowd of dogs for a long time, all able to speak, all doing the bid of the old explorer we saw in the Movietown News who now lives in his dirigible – and has been stalking Kevin for years, the villain (Christopher Plummer).

If this has not tempted you to see Up, then just take it on faith. It is a fine blend of the sweet and the funny and shows a great deal about friendship, family, helping others, and that material things, finally, are far less important than relationships. Of course, we know that, but here is a delightful reinforcement of those views.
1.The strong record of Pixar animation? Awards, popularity? This film as a delight, inventive, humour in their tradition?

2.The target audience: grandparents, grandchildren? Children with humour and action? The plot? Adults with themes and humour?

3.The quality of the animation: brightness, colour, the black and white Movietown News, the city, the aerial sequences, South America, the jungle, the mountains and waterfalls? The action sequences and fights? The animals? The humour, the timing? The musical score? The quality of the character voices?

4.The screenplay and its blend of tenderness, sweetness, humour, jokes and timing, adventure, urban development, children and their needs and affirmation, the elderly, dreams and memories, the true adventures of life? Helping others?

5.The Movietown News and its parody of the old newsreels? Carl and his eager watching, goggles and helmet, an awkward boy, shy, admiration for Charles Munce and his story, the exploration of South America, finding the hidden lands, the skeletons of the creatures, the adventure? Carl and his disappointment when Munce was revealed as a fraudster? Carl as accident-prone, fearful, the sudden meeting with Ellie, her teeth and hair, her chatter, her discussing adventure, giving him the badge, in the club? Their shared adventures together? The lost balloon, urging him across the bridge, its breaking and his falling in?

6.Ellie and Carl grown up, the beautiful collage of their married life, the wedding, looking at the clouds and seeing animals and babies, the pathos of the scene where Ellie knows she cannot have children, the pennies saved for the adventure, the flat tyre, hospital, taking the expenses? Growing old together, the ticket for Venezuela? Their going up the hill? Ellie’s book of adventures? Her death, the funeral parlour, Carl’s grief, alone? Their changing appearance – but ever-present in the pictures in the house?

7.The theme of the developers, the boss, his suit, the mail arriving, the brochure for Shady Oaks? The offers for buying the house? The letterbox hit by the truck, the discussions, Carl and his hitting the official, going to court? The prospect of Shady Oaks, the assistants and their arrival?

8.Russell knocking on the door, tubby, aged eight, reading his speech, beginning again, having to help the old, the badges for service, Carl sending him on a quest for the snipe?

9.The takeoff of the house, the balloons and the helium, Carl and his selling balloons to the children in the past? Going over the city, through the buildings, the knock on the door? Russell hanging on? Getting him in, the discussions, getting through the storm, the location finder and it going out the window? Going to South America? The hard trip, the breakages, steering? The waterfall and the vision where the house should be?

10.The landing, pulling the house through the jungle? Kevin, the attraction of chocolate, his hostile squawk to Carl? The comedy routines with Kevin? Discovering that Kevin had chicks? Dug and the friendly dog, talking, seeing Carl as the master? Carl’s resistance? Helping? The games with the balls – and his pointing?

11.All the dogs, the growling and snarling, the pursuit of Kevin, the leader and the broken voice, the other dogs laughing, the pursuit, the jokes about the dogs, Dug and the bonnet of shame? Dug as good, pointing, helping?

12.Munce, his story, in South America, hidden away, living in the dirigible, living in luxury? His exhibits, wanting Kevin? The welcome, suspicions, the threats? Munce as a fraud, the meal, the dogs doing the cooking and serving, the visual jokes of their waiting at table? Munce and his wanting to find the bird, ousting them? His becoming the villain?

13.The conflict between Carl and Munce? Munce setting the house on fire, Carl putting it out? Russell tied up, wanting to help Kevin, Carl being unwilling? Dug and his intervention? The pursuit of the dirigible, Carl wanting to rescue Russell?

14.The rescue, the fight with Munce, his falling off the dirigible? Saving Kevin? Meeting the chicks – and their behaviour? The leader and his shame, the other dogs’ reaction?

15.Kevin, the chicks, the balls? The farewell?

16.Russell, the line-up, the speeches, getting his badge, Carl as his sponsor, his mother present, his wishing his father was there, the memory of the sitting on the kerb and looking at the red and blue cars passing? Carl giving him Ellie’s badge? Seeing them sitting on the kerb, talking, grandfather and grandson?

17.The humour and the pathos of the selection of photos during the photos?

18.A satisfying animation film, human values film – and one that got increasingly funnier?

ANGELS AND DEMONS

US, 2009, 140 minutes, Colour.
Tom Hanks, Ewan Mc Gregor, Stellan Skarsgaard, Armin Mueller- Stahl.
Directed by Ron Howard.

May to August in the northern hemisphere spring and summer is a time for almost weekly release of blockbusters with huge budgets, action and effects and potential for high grosses at the box office. 2009 has seen Wolverine, Star Trek, followed by Angels and Demons, with Night at the Museum 2, Transformers 2 and Terminator Salvation in the offing.

Here is a doomsday plot, murder mystery, action thriller with a cast led by Tom Hanks as symbologist Robert Langdon and Ewan Mc Gregor as the Vatican Camerlengo and an international cast portraying scientists, police, bishops and cardinals.

Angels and Demons, unlike the film of The Da Vinci Code, is fast-paced, the L' Osservatore Romano review referring to Ron Howard's dynamic direction. It also used the word 'commercial' as well as noting that it was 'harmless entertainment' and not a danger to the Church.

In fact, the film treats the church quite interestingly, scenes behind a conclave and inside the conclave, fine sets of the Sistine Chapel, the interiors of St Peter's, Castel San Angelo, the Vatican Necropolis, the Swiss Guards centre, the Vatican archives and several churches with art by Bernini. The film won't harm tourism to Rome or to the Vatican. Probably, the contrary.

The issue is science and religion. There are some very impressive scenes of CERN in Switzerland where the Big Bang was re-created in 2008. Dan Brown, writing years earlier, posited this explosion and the formation of anti-matter which is then used as a terrorist threat in Rome. Arguments are put forward about the church's record in persecuting scientists in past centuries, especially Galileo (true) with some inquisitorial interrogations and tortures. The material about the Illuminati, the underground society of scientists has some foundation but was not as extensive as speculated on here – a kind of Masonic brotherhood of scientists. (They appeared in the first Lara Croft film without anybody taking to controversy.)

One of the issues facing the conclave in the film is the Church in the Modern World vis-a-vis science, with the dialogue for the meeting of ideas of science and theology or extremist attitudes towards religion capitulating to science and so destroying the church – the point being that this kind of fanatic stance can become a cause, righteously crusading with violence against those who hold more moderate views – leading to what could be labelled 'ecclesiastical terrorism'.

Oh, the tale has so many plot-holes (with the action moving so fast you don't quite have time to follow through on them) that they don't bear thinking about – so, either one sits irritated at the inaccuracies about dates and historical figures and driven up the wall by the lack of coherence in the course of events or, as one does, offer a willing suspension of disbelief and enjoy the action for what it is, a lavishly-mounted, pot-boiling thriller.

1.Audience expectations? The Da Vinci Code? Dan Brown and his ideas, theories, codes? Issues, science and religion, the church?

2.The adaptation of the novel, the prequel novel becoming a sequel film?

3.The location photography, the tourist eyes on Rome and the Vatican? Thriller eyes on Rome? The churches? The opening in Boston, CERN? The science and the equipment? Rome, the Vatican, exteriors and interiors? The musical score, religious, chorale, dramatic?

4.The credibility of the plot, the holes in the plot? Audiences willing to accept disbelief? The genre, the blockbuster action film?

5.The church context, the death of the pope, the cardinals assembling, the rituals, the breaking of the seal and the ring, the processions, the burial, the role of the Camerlengo? The authority of the Camerlengo? The Sistine Chapel, entering into the conclave, the cardinals, the range of nations, ordinary (and with their video cameras)? The places in the Sistine Chapel, the desks? Cardinal Strauss, the holding of the ballots, the ritual of reading them out, skewered, put in the fire for the smoke? Black smoke, white smoke? The crowds in St Peter’s, the acclaim? An authentic feel?

6.CERN and the visuals, the scientific background, the elaborate equipment, the plans, Vittoria and her role, the authorities, the cleric present, his caution? The experiment, its success, the formation of antimatter? The killer and his taking of the eye for identity, stealing the canister, Vittoria getting the cleric’s diaries?

7.The killer, hiding the canister under the Vatican? The midnight deadline? The role of the batteries, the contact, the explanations of the possible explosion? The pictures sent by computer? The warnings? Seeing the killer in action? His having abducted the cardinals, the preferiti, imprisoning them, the brands, earth, air, fire and water? Their deaths, the presence in Piazza Navone? The final rescue? His escape – and his car being wired for a bomb?

8.The background of the illuminati, the images, the code, the writing back and forth? How much based on history, speculation? Bernini and others associated? The Galileo case? Science and the church, the church hunting scientists, the scientists hunting the church? The elements, going to the centre? The signs, the statues, the pointers, the marble floors? Langdon deciphering this?

9.The Vatican calling him, the emissary going to Boston, his swimming, speculation, his experience with the Da Vinci Code, his wanting to get into the Vatican archives? His going? The chief of police and his scepticism? The Italian police, the head, the cooperation? The Swiss Guards, the young Swiss Guard attendant? The role of the camerlengo, the discussions with him, getting permission to go into the archives, the camerlengo questioning Langdon about faith? The documents, Vittoria and the translation, stealing the page? The car, the police officer? His being taken aback? The later visit to the archives, the oxygen situation, the smashing of the glass, the shelving, the shooting? The Galileo document?

10.Robert Langon, the past, his skills, being asked, meeting Vittoria at the Vatican, his reactions to the situation? The police chief and his grudging cooperation? The Italian, collaboration, the pathos of his death and the various police killed in the church? The camerlengo, collaboration? The timetable for the deaths of the cardinals? Tracking down the churches, going to the Pantheon, looking for Raffaele’s tomb, the transfer, the tomb, going to Piazza del Popolo, the church under repair, the tomb, too late for the cardinal? The search for Bernini and the St Teresa statue, the fire? St Peter’s Square? The winds blowing? The dead cardinal? The fire in the church, the killer present? The death of the police? The discerning of Piazza Navone, the killer present with his van, killing the police, escaping? Castel Sant' Angelo, the prison, the remains of the cardinal’s clothes, the branding irons? The discovery of the place of the bomb, St Peter’s tomb, the necropolis? The confrontation between the chief of police and the camerlengo, the bishop, their deaths? Going down, finding the killer, his not killing them, not part of his contract? Finding the canister, the camerlengo taking it, going in the helicopter, going higher?

11.The camerlengo and his authority, the background story, Ireland, the pope taking him up, his military service, a pilot? Helping, his attitude towards the conclave, his views, the clashes with Cardinal Strauss? His branding himself, taking the helicopter, its explosion and the repercussions for the people in St Peter’s? His landing with the parachute? Acclaim? The diaries, the discovery of the video? His escape from the cardinals, going into St Peter’s, going downstairs, immolating himself?

12.Robert Langdon’s character, his contribution to the Da Vinci Code, the Vatican having faith in him, his own beliefs, the Galileo document for his work? His using his wits, pursuing the case, the dangers, the killer in action, in the archives, in the churches? The finale and the finding of the canister? The discussions with Vittoria about science, Latin, religion?

13.Cardinal Strauss, aged, his decisions, abiding by the Vatican rules, clashes with the camerlengo, going ahead with the conclave despite the risk? The plan for the evacuation, his refusal? His becoming eligible to be elected? The issue of the acclaim for the camerlengo after his heroism? The discovery of the truth? The variety of cardinals, international? The bishop attendant on Cardinal Strauss and his being shot?

14.Science, religion, in the modern world? Dialogue, tradition, science as a threat? The attitude of the camerlengo, his long speeches of explanation? His becoming fanatical – an ecclesiastical terrorist?

15.The pace, action, the mystery, clues, success as a thriller? The amount of expository dialogue to explain the background? And the audience suspending disbelief and enjoying it?



SIGNIS STATEMENT

Just what everyone has been waiting for: a film of a Dan Brown novel!

However, with the report of a review in L'Osservatore Romano after the film's premiere in Rome saying that the film was commercial and entertaining and that Ron Howard had made an effective thriller (although the review also suggested a mind game while watching the film, to pick the inaccuracies!), it means that a lot of the heat should have gone out of any controversy. SIGNIS Cinema Desk would certainly endorse the reviewer's conclusion that the film is 'two hours of harmless entertainment' and not a danger to the church.

Had there been no Da Vinci Code novel, film or controversy, then Angels and Demons would have probably been reviewed as a blockbuster doomsday, murder mystery thriller with a Vatican setting (looking rather authentic), discussions about the church and science with the Catholic Church treated quite respectfully. (References to persecution of scientists in the 16th and 17th centuries was sometimes inquisitorial – and is documented; prison was not easy for Galileo.) There are speculations about the secret society of scientists, The Illuminati, who seem to be a Masonic equivalent.

Angels and Demons was written some years before The Da Vinci Code and is a better written book though it is an 'airport novel', a page-turner. As with many historical novels (and Shakespeare himself was not above creating 'historical' scenarios that were inventive rather than factual), the author takes imaginative license with characters, events, and hypotheses: what if...? But Angels and Demons has a character who seems to do a 180 degree turn in character and behaviour which makes the psychological realism of the book rather absurd. In the film, there is less depth of explaining this character and so the revelation tends to be a cinema twist which, however preposterous, is somewhat more credible, at least in terms of the far-fetched plot itself.

While Ron Howard did not have permissions to film in the Vatican, the sets of the Sistine Chapel, St Peter's interiors, the Vatican Archives look quite convincing and were commented on favourably by the L'Osservatore Romano reviewer.

The scenes of the CERNS reactor are very impressive.

The key point about Angels and Demons is its church subject: church and science, past conflicts, the present challenge, a feature of recent Vatican discussions about evolution and creationism, the meeting of science and religion rather than antagonism. Not a difficult subject when one thinks of Galileo and Pope John Paul's apology in 2000. Which means that the central issues are not as threatening or offensive as the hypothesis of The Da Vinci Code with its relationship between Jesus and Mary Magdalene and their descendants.

The day before the preview of Angels and Demons in London, channel 5 screened The Body which came and went several years ago without too much angst or even discussion. Antonio Banderas portrayed a Jesuit from Rome going to Jerusalem to examine bones discovered in what might have been Jesus' tomb and which would threaten a traditional understanding of the resurrection. There are plenty of novels and films which raise such issues by way of interest and entertainment but are not put forward as theology.

The controversy about The Da Vinci Code, book and film, certainly got people going all around the world, given the number of books sold and the multi-millions of readers. The Opus Dei connection also contributed to some of the furore.

However, this time, with only science and the church (and issues of anti-matter and its potential for mass destruction in the wrong hands) and the Vatican itself calling in Robert Langdon (Tom Hanks) to solve the problems, the potential for argument is limited. As with the screenplay for The Da Vinci Code, lines have been inserted more favourable to the church. Langdon reminds the Vatican that, despite the previous controversy, they have called him in this time. There are respectful lines concerning faith and non-belief – and a final request to Langdon from Cardinal Strauss that he write gently about the church!

One of the issues facing the conclave in the film is the 'Church in the Modern World' vis-a-vis science, with the dialogue for the meeting of ideas of science and theology or extremist attitudes towards religion capitulating to science and so destroying the church – the point being that this kind of fanatic stance can become a cause, righteously crusading with violence against those who hold more moderate views – leading to what could be labelled 'ecclesiastical terrorism'.

A key issue prior to the release of the film has been the raising of controversy about the film, sight unseen, a protest that undermines the protesters' credibility.

Any controversy and protest about a film is a challenge for the church to look at how it responds. The Vatican comments from Fr Federico Lombardi deflected some heat with offhand humour (that he would say something if the film-makers took out 1000 10 year subscriptions to L'Osservatore!). However, several Italian papers began making comments about Vatican officials possibly criticising the film some months earlier. This made headlines in the media that the Vatican would object or was objecting. And publicists must have been offering prayers of thanksgiving that these rumours were doing some of their job for them.

But, in the Catholic world, the main protest has come from William Donohue, president of the Catholic League in the United States. As he did with The Da Vinci Code and The Golden Compass, he issued lists of errors in the book and said that they were to insult the church. It was alleged that he had a Canadian priest contact, not wearing clerical dress, on the set of Angels and Demons who reported that director Ron Howard and members of the production were verbally anti-Catholic. On the basis of this, spurred by an Indian journalist who is linked with the Catholic League, processions of protest were held in India and Taiwan. Many of the errors and alleged insults to the church in the Catholic League list are not in the film.

Ron Howard's publicist (or Howard himself) came up with some smart repartee, that William Donohue must be a man of faith because 'he believes without seeing'. And that Donohue and himself were in agreement – that Angels and Demons was fiction. There were some acrid comments reported from the producers about the Vatican prohibiting filming in the Vatican and parts of Rome but there were also many quotes from Tom Hanks and Ron Howard that the film was not anti-Catholic and that the Vatican would enjoy it (as has seemed to be the case from the review). The Donohue one-liner was that Howard was 'delusional'

This kind of thing (which may not go much further because of the L' Osservatore favourable comments) indicates that there is a profound difference in responding to a film, or anything that is challenging, from an 'education' point of view which leads to dialogue rather than a 'crusading' point of view which leads to two-sided polemic with antagonists rather enjoying the experience of battle in crusade. Dialogue can lead somewhere. Polemic leads nowhere but simply confirms antagonists in their positions and stances and introduces the hurling of invective which in no way mirrors the charity and peace of Christ.

DANCE FLICK

US, 2009, 88 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Damien Dante Wayans.

For years the Wayans brothers have led a way (not necessarily the way) for African- American comedy. They pioneered satire on television in In Living Color. Then they began a series of spoofs of popular genres which appealed world wide with the Scary Movie series. The comedy was broad (very, very broad at times), corny jokes, vulgar language, bodily function and bodily parts peppered dialogue – and a general dismissal by critics while they entertained the immediate intended audience (the black communities in the US) and often amused audiences beyond.

It's the same with this one – though it has given rise to a whole lot of critical comment along the lines that, while the reviewers can detect and pronounce on the low tone and banal comedy, the masses who like the film – and even laugh at the jokes – indicate how society and standards are crashing around us. As if people did not laugh at this type of ribald and spoof comedy and jokes in every generation.

So, this is a mere 83 minute satire with hit and miss humour that demands very little mental effort and is meant to be a bit of a giggle. It takes as framework the plot outline of the 2000 Save the Last Dance (which raised issues of inter-racial romance and which Dance Flick continues) and follows it fairly closely. Added in are street contests like those in the Step Up films and Stomp the Yard and How She Move, and references to Hairspray. There is also a camp parody of the basketball hero of High School Musical which breaks out into the song and dance of Fame (from 1980) which has been re-made and is about to be released.

David Alan Grier, in a fat-suit, has some comic moments of threat and of break-dancing.

The Wayans Brothers include Keenen Ivory, Dwayne, Damon, Marlon and Shawn (who have five sisters) who have written this comedy. The director is a nephew and the star is Damon Wayans Jr introducing the next generation of Wayans – and he enters into the spirit of it all with Wayans gusto.

If you are not into this kind of limited humour and have not seen the films it is sending up, then try something else.

THE GOOD, THE BAD AND THE WEIRD

Korea, 2008, 120 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Ji- woon Kim.

The title is certainly not false advertising. There is some good, a lot of bad and, indeed, most of it is weird.

Adapting the title of Sergio Leone’s classic and some of the plotline, the climax is a repeat of the three man shootout at the end of The Good, the Bad and the Ugly. This time the setting is the desert on the border between China and Korea. The war is that of the Japanese invasion of Manchuria in the 1930s. But, the film-makers have been looking at films like the National Treasure series or Indiana Jones stories, so there is a map of buried treasure which The Bad has to steal and bring back to a company head. He is a young snarling type with his fringe over one eye enabling him to scowl malevolently. The Good is a bounty hunter who is after The Bad and, despite the end, is sidelined for a lot of the action. The Weird, who gets most of the screen time looks like a fat comedy actor until his true deadly nature emerges.

The film is quite visually striking at times and the special effects contribute to the mood and energy.

However, this is a tribute to the spaghetti western tradition. After the Japanese made Sukiyaki Western Django, the Koreans want to do better – or, at least, more spectacularly and with a higher body count than any other and ingenious-brutal (and some really crass) ways of killing off the villains (or anybody for that matter). But you could hardly call it a ‘rice western’ or a ‘noodles western’.

So, the film-makers, admirers of Leone, obviously grew up on spaghetti westerns, became addicted to Sam Peckinpah violence and have now over-and-over-dosed on Tarantino and Robert Rodriguez. What is the Korean for ‘Grindhouse Western’?

1.The popularity of the film? For fans of spaghetti westerns? Variations on this theme? The influence of Sam Peckinpah, Quentin Tarantino, Robert Rodriguez?

2.The colour photography and style, the deserts, the parallels with the American west? The towns, the markets?

3.The special effects, for the battles, for the shootings, for the killings? Over the top? The musical score and its styles, parallel with the spaghetti westerns?

4.The title, the homage to Sergio Leone? The characters, their interactions, their quest? The build-up to the confrontation and the homage to Leone? The variation on the theme with the Weird? The parallel with spaghetti westerns?

5.The basic plot: the map, the merchant sending the messenger and then hiring people to rob the map? The role of the Bad, his reputation, going in pursuit of the map? The role of the Good, the bounty hunter? The Weird, his involvement in robberies, his size, comic style – and the later revelation of his ruthlessness?

6.The quest, the role of the Bad, his appearance, clothes? His henchman, the killings? The role of the Good, more clean-cut, seen less in the film, a supporting role, his victory at the end?

7.The role of the Weird, his robberies, his being caught? The encounter with the Good and having him on-side, listening to his stories? The pursuit of the Bad? His ingenuity, the map, the treasure? The comeuppance at the end?

8.The pursuit, the setting of the story in the 1930s, the Japanese invasion of Manchuria? The Japanese, the confrontations and battles? The Chinese and the Koreans and their involvement? The military?

9.The sequences in the market, the ordinary people, the children, the women?

10.The irony of the quest in the desert, the discovery of oil?

11.The film as over the top, the special effects, the various ways in which killings were done, the mounting body count? How well did the homage as well as the spoof counterbalance the brutality?

DEAD GIRL’S FEAST

Brazil, 2008, 115 minutes, Colour.
Jackson Antunes, Giuliano Cazarre, Daniel D’ Oliveira.
Directed by Matheus Nachtergaele.

For those in search of bizarre stories, here is one that certainly fits the bill.

We spend a day on Brazil’s Negro River with a small community. They are preparing for and then celebrating the 20th feast of the Dead Girl which centres on a young man whom they regard as The Saint. Years earlier, the boy had retrieved only the tattered dress (which is kept as a relic in a shrine) of a girl mauled by a mongrel dog. They considered that her spirit was in The Saint. He is reputed to be able to heal and to tell the future.

This is a picture of religious syncretism in action. While there is a basis in Catholicism, with signs of the cross, statues and devotion, there is also a strong foundation of nature religions of the Amazon, the presence of divine powers in all of nature, which is also echoed in the prayers. While the celebrations have been updated with small rock concert style entertainment, there is a great deal of drinking by the men, and the people still want The Saint to bless them and to reveal something.

However, The Saint himself (who is pampered by his aunt, exploited, even sexually, by his father and criticised by the dead girl’s brother) is a spoilt and petulant character, completely self-absorbed until a visit from his allegedly dead mother disturbs him.

This is not your usual story. The narrative is something of a hodge-podge of incidents but the picture of this community and its religious practices is intriguing.

1.The Brazilian interest of the film and themes? Customs, indigenous peoples, religion and superstition? For non-Brazilian audiences?

2.The Amazon, the river, the jungle, the village, the remoteness, the modern aspects, homes, the village centre, the celebrations? The Feast of the Dead Girl?

3.The musical score, the songs, the dances, religious music?

4.The background of religious syncretism? The Catholic tradition, language, shrines, piety? Nature gods, power? Healing and prophecy? Superstition? Celebration?

5.Twenty-four hours in the village, the preparation for the feast, the celebration, the background with the Saint?

6.The opening with Tadeu, his relationship with the dead girl, his work, in the village, anger, critique of the feast, having no faith, yet his support of the Saint and his participation in the feast?

7.The portrait of the father, waking up, relationships, exploiting his son, drinking, his wife, his life, the sexual relationship with his son – presented explicitly?

8.The Saint, his age, waking up, dressing, his character, petulance, self-absorption, his wants, his demands on his aunt, yet not giving her the water when she needed it, drinking, the herbs, working, the fluctuating moods, his fears, the sexuality and his father, the day, dressing for the feast, ousting Lucia, the ceremony, the apparition of his mother, the discussion, the background of her death, the story that he had received, her words, return, his being upset? The dead girl not giving him any words of prophecy? The procession, the word ‘pain’, the message, going into the river?

9.The mother, her background, the suicide, her return, wanting a blessing, the confrontation with her son?

10.The people and the Saint, pampering him, the women, his aunt, Lucia and her devotion? The scepticism of the men?

11.The people coming for the blessings?

12.The feast, the celebration, the people, the rock concert, the dancing?

13.Insight into this group of people, their experience, religion, Brazil, Latin America?

DRAG ME TO HELL

US, 2009, 99 minutes, Colour.
Alison Lohman, Justin Long, David Paymer, Lorna Raver, Adriana Barraza.
Directed by Sam Raimi.

The film opens and closes with sequences which show, precisely, what the title means and entails.

Sam Raimi and his brother, Ivan, loved exploitation horror and produced a trilogy of Evil Dead scary filmfests from 1981, when he was 22, to 1992. Along the way he directed a wide range of films that audience fans of his horror and his Spiderman series tend to forget: a striking western, The Quick and the Dead, a comic-book hero with Liam Neeson, Darkman, a fine suspense drama, A Simple Plan, an occult thriller, The Gift, and even a baseball tribute with Kevin Costner, For Love of the Game, all this between 1990 and 2000.

He has decided to go back to the horror but, perhaps in the light of the popularity of Spiderman, he has mostly avoided gore and bloodshed and gone for a treatment that will entertain audiences who are younger and older. There are plenty of creepy moments and some jump-out-of-your-seat shocks. He has shrewdly created a mixture of ordinary scenes in banks, apartments and cars along with some eerie locations, a mansion where a medium operates and the shop and office of a seer fortune-teller. But, it is in the bank itself where the mood changes as Cristine (Alison Lohman) who is eager to become assistant manager and make hard decisions refuses an old woman, Mrs Ganush (who has some quite repulsive personal hygiene and dental behaviour) an extension of a loan for her house. Mrs Ganush (Lorna Raver) feels she is shamed and curses Christine. And, off we go.

Christine's professor boyfriend, Clay (Justin Long) is sceptical but goes along with her seeking a fortune teller and reading up about the spirit Lamia and its possessing people. As might be expected, she has a nightmare which has her waking up screaming. She also has hallucinations. Mrs Ganush makes plenty of alarming appearances.

Raimi is very skilful in keeping the balance between realism and the horror with touches of ironic humour, so that, Drag Me to Hell, does very well what it sets out to do.

1.Audience expectations? Critical acclaim? The horror, aspects of the supernatural?

2.The work of Sam Raimi, his origins in film-making, horror films and the Evil Dead? The experience of the Spider-Man? series? Polish, flair? Working with a bigger budget?

3.The Los Angeles setting, realistic, the bank, apartments and streets? The highways? The contrast with the eerie Los Angeles? The mansion at the opening of the film? The home of the seer and his shop? The return to the opening house forty years later? The musical score and its contributing to atmosphere, to shocks?

4.The special effects, less gory killings than might have been expected? The opening for people being dragged into Hell? The characters flying, falling? Mrs Ganush and her appearance? Her eye? Her sitting up in fright? Menacing Christine? Her mouth? The Lamia and the visualising of the spirit? The ending, the railway lines, the opening to Hell?

5.Editing and pace, the eerie atmosphere, the number of shocks and the audience jumping? Effective?

6.The moral perspective of the film: a look at human nature, erring, sinning, fear, the possibility of repentance, the possibilities of retribution or not, Christine going to Hell – deservedly or not? The theological implications of this kind of sinfulness and damnation?

7.Superstition and curses? The credibility of this kind of superstition, curse, background, rituals? The boy and his fate at the beginning, the medium and her failing to control the Lamia? The seer and his literature? The spirit, the number of days before retribution happened, the possession of the button? Christine and her believing this? Clay and his not believing it? Christine getting her fortune told?

8.The effect of the opening, the little boy, his parents and their concern, going to the medium, the look of the house, the experience of the boy in trouble, telling the truth about his stealing, the curse on him by the gypsy, his falling over the balustrade, on the floor, the floor opening, his being dragged into Hell? The story of the medium, her waiting forty years to confront the Lamia?

9.Christine, ordinary, her love for Clay, the background of the farm, the photo of her as a fat girl? At work in the bank, eager for the promotion? The discussion with Mr Jacks? Stu and her rival, looking at him, his adulation of Mr Jacks? The discussion with the manager, his urging her to hard decisions? Handling Mrs Ganush's situation, her plea, the refusal to extend the loan, Mrs Ganush’s reaction, her behaviour, removing her teeth, stealing the sweets? Getting on her knees and begging? Saying she was shamed, cursing Christine, taking the button? Her being thrown out of the bank?

10.Christine, upset, with Clay, going to the seer? The payment, her fear? His reading her palm, his knowing the truth? Her going back to him, looking up the books, the explanation of the spirit and its behaviour? Ten thousand dollars to go to see the medium, Clay paying? The explanation, the cat, the sacrifice of an animal – and the way that it was portrayed? Tongue-in-cheek? Later seeing the cat at Clay’s parents’?

11.Christine and her experience, Mrs Ganush appearing to her, in the car, trying to drive, the viciousness of the fight? Her appearance in her dreams? The imagery of her devouring Christine? The cloth floating through the air, in front of the car, the windscreen wipers? Christine tearing it? Mrs Ganush’s eye?

12.Christine going to visit Mrs Ganush and ask her pardon? The hostile granddaughter, finding the people at the wake, Mrs Ganush dead, her being upset, tripping, falling on the corpse? The image of the mouth? The horror? Christine’s determination to dig up the corpse, her finding the corpse, falling, the corpse jolting upright, the rain, the flood, Christine emerging from the grave?

13.The visit to Clay’s parents, her mother not impressed, Christine making a good impression, the meal, the talk, Christine’s distractions, the eerie sounds, Clay not hearing them? The gift of the cake, the appearances in the cake, her fear, flinging the glass, leaving?

14.Christine at home? Her determination to get the job? Meeting with Stu, the contract cancelled, knowing that he stole her file, sold the information to a rival firm? His coming, weeping? The phone call from Mr Jacks, giving her the job, Stu and his fate?

15.Going to the séance, the medium and her personality? Her assistant? With the seer, Clay waiting? The séance, the movement, the whirling, the assistant floating, the appearance of Lamia, possessing the medium, her death?

16.The issue of the button, going to the grave, getting the envelope? Her being at peace? Going to Union Station, buying the coat, Clay and the envelope and the irony of her putting the coin in the grave rather than the button? The mythology of giving the gift of the button to someone else and their being damned? Christine on the platform, her fear, backing away from the envelope with the button, falling onto the tracks, the oncoming train, the track opening and her being dragged into Hell?

17.An experience of terror for the audience, fear? The credibility of the plot, the background, possibility or not?

LE LIBERTIN

France, 2000, 103 minutes, Colour.
Vincent Perez, Fanny Ardant, Josiane Belasko, Michel Serrault, Arielle Dombasle.
Directed by Gabriel Aghion.

With its story of French philosopher Denis Diderot and his Encyclopedie Francais, this might be expected to be a serious portrait of 18th century French life, reflection and intellectual work before the Revolution. However, it is not.

Rather, it is what publicists might call a ‘romp’. Some have even suggested that it is a kind of ‘Carry On Diderot’.

Vincent Perez portrays the philosopher Denis Diderot. He was a Renaissance man, with abilities in writing philosophy, novels, plays – and was learned on a whole range of mathematical and scientific issues. Along with such authors as Voltaire, he paved the way for the Age of Reason which culminated in the French Revolution.

Here he is presented as something of a rake. However, at the time the film is set, he would have been sixty years old. His host, the Baron d'Holbach, was in fact ten years younger than he – but appears much older in the film.

The film has a distinguished cast, surprising for the tone of the film. Fanny Ardant portrays Madame Therbouche, an artist, a spy for the cardinal played by Michel Serrault. Josiane Balasko is the host’s wife. Arielle Dombasle is the marquise with whom Diderot is having an affair.

Diderot was the complete rationalist, determined to expose the bigotry and hypocrisies of authority and of the church. However, this is not the main thrust of the film which focuses on his personal and amorous exploits.

More serious films of this period, well worth seeing, include Ridicule and Beau Marchais.

1.A film about 18th century France? The pre-Revolution era?

2.The tone of the film? The history? The farcical aspects of the film? The romp, sex romp?

3.The re-creation of the period, costumes and décor? The sets? The lavish production? The musical score?

4.The reputation of Denis Diderot? An intellectual, an author, playwright, philosopher, scientist? His writing the encyclopaedia? His gathering together of 18th century Enlightenment authors? How evident was this from the film? His wanting to write the article on morality? His continually being interrupted? His own experiences, sexual morality? Seeing Diderot at work?

5.With the baron, with the baron’s wife? Hosts for his work? His relationship with the marquise? Madame Therbouche and her arrival? Wanting to paint him? Naked, his demurring? The arrival of the cardinal?

6.Madame Therbouche, her background, art? The revelation that she was a spy for the cardinal? Her listening to Diderot, empathising with his ideas, changing her mind? Her not giving the information to the cardinal? Her leaving for Amsterdam, the agent for the encyclopaedia?

7.The printing press, its being concealed at the baron’s mansion, his cardinal and his search, the failure to find the press? The cardinal finding it himself? Wanting Madame to help him? Calling the police? The press and its disappearance?

8.The marquise, her relationship with her husband, with Diderot, fashion and style, the depth of the relationship? Superficial?

9.The cardinal, his conservatism, anti-rationalism, anti the encyclopaedia? Using the painter as a spy?

10.A look at 18th century history? From a French perspective? From a light, satiric and comic perspective?