UN CONTE DU NOEL (A CHRISTMAS STORY)

France, 2008, 150 minutes, Colour.
Catherine Deneuve, Jean- Paul Roussillon, Anne Consigny, Mathieu Amelrik, Melville Poupaud, Hippolyte Girardot, Emmanuel Davos, Chiara Mastroianni, Laront Capelluto, Emil Berling.
Directed by Arnaud Desplechin,

A film especially for the French and French sensibilities. Much of it will have an appeal beyond France but may appear to the outsider just one of those many family sagas where everyone irritates everyone else, there are fights, reunions, illness and concern, visitors who observe. In fact, the Americans did Hollywood versions of this kind of thing in Home for the Holidays or The Family Stone.

The film is quite long with a number of sub-plots. The early part is spent in introducing the various members of the family, especially the death of the oldest child from leukemia and the consequent effects on parents and the next three children. Stylised scenes from the past are included with framed portraits and captions. One needs to pay attention here. Soon there are flashbacks and exposition of themes which require some more concentration.

The matriarch is played by Catherine Deneuve in her beautiful grande dame manner. Early in the film she is diagnosed as having leukemia and there is to be testing of family members for a bone-marrow match. And it is Christmas and the family patriarch (Jean- Paul Roussilon) is attempting to get the whole family together, especially the next son, Henri (Mathieu Amalric) who has been banned from family gatherings by his family-protective sister, Elizabeth (Anne Consigny). He brings a Jewish girlfriend (Emmanuelle Devos). Melville Poupard plays the youngest child, Igor, who comes with his two children and his wife, Sylvie (Chiara Mastroianni) and a cousin who is infatuated with Sylvie. Elizabeth’s husband (Hippolyte Girardot) travels a great deal and their son has had a nervous breakdown.

Put all these characters, played by a top-flight French cast, and situations into the melting pot, add some shopping, a Midnight Mass, a family concert and assorted clashes and fights and there you have it, a Christmas story a la francaise.

1.The reputation of the director? His pictures of French life, family, tensions, dysfunction, love, crises?

2.The scope of the film, lives in the past, lives in the present? The town of Roubaix, the town itself, life in the town, homes, shopping malls, Christmas celebrations, Midnight Mass, the hospital?

3.The musical score, the range of instruments, harpsichords and bagpipes, orchestras?

4.The first part and the voice-over, the introductions to each of the characters, the parents and Abel’s speech at his son Joseph’s funeral, grief and coping? Joseph, his history, leukaemia, his death? The other children, Elizabeth being in charge, Henri and his conception in hope for supplying bone marrow? Ivan’s later birth? The variety of characters? Ivan’s children? Paul? Cousin Simon? The way of introduction with captions, flashbacks?

5.Catherine Deneuve as Junon, the long marriage, housewife, love for her husband, her life, her different children and the different attitudes? Her illness, her calm approach, the explanations, reading the documentation, listening to the doctors, the group and their working on the statistics with Claude and Abel to find the probabilities for extending her life? The decision about the family, no immediate compatibility? The rarity of her blood? The various tests? Her illness being the reason for Joseph’s leukaemia?

6.Abel, the dye factory, his age, life, loving his wife, caring for her, his relationship with his children, practical at home, love for music, arranging the Christmas reunion? His dealing with Henri in the court?

7.Elizabeth, older, caring, the clashes with Henri, her being prone to melancholy, the theatre, her plays, marrying Claude and his travel, Paul and his breakdown? Henri and his debts, her paying them off, her banning him from being present in the family when she was there? Her life, coping with Paul’s sickness? Coming for Christmas? Talking to Henri – and the effect? Paul being compatible for the bone marrow? Claude and his fighting with Henri, his return for Christmas? Talking with her father, the motivations, wanting to help her mother? Claude absent and present, Paul fragile? Claude as a character, rarely seen? Love for his wife? Paul and his fragility, few friends, looking in the mirror and feeling it was staring him down, the breakdown, his medication, his uncle, going to see Henri, jogging with him, the compatibility – and his improving self-image?

8.Henri, the middle child, expectations about his bone marrow? Difficulties with his mother? Difficulties with honesty? Debts, the theatre? In court? Elizabeth and her solution but banning him? His marriage, one month and the death of his wife? The effect? His drinking? Friendship with Simon, visits to Ivan? His work, falling flat on his face in the gutter? Paul and his visit? The relationship with Faunia – the Jewish background, his mother calling him the little Jew, her coping, being able to stay, sharing with the family, enjoying the visit, going shopping with Junon? Her surreptitious leaving? The frank talk? Henri and Faunia and her going, his later behaviour, punching Claude, the fight, going to Midnight Mass with his mother, their frank talks, jogging with Paul, his collapsing at the meal after the toast, the operation, his bone marrow, his general anaesthetic, recovering, going to be with his mother?

9.Ivan and Sylvie, their children, easy together, Sylvie not liked by Junon? Her relationship with Simon, searching for him, the sexual liaison, her explanation of creating him in his absence? Ivan’s attitude? The children, playing, putting on the performance, the crib and waiting for Jesus?

10.The background of the grandmother, her relationship with the woman, the photos, the old lady coming to the celebrations?

11.Junon and her clashes with Abel, indecision about the procedure? Going shopping with Faunia? The family with the gifts, the wrapping, giving out the presents, her going to Midnight Mass and liking it?

12.The family leaving – without matters being settled?

13.The hospital, the doctor, Henri, the anaesthetic, with his mother and the transfusion?

14.A portrait of a family? Interpretations of characters and their behaviour?

VICKY CRISTINA BARCELONA

US/Spain, 2008, 97 minutes, Colour.
Javier Badem, Patricia Clarkson, Penelope Cruz, Kevin Dunn, Rebecca Hall, Scarlett Johansson, Chris Messina.
Narrated by Christopher Evan Welch.
Directed by Woody Allen.

Towards the end of Woody Allen’s comedy of manners and morals (and lack of them), Vicki (Rebeccah Hall) tells Juan Antonio (Javier Bardem) that Judy (Patricia Clarkson), the friend in whom she confided her own misgivings about her marriage was really working out her own problems. Earlier Judy had confided in Vicky, remarking that the way she told Vicki her story was just the way she had told it to her therapist.

Does it mean – probably, yes – that Woody Allen himself as writer and director is telling us the stories he tells to his therapist and is trying to work out his own problems. Since Allen made this film in his early 70s, this is a further cause for wondering.

The theme is love in its various forms.

Two American students, Vicki and Cristina (Scarlett Johansson) arrive for a summer in Barcelona, Vicki, the serious one who is engaged and is working on a thesis on Catalan identity, Cristina has just finished a 12 minute film on love and is still searching, believing in passion and pain and romantic love. They are almost immediately bowled over (well, Cristina, anyway) by a charming painter, Juan Antonio, whose philosophy of life is centred in art and in in-the-moment hedonism. His attentions affect each of them in quite different ways. Vicki learns more about her passionate and impulsive side. Cristina learns a little, especially some talent in photography, but is still searching.

The other complication is Maria Elena, Juan Antonio’s passionate (no, that is an understatement) ex-wife.

Despite Woody Allen’s still not having worked out the real meaning of love and having presented us with varied experiences, some deep, some callow, there are many things to enjoy about this film. Barcelona looks marvellous as does Oviedo. He captures Spain with a mixture of the director’s and tourist’s eye. And, after the cold-blooded murders at the centre of his last three, British-based, films, it is something of a relief that here there are only Mediterranean outbursts and threats.

The acting is top-notch, although Scarlett Johannson is quite effaced by the intelligent and magnetic performance of Rebeccah Hall. Penelope Cruz as Maria Elena is electric, firing up the screen. Javier Bardem is more restrained (especially after No Country for Old Men) and quite engaging.

So, where to next as Woody Allen advances into his 70s?

1.Woody Allen’s work, his thirty-ninth film? Comedy, human nature, meaning in life, meaning in sexuality? Making the film in his early seventies?

2.Allen’s eye on Spain and Barcelona, the beauty of the city, the weather, the gaudy architecture, the art galleries, the beauty of the city itself, homes? Oviedo and its sights? Atmosphere? The use of the song, ‘Barcelona’?

3.The importance of the voice-over, the tone of voice, the information, perspective, carrying the plot?

4.The introduction to Vicky and Cristina, the explanations of their background, their studies, Vicky and her study of Catalan identity, Cristina having made the film on love, their hopes, attitude towards love and romance, Vicky as matter-of-fact and engaged, Cristina and her searching, passion?

5.Judy and Mark, their welcome, their life, hospitality, the yacht, taking them to the gallery, later? Judy dissatisfied in her marriage, the young man and his advances? Her discussions with Vicky, about love, about not being in love? The same story for her therapist? Her intervening with Juan Antonio? Why? Judy as the possible direction in which Vicky’s life would go?

6.The restaurant, Juan Antonio at the gallery and the restaurant, Cristina flirtatious? His coming to the table, talk, the proposal to go Oviedo, Vicky and her stern reaction, talk, her fiancé and his phone calls? Cristina, the attraction, deciding to go? Juan Antonio and his hedonism, life in the moment, sexuality, not ambiguous, candour? The plane ride, the hotel, seeing the sights, the reactions?

7.The meal, the drink, Cristina going to his room, wanting him to be seductive, sick, her ulcer, having to stay in bed? The later encounters, going out, moving in with Juan Antonio, wanting to contribute to his life and art?

8.Vicky and her tone, going out with him, the tour of the city, going to meet his father, his father and his unpublished poetry, his clash with the human race? Sharing ideas with Juan Antonio? His offer for the guitar performance, her being rapt, the sexual encounter in the park, its effect on her?

9.Cristina’s reaction, going out, Vicky’s encounter with Juan Antonio, explaining how hurt she was? Doug, his work, buying the house, the phone calls? Her putting him at a distance? Their idea about the wedding in Barcelona, her hesitance, his arrival, the wedding ceremony and the aftermath?

10.Maria Elena and the stories about her, the marriage, the attempt on Juan Antonio’s life? His still loving her? The bus ride, her attempt to kill herself, the arrival, her histrionics, suspicious of Cristina, Juan Antonio telling her to speak English and her Spanish outbursts? Her staying, the emotions, her painting? Playing the piano with skill? Saying that Juan Antonio stole her techniques? Cristina and her puzzle about the situation, the threesome? Maria Elena urging her to take photographs, going with her? The kiss in the darkroom, the threesome? The end, her not knowing where she should be?

11.Maria Elena, her anger, outburst, also leaving?

12.Juan Antonio and Vicky, Judy arranging the party, their discussions, pretending she had a meal with her lecturer, the meal with Juan Antonio, going to his house, the talk, Maria Elena arriving with the gun, Vicky being wounded – and her story to Doug?

13.Vicky going to Judy, the talk, Judy and her own life, her interventions? Mark as a decent type, retired, golf-playing with Doug?

14.Vicky talking to Cristina, reflecting on the situation?

15.Their going home together? What had each of them learnt?

16.Woody Allen, his age, preoccupation with sexuality, with love, the varieties of passion, problems?

WOLKE 9 (CLOUD 9)

Germany, 2008, 96 minutes, Colour.
Ursula Werner, Horst Rehberg, Horst Westphal.
Directed by Andreas Dresen.

Every cloud allegedly has a silver lining. The cloud in the title of this German film does not. For a time, Inge (Ursula Werner), a sixty-plus housewife who mends clothes at home, sings in a choir and, with her husband, minds her daughters children at times, experiences some cloud nine bliss. One of the questions the film raises is: at what cost?

However, most of the reviews use their space to comment on how a young director has looked at ageing people and their sexual relationships both in marriage and extra-maritally, portraying these relationships in the same way that he would for younger men and women. This is certainly the case. But, in looking at older people, two of whom have lived thirty years of marriage, means we see people who have had long experience, both of happiness and some unhappiness and who have to draw on this experience to assess what is happening to them.

In portraying older people and a woman beginning an affair with a man in his seventies, the three actors concerned perform with unflinching candour. The director wisely shows the more explicit sequences, with frank nudity, early in the film so that this is not a distraction when we have to consider the emotional effects on each of the characters as well as the moral choices (or lack of choices and a relying on the ‘argument’ that ‘this just happened and I didn’t want it to happen’).

The acting is very strong and convincing. An older audience would relate better to the film and its issues. The generation younger might be somewhat shocked and puzzled. And it is all something that the younger generations may not have thought about at all.

To cap it all – and, certainly, not to make the resolution too easy – there is a grim ending that demands reflection from the audience.

1.The intention of the young film-maker, a film about age, life, sexuality?

1.The German town, the countryside, the views from the train, the river and the swimming? The interiors of the apartments? The choir, their songs, as a chorus, with lyrics for the action?

2.The title, the irony – and Inge having to come down from Cloud 9?

3.The introduction to Inge, sewing at home, delivering the trousers, the interaction with Karl, the sexual encounter, the beginning of the affair, returning to Karl, the apartment, going swimming? With Werner, her ordinary life? Laughing and giggling at rude jokes? His rude puzzle? Not telling him the truth?

4.The frankness in the nudity and sexuality? Placed early in the film – and then the serious themes being able to develop?

5.Inge and Werner together, coming home from the funeral, details of life at home, the bath, meals, talking, in bed? The visit of Petra and looking after her children?

6.Inge continuing the affair, going out, the swimming, with Karl, his age, seventy-six? The discussions about age?

7.Her confiding in Petra? Petra’s complicity and encouraging her mother, not to tell Werner?

8.Inge’s hesitation, then Werner told off-screen? His reaction, feeling lost, angry, hurt, his attack? Inge not wanting him to be mean? Defending herself? Defensive? Saying she did not want this to happen, saying that it did happen? That she wished it hadn’t happened?

9.The issue of responsibility, her not accepting the responsibility, going to Karl?

10.The party, their singing together – then their separation?

11.The separation, Inge’s move, Werner calmer, the thirty years of marriage, his being a father to Petra, his being left alone, what did he do to deserve this?

12.Inge with Karl, the night phone call, her grief and reaction? Blaming herself?

13.The funeral, the people grieving with her, Petra?

14.The aftermath, did she accept her responsibility? Going back to Karl and weeping?

THE CHASER

Korea, 2008, 123 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Na Hong- Jin.

First it was Hong Kong, then Korea which turned out (churned out) efficient, exciting and well-crafted crime and police thrillers. Here is another Korean one considered sufficiently good to merit a special out of competition screening in Cannes.

This one has some interesting differences. A vicious serial killer has been killing women around Seoul. The Chaser is not a mystery as we learn very quickly the identity of the killer and we see him at work in some brutal scenes. The Chaser himself, literally running after the killer, fighting him and pursuing him, is not a policeman. He was a detective but was involved in a racket, a pimp supplying women to callers. Some of his girls have disappeared. As a last resort, he sends out a woman with a seven year old daughter, realising that she has been hired by a suspect client. He also informs his friends in the police.

In the meantime, the police are guarding the mayor of Seoul who is visiting a night market when a protestor throws excrement at him. The powers that be are more concerned with the mayoral incident and thwart the murder investigation. And many of the police are presented as incompetent. The Chaser continues to pursue his quarry to save the life of the prostitute and to care for her daughter.

The film doesn’t pull its punches in presenting the ugliness and fatality of the crimes though it gives few clues as to the ultimate motivation of the killer and the determination of the chaser.

Perhaps sometimes too graphic for a broad audience, but it is one of the well-crafted Korean police dramas.

1.The tradition of the police thriller from Asia? Crime investigations? Proliferation of this genre? A good example?

2.The settings in Seoul, central city, the suburbs, the police stations, the markets, the mansions, the shops? Authentic and realistic atmosphere? The musical score?

3.The title, the focus on Jung- Ho? His work with the girls, his assistant and his being slow-witted? The cards given out to people, the callgirl system? His concern about the missing girls, taking the money? Presuming that they had been sold? His late client? His asking Kim Mi- Jin to go? Thinking that this man was the seller? Trying to make mobile phone contact, failing? His concern? His checking with the police? His confrontation with the man after the car crash, chasing him, bashing him? His being taken in? Interrogated? Jung- Ho and his continued search, his concern for the prostitute’s daughter? Going to get her? Her being taken from the car? Finding her, going to hospital? The release of the suspect? His anger? The chase, trying to find him, his assistant with the keys of the gates? Finding one dwelling, the friend, the bashing, finding the paintings on the wall? The continued search, going to the church, seeing the Christian emblems and the similarities with the paintings? Going to the house, getting in? The confrontation with the killer, their fight, his almost killing him? The arrival of the police – stopping him in time? His return to the hospital, to the little girl? The experience of the chase, the background of his being a detective, with the callgirls, his being dismissed, setting up in business, being despised by the police? An interesting portrait?

4.The prostitute, unwell, with her little girl, going, the car? Going to the house, the message to send the address by mobile phone? The shower, the locks? The attack by the man, his brutality? Her being left for dead? Her using her wits, untying? Getting out? In the shop – and the irony of the woman looking after her, her death?

5.The killer, no explanation, picking up the women, taking them to the house, his casual attitude, locking them in, the brutality with the chisel and hammer? His getting out, the car crash, not wanting any insurance? The chase? His being bashed? The police taking him, his confessing? The discussions with the psychiatrist about impotence? His admitting more murders? The Chaser and his bashing him to get the address? His being let free? Going back, going to the shop for cigarettes, the shopkeeper telling him about the woman, killing the shopkeeper, killing the prostitute? The previous incident with the missionaries, his killing them, taking their car? The final pursuit, the final fight, his being taken to prison?

6.The prostitutes, their life, on the streets, the prostitute going with the man? The sympathy of the audience for the brutality they suffered? The daughter, her being left alone, the Chaser caring for her?

7.The police, the Chaser’s friend, the detail with the mayor, the excrement thrown at him, the powers-that-be wanting priority for the mayor? The police getting the evidence without warrant? Digging up the garden for bodies? Having to let the suspect go? The incompetent police and their sleeping on the job? The friend, the final confrontation? The woman following the killer and her grief at not stopping the deaths?

8.The civil background, the mayor, goodwill, the protesters, political difficulties, the role of the police?

9.The popularity of this kind of police thriller from Asia?

MILH HADHA AL BAHR (SALT OF THIS SEA)

Palestine/France/US, 2008, 110 minutes, Colour.
Suheir Hammad, Saleh Bakri, Riyad Ideis.
Directed by Anne Marie Jacir.

Any film which captures the present situation in Palestine and in Israel is welcome. This film is emotionally heavyweight but, as screenplay, it is dramatic-lite. It is a heartfelt film from Annemarie Jacir, herself a Palestinian who lives in Ramallah (which she uses as part of the plot and photographs tellingly).

Brooklyn-born Soraya (Suheir Hammad) arrives for a visit to Israel and is subjected (for her own security!) to a series of grillings at the airport about her name, its pronunciations and origin, about her parents (born in Lebanon) and her grandparents (born in Jaffa). The mood is set.

One of her aims in coming to Ramallah is to check her grandfather’s back account, frozen after 1948 with the present owners finding every way to stop payment. A chance traffic encounter with a waiter, Emad (Saleh Bakri) at a restaurant she went to with friends leads to a daring escapade and a surreptitious visit to Israel with Emad and his film-maker friend enables them to see what life in Israel in prosperity despite the security is really like, the countryside, the imposingly menacing wall, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, the beaches and the sea and a visit to Soraya’s grandfather’s house. The Israeli occupier of the house welcomes them but Soraya wants an acknowledgement that the house was stolen from her grandfather, something the Israeli is unwilling to do – and one cannot help thinking of claims made after World War II for property stolen from Jewish owners in Europe to be acknowledged. The couple then visit Emad’s village of origin only to find it destroyed.

Again, no easy answers but many questions in a story that stirs the emotions.

1.The impact of the film? The Palestinians? Israelis? World audiences? Knowledge of the background, sympathies?

2.The director, her being Palestinian? Her living in Ramala – and her use of Ramala as a city, the scenes in the town, the people, homes, restaurants, the bank? Authentic atmosphere? Her real feeling?

3.The locations in Palestine, in Israel, Jerusalem, Tel Aviv, Jaffa, the Mediterranean, the beaches? The contrast in buildings and affluence between Israel and Palestine?

4.The opening, the arrival of Soraya in Israel, from Brooklyn, the grillings and interrogations, continued, the search, the humiliation? Her being let through? Her going to Palestine, phoning Corinne, making contact, staying with her? The meal at the restaurant? Life in Palestine?

5.Going to the bank, her grandfather’s will, his account? Her being put off by the bankers? The courtesy of the Palestinians? The British Palestine Bank and the manager, offering a loan?

6.The chance encounter with Emad, his work in the restaurant, the car, her getting a lift, getting his nephew, the nephew’s comments, going to see his mother, the courtesy and the welcome in the house?

7.Emad, his personality, the scholarship for Canada, wanting to get away? The friendship with Soraya? His friend Marwan and the film-making, the discussions?

8.The decision to rob the bank, the masks, carrying it out, getting away?

9.The decision to go into Israel, the Star of David, the caps, getting through the pass? Enjoying Israel, the landscapes, the city of Jerusalem, their experiencing it freely? Going to old pre-1948 buildings? Going to the sea, in the water? Going to Jaffa?

10.The grandfather’s house, the Israeli woman welcoming them in, looking at the house, asking about the furniture? Soraya and her emotional reactions? Her wanting the Israeli woman to acknowledge that it had been robbed from the Palestinians? The woman’s refusal? The tension?

11.The decision to go to Emad’s village, asking the way, finding it in ruins? The decision to stay there?

12.Their being moved on, the separation of Soraya and Emad? Soraya and her decision to be Palestinian and stay? Emad and his future?

13.The familiar drama of the story? But the emotional investment in the story? Dispossession, the returns, the claiming of property, the new owners – and the dilemmas for Israelis and Palestinians?

UC MAYMON (THE THREE MONKEYS)

Turkey, 2008, 97 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Nure Bilge Ceylan.

Uzak (Distance) was a Cannes award winner and a well-made study of loneliness in the Turkish countryside and in Istanbul. Climates was also a hit on the festival circuit. Well filmed and acted, for many (including this reviewer) it was a rather slow and sometimes tedious look at a marriage and its difficulties. While The Three Monkeys is not tedious, it is melodrama material with a familiar enough plot. (If the same screenplay had been made in English, it may well have been dismissed as rather obvious.)

However, it opens well with a hit-run accident where a politician wants to avoid any publicity and pays one of his workers to go to prison for him, paying his family a salary each month and a lump sum at the end of the sentence. In the meantime, the worker’s wife is at home with her late teenage son and has a relationship with the politician which the son discovers and is angry with his mother. Things come to the anticipated head when the prisoner is released and comes home.

The politician is as loathsome as expected. The prisoner is affected by some macho brutality. The son tends to mope all the time so it is hard to be as sympathetic to him as the screenplay wants. The wife, however, is a woman of vitality and verve despite what she does. When she is on screen, the film is alive.

The Turkish locations and atmosphere are interesting but the film offers only average interest.

1. The director and his work, acclaim? A Turkish story? Atmosphere?

1.The title, the monkeys seeing, hearing and speaking no evil? How did it apply to the behaviour of the three central characters?

2.Istanbul, the home, the teahouse, the surroundings, the water, the prison? The musical score?

3.The opening, the driver nodding, the accident, the couple stopping and giving information to the police?

4.The plan, the employee agreeing to go to prison, his wife knowing, his son? The payments monthly? The decision to ask money for the car?

5.The man in prison, only three visits from his son, not from his wife? Getting out, seeing the new car, suspicions? Relationship with his son, wanting him to pass the exams? His wife, his brutality towards her? The truth, the confrontation? Saying that she should kill herself, then urging her not to? His decision to pay somebody else to go to prison?

6.The wife, ordinary, her vitality, relationship with her son, concerns about him, the car money, the affair, the lies, her being upset, going to Servet’s house, the phone calls, the sexual brutality of her husband, the suggestion that she kill herself, not?

7.The son, age, morose, exam failure, in his room, the job at the crèche, wanting the car, the visits to prison, going to socials, the dance? Discovering the truth about his mother, the confrontation, her lies? His being sick at the station? His decision not to tell his father the truth? Meeting his father, the new car? Killing Servet?

8.Servet, the political background, paying off for the prison sentence, the affair, his anger at the woman being at his house, his death?

9.The teahouse, the friend, the substitute going to prison? His being paid?

10.The blend of drama and melodrama? The director saying that he wanted to explore evil in banality?

TOKYO!

Japan/France, 2008, 110 minutes, Colour.
Interior Design directed by Michelle Gondry.
Merde directed by Leos Carax.
Shaking Tokyo directed by Bong Joon- Ho.

One needs to notice the ! after the Tokyo of the title. This is not a film set in Tokyo as such or about Tokyo as such. It is about aspects of Tokyo!

Over a cartoon cityscape, we hear a flight hostess inviting us all to travel to Japan. There are three stories for us, three surreal stories which film buffs would expect from the directors. This is something of a cinema of the absurd.

Michel Gondry (Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind, Science of Sleep, Be Kind Rewind) delves into some Tokyo realism as a young couple arrive to spend some days with a friend in her very small apartment. They apartment hunt (put off from one because of a dead cat), job hunt – he gets a job putting paper on packages, she does not. He has an intellectual experimental film which he shows to business people in a porn cinema using a smoke machine for atmosphere. There are jokes about mutations at the beginning of the film – and that is what happens to the girl.

Leos Carax has made some exotically strange films in his day (Lovers of the Pont Neuf, Pola X). This one is both exotic and strange. Denis Lavant portrays a strange looking, semi-dressed man who runs around Tokyo! harassing people and then hiding in the sewers. He finds a cache of arms, especially hand-grenades and gleefully runs down many streets flinging them with abandon and not seeming to notice the mounting dead. Eventually he is arrested but no one can communicate with him except a limelight-loving eccentric French lawyer. There is more and an absurd ending – and a joke that the next episode will be in New York with a US bill and Lincoln drawn to look like the man from the sewers.

Maybe these two episodes are particularly French and need a Gallic sensibility and sense of humour to appreciate the surreal humour.

The third story is by Korean Bong Joon- Ho (The Host, Memories of Murder), more straightforward but no less absurdist. A man has lived indoors for ten years or so and has stacked all his pizza boxes, for instance, along with other packaging and books to make his apartment a neat work of art. When a young woman delivers a pizza, eye contact is made – and Tokyo shakes with an earthquake. It jolts the man to decide to go out to find the woman – only to find everybody has introverted themselves, only emerging momentarily during another tremor.

All three films are stylish and create an oddball world that audiences will find funny and/or curious.

1.Audience expectations, fulfilment, Tokyo as an occasion for stories, cinema of the absurd?

2.The introduction, the flight attendants, a flight to Japan, the comic strip images and the colour?

3.The three stories, connection or not? French sensibilities, Korean sensibilities? Japan?

4.Interior Design: the rain, the apartment and being small, the friends meeting, the car and the issue of the carpark, towing, the fine, the car being crushed? The owner of the flat, her job, friendship, hospitality, going to sleep during the film? Her guests, the film director, showing his film? The serious and pretentious nature of the film? His commenting that his girlfriend lacked ambition? The consequences of this? Apartment-hunting, small, the dead cat? Job-hunting, his getting the job packing the parcels? The screening of the film, the people’s reaction, his using the smoke machine after she had retrieved it from the garage? The girl, lack of identity, being transformed, the initial mention of the mutation theme, the effect on the girl? The absurdity? The end?

5.Merde: the man, his appearance, chasing people, living in the sewers, the information on the news, the two anchors and their propriety, their comments, the reports? The man and his molesting people, hiding in the sewers, finding the arms cache, the grenades, the explosion, throwing them and killing people, going back and sleeping, his arrest? The TV information? People unable to communicate? The lawyer from France, his histrionics, coming to Japan, posing for the media, in court, his discussions with the man? The issue of hating people, especially the Japanese? Trial, condemnation, people present for the hanging, his scratching himself, distracting them – and disappearing? The trailer for the sequel, Coming to New York, Lincoln on note looking like the man?

6.Tokyo Shakes: the man, his definition of those who stayed inside, explanation of the ten years, his life, his father sending the money, eating and standing, dreams, the toilet, the toilet rolls and the mark on his hand? The pizza boxes, stacked, the books, neat, a work of art? The girl, eye contact? Her fainting? The ’quake, the effect on the man? The next delivery, rough, presumptions and phone call? The address? His venturing out with difficulty, running, no people, the ’quake and people coming out and going back? Introversion? The girl, forcing her to go out? His future?

7.The overall effect of these three stories? Japan, Tokyo with an exclamation mark? Each of the films with the director’s personal style?

LEONERA

Argentina, 2008, 113 minutes, Colour.
Martina Gusman, Elli Medeiros, Rodrigo Santoro.
Directed by Pablo Trapero.

There have been many prison films but one like this is comparatively rare. It is a gripping film that has its audience wondering what is the right thing to do for prisoners. But this question is complicated here because the prisoners are women and the group is made up of pregnant women and women with children under the age of four, some of whom were born in prison, all of whom live in the prison, behind bars.

Leonera opens like many a crime drama. A woman wakes with blood on her hands but ignores the bodies in her apartment and goes to work and study. It is only when she returns home that the enormity hits her and, while she calls the police, she is paralysed with panic. One of the men is still alive and recovers in hospital. She, Julia, is arrested for murder.

Filmed in prison locations, most of the action takes place there, in these women’s wards. There are endless corridors and doors to be unlocked. There is solitary. There is also a common space and places where the mothers can be with their children as well as a kindergarten. (And all the time those questions about whether the children are going to be adversely affected without a male parent, living in prison and its routines, with the effect on their incarcerated mothers.) Julia is pregnant and eventually gives birth to a little boy, Tomas.

The guards are not really brutal, just tough and demanding. The head of the prison shows some sympathy, so it is not a drama of them against us, although there is a small riot and fire before the end. Rather, the women manage. Marta, a tough woman with more than one child, helps Julia, as well as making sexual advances to her. Julia’s mother who had left her 13 years earlier to live in France, returns and there is some kind of rapprochement between the two, although the mother sets in motion plans to take Tomas from prison and care for him. A lawyer gives her a script for her case but the surviving man has his own version of what happened and Julia is sentenced for wilful murder. The screenplay never quite makes clear the detail of what happened but that is not the point.

And the ending. Julia has spent many years in prison by this and has become more worldly-wise but still longs for her son. And, as the final credits roll, we are still wondering whether justice has been done for both Julia and Tomas.

1.A prison film with a difference?

2.The Argentine settings, the city, the prison, the enclosed world, the corridors, the cells, space, the contrast with the outside and the beauty of the countryside, the river?

3.The opening song, the musical score, the children singing? A tone for the film?

4.The effect of this prison film because of the women, the children, the pregnant women, all together? The children together? Up to four years in the prison, the effect on their education, the lack of a male parent, the kindergarten, the routines of the prison, the bars, the visits? The range of questions for audiences throughout the film about the effect for the children?

5.The mothers, their experience, pregnancy, birth, caesareans, feeding the children and the difficulties, the crying children, their growing up, the demands of mothering and the skills or not of the prisoners, the kindergarten for the children, the celebrations like Christmas? The mothers’ and children’s needs, the mothers forfeiting their children at four years old? Audiences asking questions about the women, mothering?

6.The initial crime, the blood, Julia waking, the shower, going to work and study, coming home, the bodies, her panic, the phone call, the police, inarticulate, her arrest?

7.The treatment, the fingerprints, the search, travel to the jail, the entry, the guards, the cell, no water, going into the common space, the inmates and their attitudes, life in the prison, the women together, the importance of details, the initial roll-call?

8.The portrait of the guards, strong, not corrupt, having to stop the fight? The chief and his handling of Julia’s situation?

9.Julia, her age, in herself, her mother leaving her, her relationship with the men, student, the situation of the deaths, whether we knew the truth or not? The effect, her being pregnant, her pains, the birth? Marta and her help? The sexual attraction? Marta and her ability to soothe Tomas? Helping, leaving the prison? Her later helping with getting the advocate, with the passports?

10.Julia’s mother, in France, the phone calls, the parcels and gifts, her return, the tension between the two, the visits, sharing experiences like the Christmas celebration? Taking Tomas, not returning him, the animosity between the two? The end and leaving the baby with Julia?

11.Romero, his visits, making the toy, testifying, lies or truth, Julia and her relationship with Romero, with the dead man? The confrontation and their argument in front of the judge, his going free?

12.Julia, her anger, the women supporting her, the riot, the intervention of the chief?

13.The hearing, the judge, evidence, confrontation, the verdict?

14.The years passing, Julia becoming calmer, her life, helping others to be literate, the preparation for the visit?

15.The visit home, the journey, playing with Tomas, locking the door, leaving with him, the taxi, telling him the story, in the bus, meeting Marta, getting the passports?

16.The barge, examination of the passports, going into freedom – and disappearing into the woods?

17.Prisons, society, justice, treatment of prisoners, women and children?

BLINDNESS

Canada/Brazil/Japan, 2008, 118 minutes, Colour.
Julianne Moore, Mark Ruffalo, Danny Glover, Gael Garcia Bernal, Alyce Brager, Yusuke Iseya, Yoshino Kimura, Don Mc Kellar, Maury Chaykin.
Directed by Fernando Merelles.

A fine but very uncomfortable film to watch, disturbing. Based on a novel by Nobel laureate Jose Saramago, Blindness has an urban apocalyptic plot that has been popular at the box-office in recent years, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, The Day After Tomorrow, Doomsday, Cloverfield and the predilection for Zombies. These have incorporated blockbuster elements and/or horror. There are moments for reflection but then the action continues.

Blindness is a film for reflection. With its blindness (both real and symbolic) coming upon victims suddenly and its being contagious, it invites its audience to identify with the characters and their traumatic experiences, visualising how difficult it is for sightless people to deal with practical and ordinary things unless they are familiar or they receive help, let alone an epidemic, isolation and danger. As Saramango says, ‘People who can see, but don’t see.’ What would we do in these circumstances?

This becomes more philosophically and ethically demanding as the plot continues. How can a growing group of suddenly blinded people, herded together in a rundown institution and virtually left to themselves, manage? The strengths and weaknesses of basic human nature are revealed. Calm or volatile temperaments make a difference. Will people be generous to one another when food is rationed, when hygiene, both washing and sewerage, are almost impossible? Will the group become cohesive? As more divisions are made and numbers increase, will conflict break out? And, what if a jumped up demagogue with a gun takes over, demanding obedience, robbing people for provisions and, most powerfully, manipulating the hungry so that the groups give up their women to his mini-empire?

And what of society which is motivated by fear and then terror? And guards ill-equipped to manage situations like this and trigger-happy? At first we see a government minister making statements but this line of plot disappears from the film just as it disappears from the life of the blind. And, should they get out, what kind of blind world will they find, a wrecked world and the blind rummaging in the wreckage?

All these issues and more are present in Don Mc Keller’s screen adaption (and he plays a particularly obnoxious character who steals the first blind victim’s car while offering to drive him home). They are given a somewhat ponderous explicitation by Danny Glover’s solemn and rhetorical voiceover, elaborating the questions and explaining some of the behaviour for those who have not picked it up by watching.

This is Fernando Mireilles’ film. After the Rio urban upheaval of his City of God, then the exploitation of medical experimentation in Africa in The Constant Gardener, Mireilles stays with his theme of society in disarray – and the challenge for some humane, even if fallible and slow, leadership to emerge. In Blindness, we are introduced to an eye doctor (Mark Ruffalo) but it is his ordinary wife who does not go blind but who is the backbone of this abandoned society. She is played by Julianne Moore, unmade up and looking haggard, who gives the film great strength. Her group could not have survived without her. But, what is the meaning (real and symbolic) of a Godlike (?) person who can see and direct the lives of those in need around her?

There are some religious implications in the screenplay. Julianne Moore says that the condition’s technical name sounds like agnosticism… Some of the peaceful survivors take refuge in a church where the statues of the saints and of Jesus on the cross are blindfolded… And, in the final moments, we are unsettled again and wonder whether this Christlike woman has to take the similarity as far as it will go.

1.The impact, adaptation of a Nobel Laureate’s novel? The apocalyptic genre? Serious rather than sensational? The dramatic implications of white blindness? Blindness as an image?

2.The international co-production, the use of different cities, especially in Latin America? The ordinariness at the opening, the streets, the later interiors of the institution, the aftermath in the empty cities? The musical score, the moods, the often jaunty touch?

3.The credits, the changing traffic lights, the heavy traffic, the cars, audiences identifying with the situation?

4.The audiences observing what was going on, sharing the subjective blindness of the victims, yet, with the doctor’s wife, able to observe what was going on? The audiences identifying with the characters, situations, what if …? Their treatment, their reactions to treatment, emotional reactions, philosophical reflections about human nature, moral and ethical issues and decisions?

5.The moral perspectives, for each individual, to be self-centred, to be empathetic, to be sympathetic, to be generous? Attitudes towards the group? Collaboration? Leadership? The deterioration of the situation? Images of society and collapse? The government, the minister, the initial comments, the treatment of the blind? The lack of care, care-less? The guards, the fear of infection, their general fear, trigger-happy, shooting the victim, authorities abandoning the group?

6.How did this situation resemble contemporary society, fear, neglect of those in need?

7.The literary adaptation, the man with the black patch and his voice-over, as a character, his descriptions, his rhetorical questions? How necessary, how explicit? Were the audiences asking these questions and observing what was going on?

8.The Japanese man in the car, suddenly going blind, the angry drivers honking, his bewilderment in the street, the Good Samaritan helping, then stealing the car, abandoning the man in the middle of the street, his helplessness, getting home, his wife, her reaction, the phone to the doctor’s, taking the taxi, the receptionist, the doctor and the treatment, the puzzle? All these people becoming infected?

9.At home, the doctor and his wife, her cooking, his chatting, their eating, the puzzle, the wife’s reflection about the disease and agnosticism? His studying the books? Waking blind, having to cope, the various victims being rounded up, the ambulance, the men and their protective suits? The wife deciding to go in the ambulance?

10.The girl with the glasses, at the doctor, the drops? At the bar, her going upstairs, her client, going blind, her panic in the corridor? The bartender going blind?

11.The young boy, the drops in his eyes, blind, missing his mother, alone?

12.The man with the black patch, sitting, kindly and observing? Unobtrusive with the group?

13.The institution, its location, squalid, isolated, the dormitories, the lack of any facilities, the doctor and his trying to exercise leadership, the reactions against him, the Good Samaritan and his attitudes, not taking orders, his reaction, with the young girl, her kicking him, his wound, having to deal with it, the treatment, his later trying to escape, his being shot? The group growing and having to cope?

14.The blind people and their having to manage, not managing, the visuals, enabling audiences to understand, the whiteness, their stumbling, trying to find things? Clues, voices, movement?

15.The portrait of the doctor’s wife, in herself, ordinary, at home, chatting, cooking, loving her husband, wanting to help, going with him? Her not going blind – why? A God-like figure, helping, cleaning, washing? Exhausted? Her being ordinary, limited? Her husband, his not coping, his feeling harassed, thinking she was his mother or a nurse, the sexual encounter with the young girl, her kindliness with the girl?

16.The issue of agnosticism, religious themes, the later episode in the church, the blindfolded figures, Jesus blindfold on the cross?

17.The other groups, entering, helping each other, the lost man being shot, the various rules?

18.Evil among the group: the Good Samaritan and his turning against authority, trying to escape? The real blind man and his stick? The bartender, his work in the bar, his ignorance, the demagogue, having the gun, his rabble-rousing speeches, his not having genuine ideas, the decision to steal from all the people, the blind man counting the money and the gold, the sexual demands, the doctor’s wife and her hostility?

19.The women, the discussion about going, their decision not to, the secretary volunteering, the others following, the doctor’s wife? The Japanese woman disobeying her husband? The doctor and his being upset? Going in the line, led by the doctor’s wife, the graphic experience, the audience seeing it, the women not, the dead woman, their bringing her back?

20.The next night, the callous blind man and his remarks to the doctor’s wife, hearing about the dead woman, the doctor’s wife and her decision – why so long in coming to it, not realising her potential? Taking the scissors? Killing the bartender? The consequent mayhem, the shooting?

21.An atmosphere of war, setting up the barricades, lighting the fire? Discovering that the guards had gone?

22.The details of life in the institution, washing, eating, cleaning, the scissors? The doctor’s wife and her leadership? The burying of the dead? The overall effect?

23.Getting out, the nature of freedom, the abandoned city, the dogs, feeding on the bodies, the various groups of blind people, the children robbing the adults, finding shelter? The rain and its cleansing, providing drinking water? The supermarket, the fights, the doctor’s wife and her discovery of the food in the basement, bringing it out, her being attacked, her husband defending her? The decision for the group to go to the house? Finding peace, shelter, washing, the joy of the meal?

24.The Japanese man regaining his sight? The comments of the man with the black patch? The future?

25.The doctor’s wife losing her sight? The reason? Her leadership over? Her complete self-giving?

26.A vision of a world which had lost its vision?

WALTZ WITH BASHIR

Israel, 2008, 90 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Ari Folman.

A documentary, performed as a 90 minute video but then storyboarded for animation. And, all the more effective for that.

Ari Folman, who wrote, produced and directed, has drawn not only on his experiences in the war in Lebanon in the 1980s, but also on his subsequent blocking of the experiences, especially the Christin Phalangist massacres in two Palestinian camps, Sabra and Shatira, where Israeli military were in the vicinity and the Israeli government and Ariel Sharon may or may not have been informed beforehand.

This means that audiences, especially younger audiences for whom these events are already a quarter of a century old will need to do some homework to understand and appreciate the film.

Folman recounts how a friend approached him with his own nightmare. This triggered a desire to find out what really happened. It led him on a journey to interview fellow soldiers, officers, a TV journalist, even going to Holland to hear the memories of someone who served with him all the time. He also saw a therapist. He says that the four year production of the film, his decision to produce a straightforward documentary, interview style, but to have the animators bring to vivid life, colour and action, the frightening realities of war. This is not just the violent shooting and bombing, but the ignorance of the young recruits, their shooting at anything, their wanting to be elsewhere and, Apocalypse Now-like, their music, surfing and playing on the Mediterranean beaches before attack.

War is not only ugly, Folman concludes, it is ineffective – and, when soldiers suppress memories, they are likely to erupt at difficult and dangerous times.

The vivid credits’ sequence has 26 vicious and nightmarish dogs, hounds of hell, rampaging through the city and sets a tone for the proceedings. While there are actual interviews with the persons named, the characters are drawn, the action they describe is portrayed which gives limitless possibilities for idiosyncracies in the characters and their behaviour.

As the film builds to its climax with the massacre of the Palestinians and Folman has surfaced his ghosts and prepares to deal with them in the film, some actual footage of grieving and desperately shouting survivors concludes the film.

With Israel’s long occupation and war with Lebanon, portrayed in so many films, with the withdrawal in 2000 the subject of the 2007 Oscar-nominee, Beaufort, and with Israel’s bombing of Lebanon in 2006 while the film was in production, make this not only telling but still relevant and challenging

1.The impact of the film? For Israeli audiences? Israeli veterans of wars? Political attitudes? Impact for Palestinians? For the Lebanese? For worldwide audiences?

2.The basis of the film as a ninety-minute video, acted? The storyboarding for the animation? The effect of animation photography?

3.The quality of the animation, the style of drawing, the lines, the emphases? The subdued colours? At times the striking colours? The characters, their movements? The vistas of war? The idiosyncrasies of the characters? The details of war? The interviews, the homely conversational style? The illustration of the interviews? The introduction of live footage at the end, the aftermath of the massacres?

4.Audience knowledge of this part of 1980s history: the Palestinians bombarding Israel, Israel’s decision to invade South Lebanon, to move up as far as Beirut? The Israeli government, Ariel Sharon? The young soldiers sent, raw recruits? The Christian Phalangist movement in Lebanon? Basher as the elected president, his assassination? The Phalangists as allies of Israel and protecting Israel? The falling through of this arrangement? The civil war in Lebanon? The echos of the difficulties in Lebanon, the clash with Israel in 2006?

5.The opening, the ferocious dogs, the nightmare? The friend coming to the director to ask for an explanation? Stirring the memories of the director?

6.The director himself, his own experience, his blocking it out, post-war traumatic experience? The twenty years passing? His need to know? Stirred by his friend’s visit and the nightmare of the dogs? His own dream, the naked soldiers emerging from the sea? His decision to find out where his comrades were, go to interview them?

7.The interviews, the personalities, the memories of the past, training, war, waiting for war, on the beaches of Lebanon, their inexperience, shooting at anyone? The dangers, the tanks, the missiles, the explosions? The bombardments by planes, helicopters? Random death on each side? The soldiers and its effect? Their being so young?

8.The Apocalypse Now attitude, surfing, music, recreating on the beaches? Not wanting to go into war? The songs of the time? The irony of the song ‘I Bombed Sidon, I Bombed Beirut’ – based on an American song, ‘I Bombed Korea’?

9.The television interviewer, striding through the war zone, his crouched cameraman? His reminiscences?

10.The commander, his watching the pornographic film, making decisions? How much did he know?

11.The responsibility for the young men, trying to get in touch with headquarters? Trying to find out what they knew? The build-up to the massacres? The director’s guilt in his firing flares, enabling bombardments and deaths? The boy in the woods and his destroying the tank, his being shot?

12.The constant companion in war, in Holland, his reminiscences, filling in the background for the director? His discussions with the other men, their memories? His going to see the therapist, her comments about his responsibility and guilt?

13.The build-up to the massacres, the Christian Phalangists, the posters with Bashir? His assassination? The soldiers not knowing about the massacres, discovering the reality, the women marching out, their grieving? The issue as to how much the government and Ariel Sharon knew?

14.The live action footage of the grieving women to end the film?

15.The impact of the film as a war film, antiwar film? Critique? Israeli politics, relationships with Lebanon, the Palestinians? The subsequent history and the conflict with Lebanon? And Israeli politics? The effect of these wars on the middle-aged men at the beginning of the 21st century? The film as a possible therapy?