THE WIND BLOWS THROUGH THE MEADOW

Iran, 2007, 95 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Khosro Masumi.

IMDb plotline: Shooka, a spirited, hardworking girl from an Iranian mountain village is to be married in an arranged marriage. Shokrollah, her neighbor with Down syndrome, has been head over heels in love with Shooka since they were children, and so Shokrollah's father buys his son's way into a marriage deal with Shooka's father. Enter Rafie, the tailor, and his daydreaming assistant Jalil, who falls for Shooka after overhearing her pour her heart out to her family. Determined to be with the bride to be despite her impending wedding, Jalil follows her over the mountain trails and invents ingenious ways to delay the wedding.

1.The impact of the Iranian story? The country life? Harsh, arranged marriages, violence?

2.The location photography, the forest and its beauty, the snow, sinister?

3.The village, isolated, the snow, the shops, the tracks through the countryside? The trains, the cafes? The musical score? The songs and the dancing?

4.The prologue, the father, working in the forest, his injury? The consequences, his debt, depending on the car for income, the milk? His daughter, the marriage?

5.The meeting about the marriage, the daughter listening, the proposal, the Down Syndrome young man, his father wanting what was best for him, the issue of money, the plans? The reaction of the guardian, her treatment of the young woman?

6.Rafie and Jalil, arrival by train, the greeting, Rafie’s reputation as a tailor, the plan for the wedding garments, the welcome into the house, the commissions, the measurement-taking, the work, the machine, Rafie and his continual criticism of Jalil, calling him a fool, Jalil listening in, discovering what was happening, giving the wrong measurements for the wedding dress, not getting the woman for a fitting? The crisis, Rafie and his concern about his eyes? The fact that he had not made a mistake?

7.The picture of the Downs Syndrome young man, in love with the girl, his father and uncle, their dominance, helping him, the plans for the wedding, the measurements for the suit, the making of the suit, his joy? His wariness of Jalil? Recognition that the young woman did not love him?

8.The daughter, her reaction, her hard work on the farm, carrying the milk, buying the goods, setting up the wood, the measurements for her dress, Jalil and his attentions, his following her, his stacking the wood during the night?

9.The uncle, his suspicions, report to his brother, the confrontation with Jalil, the bashing?

10.The appeal to Rafie, Rafie and his phone calls to his wife, the wife and the children turning up, the elaborate scene of the proposal, the joy all round?

11.The father, confined to his bed, calling his daughter, getting advice, changing his mind? The anger of the father and his brother, torturing him, especially cutting down his legs?

12.Jalil, an ordinary young man, in love, pining through the nights, standing up to Rafie, his sister coming, the proposal?

13.The wedding ceremony, Rafie and his dancing, joy?

14.The interruption, taking of the young woman, putting her on the tree trunk, walling her in?

15.The sadness, the Down Syndrome man and his reaction, going to Jalil in the café, their rescuing the young woman, the Down man and his proving his love? An appropriate ending?

16.The harshness of the background, poverty, the role of women, arranged marriages, patriarchal attitudes, the consequences in violence?

CHILDREN OF GLORY

Hungary, 2006, 123 minutes, Colour.
Kata Dobo, Ivan Fenyo, Sandor Csanyi, Karoly Gesztesi.
Directed by Krisztina Goda.

Children of Glory is a rousing film about a key period in the history of 20th century Hungary. It has been made in a very popular universal movie style rather than in the more austere European style and should prove of interest and popularity quite widely.

The immediate focus is on the water polo team and their clash with Russia in Moscow where politics entered into the refereeing and Hungary lost (not without some bitterness and fights). On their return home, the star of the team is interrogated by the secret police.

It is a tense time in the capital and students are organising protests which eventually lead to political demonstrations and battles, with Russian soldiers and tanks ruthlessly putting down this rebellion.

It is also a tense time, October 1956, because the water polo team is booked to go to Melbourne for the Olympics.

This dramatic tension is played out in the central character, his meeting with a student at the forefront of the fight and his love for her, his opting out of the team and the repercussions for his family.

When the revolution seems to have been won, the team flies to Australia and only then hears that the tanks have returned and that the revolution has been totally crushed. The semi-final Olympic match then becomes a sports and political event with the hard playing Hungarians beating their rivals on the world stage.

This is rousing patriotic stuff on Hungarian identity.

1.A film for Hungarian audiences, Hungarians worldwide? Universal audiences? History, a tribute, a review of the past?

2.The popular style of film-making, American models? Audience-friendly and universal appeal? Sports, politics, war resistance, romance?

3.The film made completely in Hungary, including the Olympic pool? The use of Budapest streets and buildings, the city itself as a character? The university? Australia and the Olympic Games? The rousing score?

4.The title, the tribute to the Olympic champions? To survivors of the uprising and the heroes who died?

5.Hungary 1956, the role of Russia, the communist system, spies, reporting, questions and torture, loyalties? The communist ideology? The Russian troops in Hungary? Hungary and those in favour of the Soviet domination, those against? The move for independence? The possibilities of revolution? Political allegiance to Russia, independence? The demonstrations, the Resistance, warfare and violence? The Russian tanks, the purging of those in rebellion? No foreign intervention, especially from the United States?

6.The initial tone: the Moscow water polo game, the referee, the Hungarians losing, the Russian domination? There being heroes, the return, the Customs interrogation, the consequences of Karcsi and his reaction, throwing the ball at the referee? His being taken in on arrival home, the interrogation by Uncle Feri?

7.Karcsi and his family, his mother, grandfather, his younger brother, meals, discussions, the grandfather's attitude against the Russians? The mother's fears?

8.Karcsi and his life, his meeting with Viki? His friend, the friend's way with women, their sport, sports practice, the role of the coach?

9.The students, Karcsi's friend at the university, seeing Viki? His response?

10.The students, their discussions, taking to the streets, the demands, Nagy? The Soviets? Moving into the streets, the Secret Police, the troops firing on the population, the killings? The reaction? The students' headquarters? The role of Jancsi as a leader, Eszter and her pregnancy, part of the revolution?

11.Karcsi and his brother, his wanting to join in the action? The grandfather and his caution? The mother's reaction, bringing Viki home to the meal, her staying the night, the mother's reaction?

12.The seriousness of the uprising, the tanks, the strategies, war action, deaths? The young boy and his friend going to the fight, the explosions, his fear and wanting to go home?

13.The polo preparations for the Olympic Games, time passing, the coach, Karcsi and his decision to pull out, the reaction of the rest of the team? His friend Tibi? Tibi and his wanting to play, going to the Secret Police?

14.Peace, the students winning, the population happy, the broadcasts? The team going to the games?

15.Their realising that the tanks were returning, the Russians and the bombardment of the buildings, the massacres in the street, Viki and her hiding, eventually being caught, imprisoned, the interrogation, walking to her death? The interview with Uncle Feri?

16.The sportsmen, in Melbourne, no news, the decision to play, getting through the various events, the build-up to the match with the Soviets, for Hungary, the bitter fight in the game, winning? Standing on the platform and the national anthem? The acclaim of the crowds?

17.The 1956 uprising, change for Hungary? Waiting thirty more years for the fall of the Soviet empire?

10,000 BC

US, 2008, 109 minutes, Colour.
Steven Strait, Camilla Belle, Cliff Curtis, Joel Virgil, Nathanial Baring, Mona Hammond.
Directed by Roland Emmerich.

The trouble with prehistoric stories is that we know they have to be made up since there are no records. All during the 20th century there were all kinds of films from ‘lands that time forgot’ about ‘people that time forgot’, locations in ‘the valley of Gwangi’ and even Raquel Welch in One Million Years BC. Which means that the present contender for prehistoric film champion comes 990,000 years later!

This is the kind of film that ‘sophisticated’ types look down their noses at. And they will do so with this one. Risking lack of sophistication, I found myself enjoying 10.000 BC much more than expected – although distractions like thinking that the first part was like John Ford’s The Searchers or that the latter part was like a less blood and gory Apocalypto compensated with cinema buffery.

Omar Sharif, with his characteristic accent and tone, is the narrator. He takes us back into unsophisticated times of hunters who relied on the mammoths for food and hides. (One German journalist, perhaps making this up before he saw the film, called it a mammoth failure! – which, of course, it isn’t.) They also believe in rituals and mystical identification with leaders and spiritual myths.

Reality intrudes after a rousing computergraphics mammoth hunt and stampede (well worth seeing) and a group of slavers capture the hunters. The hero, not always heroic but learning to mature (Steven Strait), pursues the captives, especially the special woman (Camilla Belle) who is a focus of prophecy. Cliff Curtis is the wise mentor and Nat Baring the adolescent runaway.

All this happens in the snow clad mountains of New Zealand’s south island which looks quite majestic. The transition is to the jungle (filmed in South Africa) where computergraphics produce monstrous ravenous birds and a giant sabre-toothed tiger. Later (in the dunes of Namibia), they encounter a tribe of hunter-gatherers and together they find the captives working as slaves (along with the mammoths again) on early days elaborate palaces and pyramids.

Battle ensues with a cast of computer thousands, all spectacular (along with the mammoths which are a real attraction) and, finally, the hunters return home with seeds for crops and the next era is under way.

It was directed by Roland Emmerich who has been into spectacles in all eras with Stargate, Independence Day, Godzilla and The Day After Tomorrow as well as having Mel Gibson beat the British as The Patriot in the War of Independence.

1.The popular story, epic, pre-history, the writer's imagination, human history, the history of the Earth, creatures? Evolution? The

2.The quality of the photography, the locations and the impact?

3.Action and effects, the mammoths, the birds, the tiger, the fights? The atmospheric and heightened score?

4.The humans, basic, hunters, crops, surviving? Religion and superstition? Mystical union? Rituals and legends? Africa, the cradle of civilisation, hunters, raiders and slavers, tribes, crop gatherers, the overtones of ancient Egypt? Civilisation? The battle sequences?

5.The mammoths and their impact, the visuals, the sounds, the fights, running, trapping the mammoths, killing? The mammoths on the pyramids and their trampling people? The tiger and the pit, later, the teeth, the confrontation with D' Leh? The tribesmen believing that he was the one who was sent because of the tiger? The birds and their prehistoric look, flight, large, the attacks, killing?

6.Omar Sharif and his narrative?

7.The legend, the old mother, destiny, the hunters, having to change, the orphan girl and her place in their midst? The raiders, their horses, killers? Rituals? Children, their father going from the tribe to find new land, keeping it secret?

8.The passing of time, the children growing up, the boys' rivalry, D' Leh named as a coward because of his father's behaviour, Evolet and her love for D' Leh? Tic Tic and his care of D' Leh? The mammoth hunt, the boys being dragged, D' Leh and his being caught, his lance, the death of the mammoth, his taking the white spear, the fact that he had lied, his surrendering it?

9.The raiders, the pillage, killing? Taking Evolet and the warriors? The leader, his wanting to possess Evolet? His henchmen, cruelty? The trek, the rescue, their being recaptured, in the boats, the slaves of the pyramid builders?

10.D 'Leh and his decision to go, Tic Tic going with him, Ka 'Ren, Baku following behind? The mother identifying with them in her mystic experiences? Food, climbing the mountains, the snow and the blizzards, getting to the jungle, the monstrous birds and the fights, hiding in the trees, D' Leh and his falling into the pit, freeing the tiger, its not attacking him? The failure to recapture Evolet? In the desert, Tic Tic and his being wounded, going on?

11.Meeting the tribe, their leader, his knowledge of the language because of D' Leh's father, the truth and the legend? The tribe and their support of D' Leh? Joining him?

12.The other tribes joining, the massive force, the trek through the dunes, their being lost, the story of the fixed star, D 'Leh's explanation to Evolet? Their following the star and finding the pyramids and the slaves?

13.The evocation of ancient Egypt, the boats on the river, the massive buildings, the workers, slavery, the priests, the veiled leader? Demanding the sacrifice and Ka'Ren being thrown over the building?

14.D' Leh and the chief infiltrating the slaves, freeing them, the attack, the mammoths and their charge? The lances? Evolet and her being taken by the slave raider, the confrontation with D' Leh? Her death?

15.The victory of D' Leh and the slaves? Evolet and her death - the experience of Mother? Her identifying with Evolet, her dying and Evolet coming to life?

16.The return, a new era, the crops and a new way of life?

FIRST DO NO HARM

US, 1997, 94 minutes, Colour.
Meryl Streep, Fred Ward, Seth Adkins, Allison Janney, Margo Martindale, Oni Faidah Lampli, Leo Burmester, Tom Butler, Millicent Kelly.
Directed by Jim Abrahams.

First Do No Harm had its origins in a forty-five minute film made in 1994, directed by Jim Abrahams and narrated by Meryl Streep, An Introduction to the Ketogenic Diet. This was a documentary about a particular diet for severe epileptics. Frowned on by many in the medical profession, it had achieved results from the 1930s though was not tested according to some of the principles for scientific testing.

Writer Anne Beckett was asked to do a screenplay, fictionalising a particular case of a young boy with the disease. Because Meryl Streep had narrated the documentary, she came in to make this telemovie. Fred Ward joined her as the father of the boy. Seth Adkins, young at the time, gives an extraordinarily persuasive performance as a little boy with epilepsy. Alison Janney, prior to The West Wing, is a rather stand-offish and determined doctor. With such a strong cast and strong performances, the message about families having the right to know the options for treatment as well as the demands on doctors to honour their Hippocratic Oath (from which the title comes), is made a much more forceful telemovie than usual.

While the film has the elements of the 'disease of the week' telemovie, there is a heartfelt energy in the film which communicates itself emotionally as well as alerting audiences to other possibilities in alternate medicine.

Jim Abrahams had made a name for himself as a writer, director and producer of comedies and parodies like the Airplane, Flying High series.

1.The impact of the telemovie? Information for a wide audience? Emotional response?

2.The background of the documentary on the diet, the development of the feature film? Its aim, audience, status with its cast, especially with Meryl Streep?

3.The reality of epilepsy, statistics given in the film, the explanations for the reason for seizures and the working of the brain? The variety of epilepsies? The role of medication, side effects? Possibilities for surgery? The diet, the information? The impact of having many members of the cast named at the end and the explanation given that they had benefited by the diet? Millicent Kelly as herself at the end, giving the explanations, her own work of over forty years at Johns Hopkins Hospital?

4.Audience attitudes towards the medical profession, towards medication, towards alternate medication? Doctors and the tradition, the status quo, the use of drugs? Issues of the reliability of diets, drugs? Testing?

5.The title, the Hippocratic Oath? The symbolism of Lori reading The Emperor's Clothes fable to her son - and the medical profession being the emperor?

6.The introduction to the family, Lori, Dave, Lyn and Mark, Robbie? At home, the bonds, The Emperor's Clothes story, Dave and his work, the financial situation, in the Midwest? The poker game, the jokes, the horse? The importance of the horse for Lori - and her riding it at the end? For Robbie, patting it, wanting to ride it - and the end with the Fourth of July procession and his being on the horse?

7.The home routines, going to school, Mark and his not wanting to learn grammar, Lyn and her work, Robbie and the sudden seizure?

8.Robbie, his age, the ability of the actor to perform seizures, to show himself as ill, tantrums, acting when he was well? An impressive performance?

9.The hospitals, tests, the staff, medication, side effects, waiting, the regular seizures, their intensity? Specialists? Issues of insurance, the loopholes from the insurance agencies? The increasing number of seizures, the effect, Robbie at home, Lori having to cope, each member of the family and their attitude, behaviour, ability and inability to cope?

10.The insurance, the loophole, the money for the hospital, the issue of repossession of the house, the notice and Mark taking it down, the taking of the TV and the washing machine? The promise of the trip to Hawaii, the jar with the money, inability to go, Mark's hostile reaction? The family struggling?

11.Doctor Abbasac, her tough stances, treatment, her warnings, the meetings, Lori confronting her? The issue of Lori's behaviour and custody? Her final reluctance and agreement?

12.Marsha, her work at the hospital, care for Robbie, warning Lori about the dangers, accompanying the group to Baltimore?

13.Lori and the effect of caring for her son, the intense mother-love, her tensions with Dave, his night driving and the dangers, the concerns about finance, getting Doc Peterson to help? Dave and his contribution?

14.Lori and her study, getting the information, discovering the reality of the diet, her enthusiasm dampened, ringing Johns Hopkins, her abducting her son, being caught, the consequences?

15.Dave, strong, decisions, the confrontation of Doctor Abbasac? The decision to go to Baltimore, Marsha and Doc going, the seizure on the plane?

16.At Johns Hopkins, the doctor and the eye test, going to the sisters, their welcoming of the family, the humour of life in the convent?

17.The diet, Millicent Kelly and her explanations? The effect?

18.Robbie's gradual recovery, the diet, leading and ordinary life, the lack of seizures? The testimony of the members of the cast and their own healing?

BLACK WATER

Australia, 2007, 90 minutes, Colour.
Diana Glynn, Maeve Dermody, Andy Roderida, Ben Oxenbould, Fiona Press.
Directed by David Nerlich and Andrew Traucki.

Black Water, like Greg Mc Lean’s Rogue, which was made at the same time, is about crocodile menace. Whereas Rogue used the conventions of the terror film and of menace, a tourist group with some whining complainers and some heroic leadership, Black Water confines itself to a family group of three with a guide. This means that most audiences could very readily identify with characters, the dangers, the sense of hopelessness – and no foreseeable rescue. This could happen if you were in such circumstances, an easy excursion for fishing in allegedly safe waters, the crocodile attack, deaths, being stranded on the mangrove branches with no one knowing you went out – plus heat, mosquitoes, thirst and the horror and look of the crocodile, its teeth and its maw.

This gives the film a blend of documentary style and home movie tone that makes it more real than the disaster genre realism. The small cast does all that is required of them in terms of fear and resignation to fate. This does make watching it not only uncomfortable but creates a definite sense of unease and fear.

1.The tradition of animal menace? Audience expectations?

2.Northern Territory, crocodile territory, the swamps, black water, the title?

3.The moods, the musical score, themes for menace, themes for joy?

4.The introduction to the three characters and their mother, the Christmas holidays and celebration, their going on holidays, the credits and the collage of photos? Setting a tone?

5.Driving, the holidays, Grace discovering she was pregnant, not telling her husband? Lee as the baby’s sister? The visit to the crocodile farm, the information, the jaws, the dangers?

6.The decision to go to the Backwater, meeting Jim, going in the boat, fishing, the tin can and the scare, the sense of safety, peaceful? The fish?

7.The attack of the crocodile, the overturning of the boat, Jim and his being killed, the two going to the tree, Lee trapped under the boat, the rope, her going to the top of the boat, floating, eventually throwing the rope?

8.The desperate situation, the different response from each, the sense of waiting, hoping people would come by? Grace trying to get out via the trees, seeing Jim’s ear? Adam and his going to the boat? The heat, the mosquitos, thirst? No-one knowing what would happen?

9.Night and the storm?

10.Adam, going to the boat, turning it over, his being taken, Grace trying to say goodbye to him?

11.Grace and Lee, going to the boat, the attack, Grace’s wounds, Lee helping her, in the tree, her silent death?

12.Lee, with Grace, her fears, the attack, going to the boat, the crocodile coming onto the boat, the lower tide, getting Jim’s gun, testing it, her wounds, the pursuit and shooting the crocodile?

13.Lee and Grace’s body, moving the boat to safety?

14.Audiences able to identify with the characters and the situations? Plausibility? What if …?

JUMPER

US, 2008, 88 minutes, Colour.
Hayden Christensen, Samuel L. Jackson, Diane Lane, Jamie Bell, Rachel Bilson, Michael Rooker, Anna Sophia Robb, Max Thieriot, Tom Hulce, Kristen Stewart.
Directed by Doug Lyman.

First impressions of Jumper is that it is noisy nonsense. Final impressions are that it is very noisy and non-sense nonsense.

How could this be since the director is Doug Liman (Swingers, Go and, much more in this vein, The Bourne Identity)? And the writer, David S. Goyer, has written a range of science-fiction and horror films.

The premise has promise: a group of special individuals who can move instantly throughout space, Jumpers, and a group of religious pursuers who what to destroy them, Paladins. Unfortunately, and irritatingly, very little explanation about these two groups is given. Since the film runs for only 88 minutes, they could have given more time to exposition.

Further, the hero (Hayden Christensen) who initially seems to be a pleasant nerd, suddenly becomes a self-centred hedonist who robs banks to give himself a comfortable lifestyle as he flits (only quicker) from Rome to Tokyo to Fiji… and shows that he could care less about people’s sufferings. On the other hand, he meets another Jumper, the much more sympathetic Jamie Bell who has spent most of his life eluding Paladins.

The Paladins are represented by a white-haired Samuel L. Jackson who spends most of his time pursuing our hero and his girlfriend and who does not seem to be any great heroic improvement on his target.

Lots of effects for the teleporting. Lots of tourist locations. But, to what purpose…?

1.The impact of the film? Science fiction entertainment? The universally negative critiques?

2.The Michigan locations, the ordinary city, homes, school? The contrast with Rome, the other cities around the world, Tokyo? Fiji? The travelogue aspects of the film?

3.The special effects, the teleports, the style for characters moving from one place to another? The repercussions and the ripples?

4.The need for more exposition about Jumpers and Paladins? The Paladins and their being a religious group, thinking that God had only the power, their persecuting the Jumpers throughout history? The Jumpers, their capacity for moving from place to place? An intriguing premise for a film – not fully realised?

5.The introduction to David, young, friendship with Millie, the gift, being bullied, going to get the gift, falling under the ice. His teleporting to the library? Discovery at the age of fifteen, his mother later revealing that he first travelled at five? His father and his bullying? His decision to move away, using the teleport capacity for travelling around the world, hedonistic, robbing the banks? His disregard of people’s sufferings, the floods? Completely self-absorbed? His encounter with Griffin, Griffin telling him the truth about Jumpers, the pursuit? Collaboration with Griffin, wanting to achieve by himself? Going back for Millie, in the bar, the bully at school, transporting him to the prison? His being interrogated and giving the information about David? David and his taking Millie to Rome, the dangers, the pursuit, trying to save her, her capture? Returning and finding his father injured? Millie and her being saved, finding his mother, the discussion, his mother letting him go? His future? A selfish character?

6.Roland, the persecutor, the detective work, the interrogations, trying to capture David, the confrontations, the escapes? His following Millie, going to David’s father and interrogating him? The role of the Paladins?

7.Griffin, genial, Scots accent? His jumping all through his life, knowing what was involved? Warning David, David wanting to do everything alone?

8.Millie, the young girl, work, meeting David again, going to Rome, the truth, the dangers, her being imprisoned, rescued and saved?

9.The plausibility of the plot? The intriguing premise – but not being explained or followed through? The special effects? The travelogue aspects? The graphic novel style of the film? The moral – or amoral tone of the central character?

THE MATRIMONY

China, 2007, 91 minutes, Colour.
Bingbing Fan, Leon Lai, Rene Liu.
Directed by Hua- Tao Teng.

Another story of spirits. This time it is Chinese rather than Japanese or Korean and draws on 20th century Chinese history as well as beliefs about the dead and reincarnation.

It is very elegantly designed and filmed, using quite atmospheric sequences of Shanghai in the 1930s. It also brings radio and 16mm film into the plotline.

However, most of the action takes place in a large country house where the hero retires to after the death of his girlfriend in a street accident. His mother comes to visit and has made him marry a young woman from the servant class who cares for him along with the cook. He resents her and pines for the dead.

Up to this point it is very much like a Chinese variation on the Rebecca story with the cook treating the new wife in sinister Mrs Danvers fashion and their living in a remote version of Mandalay.

But, then the haunting starts. There is some dialogue about spirits being just human, neither good nor bad. This is, of course, misleading. Whoever heard of nice spirits in this situation? However, the dead woman does make a plausible case to the young wife to let her possess her for the sake of the man. This leads to some sinister experiences, needless to say.

The writer is able to play with the audience because the narrative is really a story told by the young woman on a radio program and we are left dangling a little as to whether this is a fiction or this is what really happened.

Actually, if you are going to make an elegant and atmospheric Chinese ghost story, then this is a good way to do it.

1.A stylish ghost story? A story of spirits? Possession and vengeance?

2.Chinese beliefs, in spirits, reincarnation?

3.The re-creation of period, Shanghai in the 1930s, cosmopolitan, the radio station, the sixteen-millimetre film, the jazz music, life in the city? Countryside, elegance, the shrines? Costumes and décor? The musical score – and the American echoes?

4.The screenplay playing with the audience, Manlie and her reading the story, fulfilling the story, hurrying, the bike ride, her death? The recapitulation of the story at the end? The two old women who had portrayed the mother and Ronga as asking questions about the ending of the story? Manlie and her survival, seeing Sansan, Sansan’s smile? The power of Sansan and her love?

5.The situation with Jungchu, his love for Manlie, her asking him about the future, his hesitation, the letter and the proposal, her hurry from the radio station, the bike, her death? His becoming a recluse after witnessing her death? The arrangement with Sansan, her serving him at the table, his hating her, the mother bringing her into the home? Ronga and her cooking? His harsh attitude, stances, collecting the photos of Manlie, filming them, his memories?

6.Sansan and her back-story, class, Ronga and her support, her weaving, serving at the table, her being hurt? Searching the house, Ronga warning her against searching, the mother welcoming her, the finding of the key, the vent, going into the room, hearing the noises, the encounter with the ghost of Manlie?

7.Manlie and her appearance, her appeal to Sansan, pleasant, Sansan’s fear, love for Jungchu, her acceding to the request, going into the bath, almost drowning, letting herself be possessed, the duration of the possession, her questions about the sexual relationship? Jungchu seeing her, changing his attitude, Manlie and her advice to Sansan, about what to eat, going to the movies (and her sleeping, dreaming, losing the shoe, Jungchu carrying her as if she had fainted), the love, the growing bonds?

8.Ronga and the charms, the sacred boards, her warnings, the ghost’s attack on Jungchu’s mother? Manlie and her confrontation of Ronga?

9.The issue of evil, the threats to Sansan, her drowning, the face, Manlie’s appearance, the attack on Sansan, Jungchu and his love, fidelity, talking with Manlie, explaining the movie of the photos to her?

10.The radio as a medium – for her destruction?

11.The discussion about spirits, whether they were good or bad, or merely reflecting human behaviour, reincarnation?

12.Sansan and the confrontation, stabbed, giving her life, Manlie dying, Jungchu free?

13.The reading of the story at the end, tantalising the audience, Manlie and her starting her rush to Jungchu again, the two old ladies, avoiding the accident? The presence of Sansan and her smiling?

FOREST OF DEATH

Hong Kong/Thailand, 2007, 97 minutes, Colour.
Shu Qi, Ekin Cheng, Rain Li.
Directed by Danny Pang.

With a title like this, one knows that one is in the Pang Brothers’ territory. They have made ghostly thrillers like The Eye and The Messengers as well as a rather deeper, imaginative thriller, Recycle. Forest of Death is produced by the Pang Brothers, Oxide and Danny, but is co-written and directed by Danny.

It’s one of those well-crafter Asian stories of spirits. This time the spirits are in the forest and in the trees. A young scientist and his assistant are conducting experiments to find and interpret the sounds that the trees and the plants make in the forest. In the meantime, the scientist’s girlfriend is an ambitious television host and is introducing a ratings-boom series on ghosts and on a spate of suicides in a local forest. In the further meantime, a young detective is investigating a rape and murder in the forest. She thinks that the scientific methods may lead the accused to confess his guilt if he goes into the forest and is tested by the machines.

That is more or less what happens except that the reporter becomes jealous of the detective, tries to push her way into the police site in the forest and is rejected. She herself undergoes a terrifying experience as she is lost. There is also an old man who puts up notices on the trees warning people against suicide – he had lost his daughter who had killed herself there.

To sceptical eyes, it looks like a load of nonsense. However, Danny Pang keeps it moving and, with the Asian predilection for mysterious spirits, there is enough eeriness to satisfy the market.

1.The Pang brothers and their horror films? Ghosts and spirits?

2.The Thai settings? The details of the forest? The laboratories? Police headquarters? Television, the media? The media in the forest? The musical score?

3.The title, the suicides, the visualising of the young woman going into the forest? The information given about the suicides? The spirits of the dead? The old man and his notices, his warning people against suicide, the grief at his daughter’s death?

4.The reporter, her eagerness, fronting the shows, the high ratings, her producer? Her relationship with the scientist? Her being on the go, aggravating the situation, the population being interested in the suicides? Her being too busy to celebrate the scientist’s birthday? The party at the studio? The experiment in the forest, her trying to barge in, her being rejected, following the scientist home, seeing the police detective? Her program, her being upset, going into the forest, trying to get the contact with the scientist, the producer angry with her? Her being lost, frightened? Near death? Her being rescued?

5.The scientist, his assistant and his lack of attention? The nature of their experiments, the sounds from the forest, the machinery? The reverberation with the cut to the plant? The contact from the police? The new equipment? Going into the forest, the set-up, testing the confession of the accused? The success of the experiment? The concern about the reporter, her being lost, found, rescued? The scientist and his future?

6.The detective, her work, the rape and murder case, the confrontation with the accused, his sinister lawyer? The denials? Going into the forest, the experiment, the effect on the accused, his confession? Her continuing her work, collaboration with the scientist?

7.The accused, callous, his story, its being visualised? His laughter, the reaction from the forest, on the machine? His experiencing the attack himself, his confession? The lawyer backing out?

8.The nature of Asian films about spirits, belief in spirits, the spirits of the dead, the spirits in nature? The use of these to concoct a popular narrative, detective story, paranormal experience?

ANCHE LIBERA VA BENE

Italy, 2006, 113 minutes, Colour.
Kim Rossi Stuart, Alexander Morace.
Directed by Kim Rossi Stuart.

There is a long tradition of Italian film-makers directing insightful films about children. One thinks of the pathos of De Sica’s Shoeshine and Bicycle Thieves. More recently, Kim Rossi Stuart starred in a fine film about a handicapped child and care, The Keys of the House. That experience must have emboldened him to take on the task of co-writing, directing and acting the role of the father in this film.

It is a slice of life, very well-written and acted, a glimpse of two young children, especially an 11 year old boy, dealing with the tensions in a home where the mother has walked out several times, returns promising never to leave again. But the little boy knows she will not stay. The father is a temperamental photographer, loving his children but so stressed that he flares up at the least provocation.

A very telling performance has been coaxed out of Alessandro Morace as Tommasso, the introspective, sensible young boy. We share his joys, his bewilderment at the behaviour of his parents and his pain, especially when his angry father hussles him out of the house. He has one of those faces which is not only expressive even when he is not speaking but a face which invites the audience to like him, to sympathise with him and to try to understand him. Marta Nobilil is also very good as the older daughter who is devoted to her mother and can scarcely contain her happiness when her mother returns. Barbora Bobulova has the difficult role of a mother who is insecure, does love her children and even her husband but who cannot settle.

Kim Rossi Stuart shows great sensitivity in his direction as well as in the sequences with his children.

Not that there is anything particularly new in this glimpse of parents and children and their difficulties. However, it is so well done that audiences will value seeing it and thinking about it.

1.The impact of the drama, family, parenting, children?

2.The Italian town, homes and apartments, school, the baths, the film locations, the lake and fishing? Authentic and credible? The musical score?

3.The title, freedom – and the ironies of the title? The characters and their freedoms?

4.The focus on Tomasso, audiences identifying with him, the boy actor and his performance, his face, expression, introspective? Communication? At home, waking up, his room, his relationship with Viola? The jokes, getting ready for school? At school, flirting with the girl at the pottery class, putting the note in her bag, later denying it? His friendship with Antonio, going home with him? The mute boy and his being with him? The absent mother at home? His reserve on her return, knowing she would leave, yet happy with her presence, the outings, her taking him from school? His seeing that there were no lights on in the house when they returned? His love for his father, his father’s care for him, the father and his demands, cleaning the room, cleaning up? His skill at swimming, seeing his success? His wanting to play football? The father and the mother’s return, the round table decision about her coming back? The outing to the film set, going to the beach, the hotel? His father and his anger? Antonio’s home, going fishing with Antonio’s father, the offer to go skiing, his father’s angry response, ousting him from the house? His mother’s photo? On the bus at the end? His future? A well-rounded character?

5.The portrait of the father, his age, caring for his children, getting them to school, his temper at their not cleaning up, watching his son swimming, the tantrum about work and money, his carry-on on the set, his wife’s return, anger with her, the family decision, happy, the outing to the hotel, her going away again, his care for Viola, care for Tomasso, anger about the ski request, sending him out of the house, the reconciliation – and the promise that he would play football?

6.Viola, her life in the house, relationship to Tomasso, love for her father, her excitement at her mother’s return?

7.The mother, the lack of explanation of why she went away, instability, ill, no sense of responsibility, the return, the family decision, her promises, cooking the meals, the film set outing, the hotel, love for her husband, taking Tomasso out of school, the day out, her disappearance?

8.Livia, friendship with the mother the phone calls, the outing, the friend? The wealthy friend?

9.Antonio and his family, happy, the massage for his mother, taking Tomasso home, playing the games, going fishing, the possibility of the ski outing?

10.The mute boy, the girl flirting, the teacher and her concern?

11.A focus on real people, real situations?

THE BATTLE FOR HADITHA

UK, 2007, 93 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Nick Broomfield.

For many decades, Nick Broomfield has been making feature documentaries many of which have had considerable cinema commercial release (Soldier Girls, Aileen Wuernos, Kurt and Courtney, Biggie and Tupac). More recently, he has been reconstructing true stories in documentary style. This is especially true of his previous film, the excellent Ghosts, about the illegal Chinese migrants who were drowned off Morecombe in northwest England while collecting cockles. He has now done it again, focusing on three days in November 2005 when a group of marines in Haditha in Iraq went on a vengeful rampage killing innocent Iraqis after one of their comrades was killed by a roadside bomb.

With his years of experience (since the early 1970s) of filming actual events, he brings a powerful sense of immediacy to his cinema verite filming of the reconstructions. For most of the film (unless you pause to give thought to the question), you feel as if you are in the middle of the actual events. This also means that the performances of all the cast also give the impression that this is the real thing.

Since, there is still an investigation in progress about what really happened with these trigger-happy Americans and their seemingly callous commanders who interpret this exercise of might as going by the book procedures, it is a critique of the American presence in Iraq and raises questions about how marines should be trained to be a peace-keeping occupying force. These men show little respect or consideration for the locals. They are racist in their presumptions and epithets and not allowing for locals who do not speak English. It is occupation by bullying despite the real provocations of insurgents.

The film also raises the questions about the actions of insurgent leaders and their seemingly cold ambitions and quick saying that the dead are martyrs while they seem to have little intention of immediately dying for their cause - and someone saying that when the Americans leave someone worse than Saddam could assume power. There are also the insurgents themselves who may or may not be in good faith – and who may not have thought through the consequences of their actions.

There are three main strands of the film. The first is the introduction of the two bombers and the detail of their obtaining their bomb, hiding it at checkpoints, burying it and exploding it – and the aftermath. The second strand is a portrait of some of the local people of Haditha, especially families, extended families, and the celebration of a child’s circumcision. This puts faces on the victims so that they are not merely headlines and statistics. It shows how this kind of slaughter will never win the hearts and minds of the Iraquis.

But most attention is given to the third strand because this is the marine group itself and its leader, Ramirez, who is already suffering battle fatigue, can’t sleep and is refused permission to see a doctor until his tour his over. He is only twenty and has served several tours already. What is this young American doing in Haditha? What does he really know about the people and the issues? He himself says he doesn’t know why he is there. Some of the other marines are much more offhand and callous. They congratulate one another on sniper accuracy – on innocent targets. While the Americans have a good deal of surveillance equipment, they are not always accurately informed and make rash decisions.

With the moment-by-moment attention to detail over the three days, Broomfield takes us into the ordinary/extraordinary reality of these years in Iraq. There is plenty to discuss, plenty to question.

At the same time, Brian de Palma made Redacted, a companion piece well worth seeing, quite like this film in many ways, close-ups of the Americans, the victims and the reprehensible behaviour of vengeful marines.

1.The work of Nick Broomfield? Over many decades? Documentaries? Social perceptiveness? Creating docudramas? The visual style, the documentary style, cinema verite?

2.The reliance on facts, the fiction? November 2005, the period of three days? This screenplay based on an actual incident? The aftermath, the inquiry? This incident as a symbol? For the Americans? For Iraqis? For the insurgents? World opinion?

3.The impact for an American audience, for Iraqis, for allies of America, for the rest of the world?

4.The use of Jordan for the locations, actors, professionals and amateurs, the extras? Authentic atmosphere, the town of Haditha, the streets, homes, the US headquarters and their surveillance?

5.The state of Iraq by 2005? Two years after the invasion? The occupation? The insurgents? The pro-US stances? Anti-US stances? The importance of Islam, religion, the fundamentalist interpretations, the nationalism, the fanatics and the terrorists? The consequences?

6.The American strand of the film: Ramirez as a symbol, aged twenty, three tours of duty, his attitudes, minimal training, little empathy with the people, no sense of Iraqi language, considering people as terrorists, the superiority, the racist attitudes? Taking this into action? The effect on him, asking why he was there? Inability to sleep? The refusal for him to see a doctor until he had finished his tours? The glimpses of the other men in the squad, personalities, backgrounds, race? Their jobs, the snipers and their delight in picking off Iraqis? The military training?

7.The terrorist strand: the military going into the shop, the DVDs, the young man going, the buying of the bomb, concealing the bomb through the checkpoint? Burying the bomb, waiting? The American trucks going on the other side? The motivations? The explosion, their running away, getting away? Going to see the leader, his fanatical speeches, anti-American? Nationalist? His attitudes? The fanaticism? The men and their hesitation, the old man going to his own family, seeing his children, realising the consequences of his action and the deaths of Iraqis?

8.How were these terrorists typical of the unseen and unknown insurgents? What they represented? Their action? The punishment?

9.The family strand: the extended family, the celebration of the circumcision, the dancing, the food, shooting the rifles in the air? The scenes of the homes? On the hillside? The prayer leader? The woman and the man and his love for her, the explosions, his search, going through the hill, his being shot, her going out to see him, being ordered away? Her refusal? The film putting faces on the victims of the American reprisals?

10.The bomb exploding, the reactions, the American gung-ho reaction to the dead comrade, getting the ambulance, his injuries? Their anger, wanting revenge? The houses, the commanders, ordering procedures, the surveillance techniques? The information about the houses, the hill? Going up the hill, throwing the grenades into the house, shooting, the snipers and their picking the victims off? Innocent victims? Going to the house, the killing of the children, the prayer leader, the women, the woman and her grief and defying the Americans? The satisfaction on the part of the Americans?

11.The aftermath, the American justification, the effect on Ramirez, his being commended, getting medals? His reaction? His puzzle? His feelings of guilt? The other members of the group – and their offhand approach? The officers and their commendations? The American reaction?

12.Iraqi grief, taking the footage of the surviving girl, her expressed hatred of the Americans, comprehensible?

13.The situation in Iraq, the glimpses of President Bush on the television, the situation of Saddam Hussein, his being toppled, the American occupation, for better, for worse? The insurgency? The long-time solution?

14.The glimpse of ordinary life in an ordinary Iraqi town, the changes, people living their lives – yet the imminent danger, explosions, reprisals, injustice?