EL BANO DEL PAPA (THE POPE’S TOILET)

Uruguay, 2007, 97 minutes, Colour.
Cesar Troncoso, Virginia Mendez, Mario Silva, Virginia Ruiz.
Directed by Cesar Charlone and Enrique Fernandez.

Not the Pope’s own toilet!

Rather, the toilets needed in an Uruguayan town for people attending the ceremonies during a papal visit.

On the one hand, this is an amusing story of poor people in the town of Melo, many of whom make their living by venturing across the border to Brazil and smuggling goods back into Uruguay, dependent on the needs and whims of the black marketeers and shopkeepers (and random confiscations by border guards).

On the other hand, this is quite a sardonic take on the impact of papal visits and the question about their immediate effect and their lasting effects. Just what will a papal discourse on the dignity of work delivered in the context of papal robes and political dignitaries do for the workers.

The characters in Melo, May 1988, are an earthy lot. They have little scruple about their trade and have devised ways of beating the law, especially with alternate routes, hiding from inspection and concealing the most valuable commodities. But, this is a hard Latin American way of life, no easy ways. The smuggling is done on the backs of pushbikes as the men dream of enough money to buy motor-bikes.

The central character, a smuggling expert with a hard-working and devoted wife, wants the best for his daughter. But, she dreams of going away to study to become a radio announcer. Will this ever be possible?

With the news that the Pope will come to Melo on 8th May to deliver his discourse about work, dreams of capitalising on the promised influx of Brazilian pilgrims to hear the Pope become more and more fervid and ambitious. (The Pope did actually go to Melo on that day and the film uses archival footage of John Paul II and the events; the text of his speech can be found on the Vatican website for papal visits by clicking on that date.)

While most think food and drink for the hungry and thirsty and are cooking huge quantities of food, preparing their stands and looking at the television promises of huge estimates of visitors (and gloating), our hero (who prides himself on wearing his thinking cap) gets the brainwave: toilets and a charge for their use. So, all his efforts (and all his extra ‘trips’ into Brazil) go into clearing the ground for the toilet, buying a stylish wooden door and, eventually, a bowl.

And the effect of the papal visit?

The question left for viewers of the film is: should the papal visit be an occasion for a commercial bonanza and/or or a pastoral experience, especially for the poor and the workers?

1.The appeal of the film: the characters, the village life, the poor and the workers, the papal event, hopes?

2.The film as a critique of papal visits, the pope’s speech, the picture of the people, the effect on the poor?

3.Life in the village, the feel, the 1980s, the bicycles, on the open roads, the ventures into Brazil, the border, the guards, homes, the shops, the way of life? The workers and the poor?

4.The facts of the papal visit, the 8th of May 1988, the visit to Melo? The pope received by the dignitaries? Delivering his speech, leaving? The pomp of the visit? The dignitaries?

5.Beto and his life as a smuggler, hiding from the guards, paying the guards, the various ‘troops’? His relationship with Carmen, his love for her, the day-to-day life? His love for Sylvia? At home, Carmen and her managing? Beto and his friends, the drink? The subservience to the bosses?

6.Carmen and Sylvia, at home, work, Sylvia listening to the radio, wanting to study, wanting to be a news reader, the difficulties with money, her father using her funds to buy the toilet?

7.Beto and his various friends, the smugglers’ community, their wives, the visits, chatting?

8.The television, the announcer, the information about the papal visit, the expectations of visitors from Brazil? Hundreds of thousands?

9.The preparation of the food, the frenzy, making various dishes, the cooking, storing them, preparing the stands?

10.The motivation of the people, some financial gain, some hope, exploiting the papal visit?

11.The issue of the toilet, Beto and his bright idea? Clearing the space, the building? Going to the shop for the fashionable door? Looking at the toilet bowls, wanting the pink bowl?

12.The extra trips, the guards, the confiscations, the bike and its breakdown, finally getting the bowl, arriving late, getting the lift from the boss?

13.Rehearsing with Carmen and Sylvia of how to deal with the customers for the toilet, Carmen and her awkwardness? The toilet ready – but too late?

14.The intercutting of the papal discourse with the scenes of the village, the people with their stalls, their hopes? The words of the speech compared with the reality? The pope not meeting the workers?

15.The disappointment of the small crowds, their going past the stands and not buying, the village people trying to cajole them into buying, the result?

16.The bittersweet experience – humour and critique?

ROMAN DE GARE (CROSSED OVER)

France, 2007, 103 minutes, Colour.
Dominique Pinon, Fanny Ardant, Audrey Dana, Michele Bernier, Myriam Boyer.
Directed by Claude Lelouch.

Claude Lelouch won an Oscar in 1966 for A Man and a Woman, a lush and emotional drama. Before that, and energetically since, Lelouch has made a constant stream of beautiful, emotional films which have, even when they are sad or, indeed, tragic, like his update of Les Miserables, have a sunnier quality and look than most French films.

This is the case here in this roman de gare, 'railway novel' (or 'airport novel') tale, which opens with the leading lady accused of the murder of her ghost writer and which takes us back to what is the plot of a novel being acted out for an ultimate masterpiece.

Lelouch has used the clever mode of misdirection of audience attention, making us assume aspects of plot and character which are not true at all. And this, of course, leads to a number of twists in a complex plot.

It is fascinating to see French actor, Dominique Pinon, whom film buffs will recognise from Delicatessen and many films. They may not know his name, but he is the small actor with a mouth and jaw which looked somehow squashed and have led to his playing offbeat, even bizarre, roles. Lelouch has given him a leading role here, a mysterious man, of whom audiences are suspicious and for the most part, questioning his behaviour and motives.

The leading lady, a celebrity novelist, is played in grande dame style by Fanny Ardant. Matching her, is Audrey Dana as a moody hairdresser who becomes a central character in the novel.

With locations in Paris, in French villages and beautiful countryside as well as Cannes and Alba, the film is designed as a popular entertainment – with quality.

1.Claude Lelouch and his forty-plus years of entertainment, lush style, sunny dramas, mysteries, romances?

2.The title, the airport novel? The indication of the plot of the film as well as its theme? Style?

3.The locations, the suburb in Paris, the open road, restaurants and service stations, the countryside and farms, Cannes and yachts? TV world? Glossy, sunny France? The musical score?

4.The complexity and intrigue of the plot, the author and her success, TV interview, the reality of the ghost writer? The serial killer? The magician? The teacher leaving family? On the road, Hughuette and the clash with Paul? The rescue, going to the farm? How much is real, how much imagined? The anticipation of the novel? Cannes, the confrontations, death and the consequences? The novelist and her death?

5.Judith, the television interview, the expose, as a novelist, her suave manner, signing books? God, the other? (*the Other?) Her fans? Her arrest? Interrogation? Suspicions because of her previous marriage and the death of her young husband? The background of the vineyards? Fanny Ardant and her style?

6.The serial killer, the magician, paedophile? The story? Suspicions of Louis? Is Louis Pierre? His leaving his family in Paris? Driving? The encounter with Huguette? Watching her, rescuing her? Going to the farm? The claims that he is the fiancé? The staged sex scene? The parents and their attitude? His disappearance?

7.Pierre, his wife and children? His sister or not? Her being interrogated, the story, her being attracted to the detective?

8.Paul and Huguette, the travel, the hairdresser, her complaints, Paul as a doctor? The arguments? The break-up? Pierre/Louis going to the farm, posing, the weekend? The bond with Huguette? Leaving?

9.Pierre and his arrival in Cannes, the yacht, Judith and her way of life? Wealth? Their discussions about the next book? His using the experience with Huguette, having made notes on his recorder? Pierre and his suspicions about Judith, that she was planning to kill him? The encounter, the early morning, his disappearance? Presumed dead?

10.Judith, the success of her book, Pierre’s arrival, the possible expose – and her killing herself?

11.Pierre and Huguette, his going back to her – and a new life?

12.How enjoyable and entertaining the twists and turns, the reality and imagination? An airport

PUSH

US, 2009, 111 minutes, Colour.
Chris Evans, Dakota Fanning, Camilla Belle, Djimon Hounsou, Neil Jackson.
Directed by Paul Mc Guigan.

The X Men films, The Matrix films and Asian martial arts films have all had their influence on trends in action shows as well as offering some kind of broadly mystical atmosphere. This is definitely the case with Push, one of those science-fiction fantasies that draws on all kinds of other films and does not quite make it to the level of itself being a film that will have an influence. For one thing, it is not always so easy to follow and with an assortment of characters who spend a lot of time chasing each other and employing different powers to elude capture, nodding off could be a comprehension hasard (although one of the Hong Kong agents has the power of squealing/screaming to burst eardrums).

What makes it more complicated to follow is that some of the powers are contradictory. Some people can see the future. Others can implant imagination and false memories, so one has to be alert as to what might be happening to the hero (Chris Evans) who is in love with a woman who seems to be the victim of the organisation that is experimenting with these powers (Camilla Belle) but who may also be an agent who willingly submitted to experiments. (Come to think of it, this is quite like the plot of the film, Cypher, with Jeremy Northam). Then there is a young girl (Dakota Fanning) who can see some of the future and draws it (not very artistically) and who is being pursued by Chinese agents and a boss (Djimon Housou).

That was an attempt to clarify – but it may not do the trick!

Otherwise, most of the action is set in Hong Kong and the actors do their best and the special effects team have a field day.

1.A post-Matrix science fiction film? Popular? Difficult to follow? The credits and the history background for the film?

2.An ordinary world yet a different world, parallel world? Characters and situations in the two worlds? The American background, the Hong Kong settings and the use of the settings? The city, apartments, buildings, the streets, markets? The musical score? The style of photography, colour and darkness?

3.The set design, costumes and décor, the action sequences, special effects, stunts?

4.The information about the alternate world, authorities, the experiments? How credible? In science fiction conventions?

5.The different types and their roles? Certainties and uncertainties? The use of false memories and their being planted? The consequences?

6.The opening, Nick, his father being taken, Nick on the run? Going to Hong Kong, hiding there?

7.Nick’s story, his being a Mover, telekinetic powers, weak, trying to develop them? The role of the Division, in charge of the research, searching for Nick? Nick and his relationship with Kira? Carver and his pursuit, his henchmen? The confrontations? The injections? Discovering Kira? Cassie and being on the run with her?

8.Kira, awaking in Hong Kong, a victim of the experiments or a collaborator? The pursuit? Her being a Pusher? Manipulation, inserting of memories? The relationship with Nick – the visit to Coney Island? True or false? The injections? Carver and his pursuing her, the false memories, the collaboration with Carver? Her planting false memories in the guards and their killing one another? Carver killing himself?

9.Cassie, her age, dress, tough? Her being a Watcher? Prophetic, seeking Kira, seeking Nick? The words from her mother about finding the man and knowing it? The nature of her sketches, her visions, their changing? The pursuit by the Chinese? Her working with Nick?

10.The Chinese crime family, at home in Hong Kong, their paranormal behaviour, the pursuit, their activities, in the skyscraper, fights and deaths?

11.Carver, his being a Pusher? His authority in the Division? Killing Nick’s father, pursuing Nick, the confrontation, the injections for Kira? Telling Kira about her false memories? Her being his partner? The issue of the drug substitution, Carver being deceived?

12.The syringe, Kira hiding, the drug, the extra paranormal possibilities with the drug? Nick and Cassie, the drug, the decoy?

13.The mystery of Cassie’s mother, being imprisoned, the set-up, her warning Cassie to find Nick?

14.Victor, the agents, their pursuits, powers, false memories and killing each other?

15.How interesting the complexity of the plot? Parallel worlds? Ideas and imagination?

HE’S JUST NOT THAT INTO YOU

US, 2009, 129 minutes, Colour.
Ginnifer Goodwin, Jennifer Connelly, Jennifer Aniston, Drew Barrymore, Scarlett Johansson, Kevin Connolly, Justin Long, Bradley Cooper , Ben Affleck, Leonard Nam.
Directed by Ken Kwapis.

Friendsish, so to speak.

For many years (and through constant repeats), Friends has made quite an impact on the viewing public. The week-in, week-out activities of a group of 30-somethings, their friendships, their relationships, their work, their careers, families, all presented in a pleasantly glossy style, with some farce, some comedy and some quips, has become a way of communicating the details of lives, both serious and trivial, from the screen. Sex and the City derives from this approach. And this film takes its title and its chapter headings from Sex and the City and Jennifer Aniston is in it, so a constant reminder of Friends.

If the anguishes and the falling in and out of love of this particular American demographic holds a special appeal, then this film provides plenty of it, running over two hours.

But, while the situations might be important to the characters, are their personalities interesting enough to stay with them and has the film been made in the semi-blandly engaging television style? The personalities, of course, some yes, some no. The style is, yes, big screen TV style.

And the characters? Jennifer Connolly is very strong and makes her story worthwhile. She has a two-timing husband who professes love and even confesses to her and, while she is definitely a controller, the experience is hard for her. She works in an office with Ginnifer Goodwin who is, more or less, the central character. She is ingenuous, over-eager and sometimes quite irritating as she tries to sustain a relationship, especially with a real estate agent (Kevin Connolly) who is really in love with Scarlett Johansson (who seems to be becoming less and less impressive each film she makes). But, she is the object of the two-timing husband's affair. In the meantime, Jennifer Aniston, who also works in the office, would really like to marry her partner of seven years (Ben Affleck who, after directing the excellent Gone, Baby, Gone, has unwisely gone in front of the camera again). He doesn't. Oh, there are two more characters. Justin Long does quite a good job as the bar managing confidant who has all kinds of detached advice without realising he has fallen in love. And Drew Barrymore, taken in by an on-line Lothario, is a plain Jane who is also on the lookout for love.

So, there you are – if you want to enjoy another American romcom. Otherwise you may just not be into this kind of film.

1.A romantic comedy? The relationship to Sex and the City?

2.The title, the quote, Sex and the City, the aphorisms throughout the film? The cruelty of men in the opening collage – around America, even in Africa?

3.The Baltimore setting, the world of the thirtysomethings, apartments, homes, restaurant and clubs? The workplace? Audiences identifying with particular characters? Realism or soap opera? The range of songs to give the mood and illustrate situations?

4.Gigi as the central character? Seeing her at work, discussions with her friends? Family background? Relationships, despondent, her living in a world of cliché hopes? The date with Conor, its failure? The phone calls, waiting for the phone, continually checking her messages? Wanting advice? Going to the club, pretending to seek Conor, meeting Alex, his giving advice, their talking? His setting up the date but the man not arriving – but later coming and his not being a permanent relationship for Gigi? The friendship with Alex, the kiss, Alex and his retreat from her? Alex and his friends, her discussing this at work, their support? Discovering Alex’s attitude, her realisation?

5.Conor, the estate agent, the date with Gigi, thinking of Anna? Talking with Alex? Anna putting him off? His desperation, the meetings? The serious relationship, Anna going? The meeting with Mary – and finding a soulmate?

6.Janine, strong woman, at work, with her friends, her relationship with her husband, her running of the house, the redecoration, the builders and her demands, the smoking issue? Ben and his flirting with Anna, the meetings? His behaviour at home? Attitudes towards the decoration, the lying about smoking? His relationship with Anna, admitting the truth to Janine? Anna at his office, hiding, Janine and her wanting to make the marriage better, the sexual encounter, Anna’s disgust? Her leaving? Janine, finding out the truth about the smoking, the separation?

7.Beth and Neil, together for seven years, seeing their domestic life, happy, Neil not wanting a marriage commitment? Beth and her really wanting it? Their discussion of the matter? Neil and his inability to commit? Leaving? Getting advice? Beth at work, the wedding, her family? Her care for the family? Neil and his change of heart, the proposal?

8.Mary, at work, her gay friends, the internet dating, the discovery of the truth by accident? Going out, the party? With Conor?

9.A film of the 21st century, with the young adults, their uncertainties, hopes, desires?

LONDINIUM

UK, 2001, 87 minutes, Colour.
Mike Binder, Colin Firth, Mariel Hemingway, Irene Jacobs, Stephen Fry, Jack Dee, Stephen Marcus, Christopher Lawford.
Directed by Mike Binder.

Londinium will be enjoyed by those who are in a relaxed frame of mind. It may irritate others who are not sympathetic to the central characters and their falling in and out of love.

Mike Binder has written a number of films and directed a number of them. He went from Blankman, a silly comedy with Damon Wayans to such serious films as The Upside of Anger with Kevin Costner and Joan Allen as well as the Adam Sandler comedy, Reign Over Me.

Some commentators have likened this film to a Woody Allen film. The comparison is useful. The film relies on four characters living in London, working on media projects, especially television and theatre, their marriages, their betrayals, their falling in and out of love, their careers. The film also focuses on dialogue, an important factor in interactions as in Woody Allen films. There is the sardonic Allen-like touch.

Colin Firth and Mariel Hemingway portray a married couple working in television. He is a producer, she is an actress. They become friends with the writer, played by Mike Binder, who comes from Los Angeles. He becomes involved with the actress’s makeup artist, played by Irene Jacob. The writer and the makeup artist marry. However, the writer has a roving eye and the actress is unsatisfied in her marriage. He sets up a situation where they spy on the producer and the makeup artist. When the revelation happens, the producer and the makeup artist marry.

The group still remain friends. However, the actress wants to go back to Los Angeles for an opportunity in television and theatre. The makeup artist writes a book about London and is invited to Rome to write another book. She offers her husband an ultimatum. He goes.

In the supporting cast are Jack Dee and Stephen Marcus who also work at the television station and are friends of the producer. Stephen Fry is an industrial mediator who is asked to act as a therapist. Christopher Lawford is a smooth-talking agent.

Why the film is called Londinium seems a touch pretentious. However, there are many scenes of London itself which those who like the city will enjoy.

1.The work of Mike Binder? Writing and directing? Acting?

2.The style of the film, the comparisons with Woody Allen? Woody Allen in London? Characters, situations, relationships? Manner of speaking? Ironies?

3.The London settings, the beauty of the city? The countryside? The studios, flats? Authentic atmosphere? Musical score?

4.The opening, the picnic, the characters? Fiona’s voice-over? The flashbacks to Ben’s arrival in London, the sitcom, the situations, their getting to know each other? The development of the relationships, betrayals, in and out of love? Marriage? Confrontations?

5.The group as a foursome, their time together, interactions, at work, their different jobs, in London, walking around, museums…? In the countryside? At the wedding?

6.Ben, the American background, the writer, arrival in London, his roving eye? With Fiona, the affair? His interest in Carly? The passing of time, his hearing the story about the bed-and-breakfast with thin walls? His setting up Allen and Fiona, Carly and Ben going to the B&B, changing rooms many times, overhearing the couple? The picnic and the telling of the truth? Ben and his cowardice, avoiding the details of truth? His being with Carly, her wanting to be in a play, the theatre, her death scene – and a success? His discussions with Davis about contacts, deals? Carly and her going back to America, his staying in London?

7.Carly, the actress, married to Allen, the brittle marriage? Going to the theatre with Ben, going to sleep, the drink afterwards, the kiss, the relationship? The incident and the bed-and-breakfast? The truth? Her being with Ben? Ambitious, the theatre, wanting a death scene? The incongruous death scene? Her poor acting? The opportunity to star in a sitcom, Ben writing for her, her going back to America?

8.Allen, the Colin Firth character? His description of himself as cold? The relationship with Carly? TV producer? Drinking with his mates, taking it out on them by the punch-up? His friendship with Glen and Davey? The marriage, his roving eye, the attraction towards Fiona, going out with her, the set-up for them to go to the B&B? The truth? The marriage? The difficulties of the marriage, the arguments? Fiona and her success? The invitation to Rome, his having to face a decision, liking to live in London rather than Rome? Their going to Nigel, the therapy, the humorous touches? The ultimatum, his going to the station, going to Rome? The final punch-ups?

9.Fiona, French, makeup artist? The relationship with Ben? The attraction to Allen, being with him, at the B&B? The marriage? Her success? Going to Rome, the therapy, the final decision, the station?

10.Glen and Davey, at work, Glen and his interview and talk to camera? At the pub, the fights?

11.Davis, smooth-talking agent, the deals?

12.The overall effect? Interest in insight into these characters and their difficulties, the resolution of their problems?

DUNGEONS AND DRAGONS

US, 2000, 107 minutes, Colour.
Jeremy Irons, Bruce Payne, Justin Whalin, Marlon Wayans, Thora Birch.
Directed by Courtney Solomon.

Dungeons and Dragons is based on the very popular computer game in wide use prior to 2000. This is one of the many films based on computer games – but is more younger audience-friendly despite an amount of violence.

The film received very poor reviews on its release. It is a strange mixture of the solemn and the farcical. On the one hand, Jeremy Irons overacts as the ambitious Profion with Bruce Payne, always a sinister villain in films, as his slave and assistant Damodar. On the other hand there is the very Americanised central story, with Justin Whalin as Ridley Freeborn, the hero, and, very disconcertingly, Marlon Wayans as Snails his associate. Wayans is acting as if he were in one of the films with his brothers, the very broad comedies that were very popular. His dialogue consists of a great deal of contemporary American slang. This is in stark contrast with the Irons- Payne style of acting. Thora Birch is the empress, obviously modelled on Padme in The Star Wars, but lacks vitality or skill that she showed in such films as American Beauty.

There are interesting special effects, the castle, the dragons and the dragon battles. There are also aspects of magic.

The film has a quest, Ridley Freeborn, a thief, trying to find the Devil’s Eye which Profion wants in order to take over the empire from the empress who wants to change the social structure with all people being equal.

The film is a bit difficult for adults to watch. However, apart from the violent touches, it seems to be geared towards boys, especially, from seven or eight to fourteen.

1.The popularity of the computer game? The visualising of the game, characters, quest, locations, costumes and décor?

2.The production design of the film, the castle and the rooms, the dragons and the special effects, the battles? The countryside? The tunnels, the caverns, the treasure room? On a par with other films of fantasy? The musical score?

3.Profion, Jeremy Irons’ performance (hamming and overacting?), his ambitions, Damodar as his assistant, using magic to control him? His wanting to destroy the empress? His power over the dragon, the dragon coming out of its cage, his killing it? His presence in the council, arguments against the empress, getting the council on-side? His later machinations, sending Damodar to get the Devil’s Eye? The return, the confrontation with the empress? The confrontation with Ridley Freeborn, the fight, his friends coming to his rescue? Profion’s death?

4.Damodar, his appearance, servant, enslaved, his head and skull, the blood? His confrontation of the enemies, of Ridley, his confrontation of Snails and killing him? Ridley’s friends? The pursuit, his capturing the friends, getting the sword, saying that he lied? The return to Profion, giving him the sword, his being healed, the fight with Ridley, his death and fall from the battlements?

5.Ridley and Snails, ordinary, thieves, their activity in the village? Their encounter with the women from the court? The discussion about the Devil’s Eye? Their going on the quest, the journey, the magic, finding the jewel? Ridley and his confrontations with Damodar? Snails, the jewel, using the magic, Damodar killing him? His grave?

6.The girl from the court, discussions with Ridley, the attraction? The warrior and the dwarf? Their help, the fights? Their being taken by Damodar, their escape? Snails and his personality, African American talk? In place or out of place in the film?

7.The sword, Ridley and his mission? Going to the cave, the others being excluded? His discovering the treasure, the statue, the skeleton talking about his destiny? Leaving, the confrontation, giving the sword to save the others’ lives? Following Damodar to the turret? The dragons, the fight, his losing, Damodar’s death? The final confrontation with Profion? The inevitable happy ending?

8.The empress, the council, her policies, equality? Profion and his defying her? Her determination, her decrees? Going to war, the dragons?

9.The dragon fights, the special effects for so many dragons? The attack?

10.The overall impact of the film? A fantasy? The appeal of this kind of post-Star Wars fantasy? And as a computer game?

BRONSON

UK, 2009, 92 minutes, Colour.
Tom Hardy, Matt King, James Lance, Kelly Adams, Amanda Burton.
Directed by Nicolas Winding Refn.

No, not that Bronson. Although this Bronson, allegedly Britain's most famous and notorious prisoner, changed his name from Michael Peterson, to Charles Bronson. The reasons why are at the core of this film. The director says that he was interested in the concept of Peterson's use of the name, Charles Bronson, rather than in Michael Peterson.

This film is tough going. It is also an example of excellent filmic communication and cinema art. It is just who will want to submit themselves to this exploration of the criminal mind and behaviour that is the question.

As played by Tom Hardy in what is certainly a dramatic tour-de-force, both in acting and in performance art, Bronson is both a character and a symbol. While we initially see him naked in his cell shadow boxing (and he did become an expert on physical fitness – as well as being a pugnacious brute) and finish with him in solitary, bloodied and defiant, this is a stylised portrait of the man. Throughout the film, there is theatricality where Bronson is on stage in a theatre, framed by the proscenium and then looking out to a darkened auditorium of well-to-do, well-dressed patrons who eventually applaud him. But he is not only playing to them, he is playing them. He can smile and instantly turn grim. He can pretend to weep and reveal that he is laughing. He is made up as a clown at times. At other times, he uses the means of one profile being himself and turning for the other profile as a different character. These devices mean that Bronson both intrigues and repels (but rarely, if at all, elicits sympathy).

He sketches in his ordinary life, especially in the mid-70s, but he is a bully at school, molly-coddled by his mother, flirts, marries, has a child, attempts a robbery and is gaoled for seven years.

Once in gaol, despite his taunting the authorities and using his fists wherever possible, he is at home. The system gives him a framework for life. He wants some acknowledgement. He wants fame. He wants celebrity. He is moved from prison to prison. He is transferred to an institution for the criminally insane, but drugged and helpless, he wants out of there and is declared sane. He has a two months period where he is out of gaol in the 1980s, is taken up by a club owner, re-named Charles Bronson with Death Wish overtones – he had originally wanted Charlton Heston but was told that this was too weak – and fights illegal bare-knuckle bouts. But, robbing a jeweller's shop, he is soon back where he feels he really belongs.

In fact, Peterson-Bronson? has become an artist and has published eleven books. But, most of his time has been in solitary. We see his erratic behaviour in his taking a librarian hostage, doing art classes and then humiliating his teacher by holding him hostage as well and painting him as an art object. The director has made the observation that to understand Bronson, he can be seen as an artist searching for his life's art canvas.

Nicolas Winding Refn has made some tough Danish films about drug criminals, the Pusher series. Here he brings a visual artist's eye to his use of colour, framing scenes, using very long takes so that the audience has time to contemplate Bronson and other characters and try to imagine what they are thinking or feeling. The blend of realism and stylised film-making lead to a striking film.

1.The impact of the film? Its art style? As entertainment? Its intended audience?

2.The work of the director, Danish background, his career, tough and brutal films? His interpretation of Bronson?

3.His quotation: an artist in search of a canvas – for his own life? How true of Bronson and the interpretation in the film?

4.The director’s statement that he was more interested in the concept of Charles Bronson rather than of Michael Peterson? How well illustrated and explored?

5.The blend of the real and the surreal? The flashbacks to Bronson’s early life, Michael Peterson, his mother, school, his brutality, bashing the teacher? Realism? The contrast with prison, the bright and dark colours, grim, the framing of Bronson, the very long takes focusing on the faces of the characters, especially Bronson? Bronson’s face and the tabula rasa? Enabling the audience to ask the questions and try to supply answers? The scenes of the fights, the clubs, colour and darkness? Surreal? His performance in the theatre, the proscenium, the audience, semi-darkness, well dressed, their applause, moving to wolf whistles and acclaim? The appearance of Bronson, as ordinary, as young, as a clown, the two sides of his face, masculine and feminine…? The sound engineering and the constant burr?

6.The importance of the musical score, the Verdi and the operatic excerpts? The beauty contrasting with the images? Songs? The contrast of the visuals and the sound?

7.The narrative: Bronson in himself, shadow boxing in his cell, the reprise of these images at the end? His performance in the theatre, performance art, explanation of himself? The flashbacks, ordinary, 1974 in Britain, the robbery in the post office, the court and his sentence? Continually reverting to his performance, his face, the smile and suddenly serious? As a clown, weeping and laughing, tricking the audience? The details of prison life, his violence, training for fitness, his brutal attacks on the guards, on prisoners? Solitary? Moving from prison to prison? Taking the librarian hostage? Confronting the authorities, interviews, getting out? The encounter with Paul in jail with a cup of tea, going to the club? Irene, falling in love, the brutal bare-knuckle fights, fighting the dog, the crowds watching, stealing the ring, his quick arrest? His time in the asylum? Sane or insane, his reading, taking up art, the meaning of his drawings, the interactions with the teacher, taking the teacher hostage, making the teacher part of his performance art? The end, the final information, seeing him caged?

8.Audience interest in Bronson as a person, criminal, his mentality? Any sympathy for him?

9.The presentation of the prisons, the guards, the governors? The regimes? The physical attacks? The fights? His going to the asylum, forcing the pills? The final governor, discussions, civilised, negotiations, the music?

10.Paul, his sashaying around, getting a cup of tea, managing the club, organising the fights, discussing Bronson’s name, the crowds?

11.The art teacher, camp style, his skills, the training, Bronson’s sketches and his discussing them, with interest? His referring to ‘we’ and getting out? Being taken hostage, being painted, the hat on his head, his tear, the eyes on his eyelid? The playing of the operatic music?

12.The background of Bronson’s parents, his devoted mother, not believing any attack on her, the teacher’s bringing him home, the police arriving for interrogation, his bashing the police? At work, the flirtatious girl, marriage, the child? Their disappearance from his life? The relationship with Irene, declaring love, her talking about Brian, marrying him, the gift of the ring, his stealing it?

13.The concept of Bronson, fame, celebrity, art, vanity and showing off? Fights and the name?

14.Issue’s of Bronson’s sanity, insanity? The episode leading him to the institution, forcing the drugs on him, in the recreation room, the tableau of the insane men and their performance behaviour? The criminal and his discussions, Bronson’s attack? Getting out, declared sane?

15.Bronson’s personal achievement, his art, fitness, his books?

16.The end, in solitary, caged and bloodied, naked?

17.The issues about society and its treatment of prisoners, humanity and inhumanity?

LOS CRONOCRIMENES (TIME CRIMES)

Spain, 2007, 92 minutes, Colour.
Karra Elejalde, Candela Fernandez, Barbara Goenaga, Nacho Vigalondo.
Directed by Nacho Vigalondo.

Time travel. What if there were the technology to go back in time only an hour or two? How would it affect the past? What if one encountered one's former self? Who would be the real person, the one from the future, the one in the present? And, what if the pattern were repeated?

Instead of Groundhog Day, over and over again, what if it were continued repetitions of the same person over and over again? Cronoscrimines does not exactly answer these questions but it exercises the minds and emotion as we look at a middle-aged man, Hector, who began a quiet Saturday afternoon at home and relived it over again (and over again) but decided to intervene to bring the process to a stop, only to so complicate matters that he was changing his history. There are also consequences for his wife and the girl he sees in the woods. There are more conscience questions and consequences for the young scientist who manages the time machine.

At only 90 minutes, this is quite an effective time travel thriller.

It begins tranquilly enough at the supermarket, then home with the wife working in the garden, the husband having a rest and then relaxing with his binoculars until he spies an unknown woman in the woods. Later, when we realise that he is seeing a situation set up by his second self, the film becomes very interesting as the writer-director cleverly shows us what the first Hector saw from the perspective of the second Hector. Plenty of deja vu all over again.

However, with the two Hectors, the one trying to destroy the other and then prevent him from entering the machine, the plot becomes more eerie with car crashes, stabbings in the woods, sieges of the home...

How can it all end? Can it all end?

This intriguing film not only asks, 'What the Hec?' but also, 'Which the Hec'!

1.A satisfying thriller? Psychological thriller? Experiments in time travel? Philosophical implications?

2.The title, the play on time? The time travel leading to crime?

3.Films about doubles, triples, clones? Identity? The real self? The confrontation of the real self by clones?

4.The ordinary setting, the supermarket, the parking area, the car, the shopping, the house, the gardens, husband and wife, everything normal?

5.Hector, age, love for his wife, sitting in the garden, his wife working, her decision to go shopping? Hector and the binoculars? Seeing the girl, naked, the man with the head swathed, his curiosity?

6.Hector and the search, the pursuit, the girl, the institution, contacting the young man, going inside, being directed by the young man, the laboratories, his help, the time machine, Hector going in and emerging?

7.The transition from daylight to darkness?

8.The young scientist, his explanations, guiding Hector, in the building, alone, the walkie-talkie, the decision to help Hector? Getting him into the machine? The revelation about the experiments? The revelation about the other Hectors?

9.The second Hector emerging from the machine, the potential clash with the first Hector? The scissors, the escape, driving the car, encountering the girl, helping her, in the woods? The first Hector and his being wounded? Going to the house? The second Hector in pursuit? Going to safety, inside the house, on the roof? The dangers? Watching the first Hector? His wife’s death?

10.The repeat of the events in the woods, seeing them from another perspective, the explanations, the return to the laboratory? The young man and his further explanations, suggestions about escape, the time machine? The third Hector? Recreating the events of the past, accurately in order to get rid of the other selves?

11.The tantalising of the audience with the plot and its complexities, an ordinary man and his transformation, the multiple Hectors?

12.The metaphysical implications: the possibilities of such time travel, short distances in time, the travel itself, the cloning, reliving exactly the past, trying to make things normal? Events, chance, accidents changing human plans?

LOST

US, 2004, 90 minutes, Colour.
Dean Cain, Ashley Scott, Danny Trejo, Justin Henry.
Directed by Darren Lemke.

Lost is quite an intriguing thriller with quite a number of twists. Audience sympathy is initially with Dean Cain as he leaves Santa Barbara for a rendezvous and finds himself lost in the Nevada desert. He tries to get directory help but finds himself in dead ends. What is revealed is a robbery gone wrong and criminals out to find Cain as well as the money.

Keeps the interest.

1.A road thriller? The complexity of the plot? Audience interest, identification?

2.The Santa Barbara robbery? The surveillance, TV treatment? The Nevada roads, landscapes? A state to be lost in?

3.The structure of the film: Jeremy, his driving, being lost in Nevada? The information about the robbery? The flashbacks implicating him? The phone calls to his wife? The phone calls to the directory operator? The phone calls from Chester, from Archer? The cumulative effect of his driving, being pursued, the trooper? Trying to find directions, dead ends? The flashbacks to his childhood?

4.The character of Jeremy, the opening and his losing his job, his being desperate? The drive, audience puzzle? The long dialogues with Judy, the operator? His attitudes? The map? His discussions with his wife, concern about his son? Her knowing about the robbery? The plan to get to the plane and fly away? His flashbacks and the explanation about himself? An ordinary man, overspending, desperate? His place in the bank, the plan with Chester, the robbers? His filling his own bag? His transferring the money to plastic bags, throwing the contents out the window? His determination, his being upset? The suspicions of the trooper? Going to the house, the deaf lady watching the minister on television? Taking the truck? His continued determination, Judy encouraging him? The disillusionment, her being in the pay of Archer? Archer at the airport and the final confrontation? Final decisions?

5.The device of having the tape playing in the car, advice about success, twelve steps? The captions throughout the film about safe driving, cautions? As illustrated by Jeremy?

6.Judy, her character, her voice, the directions, her being in the pay of Archer? The amount of money, her sympathy because of Jeremy’s son and wife, watching them on television?

7.Jeremy’s wife, her concern, desperate phone calls?

8.Chester, participating in the robbery, getting away, taken by Archer, the phone calls, his death? Jeremy’s desperately trying to phone him?

9.The trooper, watching Jeremy – and the surprise of his being found dead? Archer’s claim?

10.Road suspense, suspense and uncertainty, Jeremy and audiences being able to identify, if not with him, with his being lost and his anxiety?

DEAD HEAT

US, 2002, 93 minutes, Colour.
Kiefer Sutherland, Anthony La Paglia, Radha Mitchell, Lothaire Bluteau, Daniel Benzali, Kay Panabaker, Charles Martin Smith.
Directed by Mark Malone.

Dead Heat is an entertaining thriller with comic touches. It focuses on Kiefer Sutherland as a policeman, effective in his work, but suffering a heart attack in his pursuit of a criminal. He is forced into retirement and becomes almost suicidal. His stepbrother is played by Anthony La Paglia, a man who is always on the edge of crime and the gangster world. While Sutherland plays it all very seriously, La Paglia has the humorous touch. Radha Mitchell portrays Sutherland’s ex-wife who still visits him, cooks for him, and urges La Paglia to do something for him. What he does is interest him in a horse which La Paglia has used blackmail to buy. They also have a friend who is a jockey – played, of all people, by Lothaire Bluteau (Jesus of Montreal, Black Robe). Any film with Lothaire Bluteau as a jockey is worth catching. Daniel Benzali is the sinister criminal.

While this remedy for depression might be a surefire formula, it obviously will not be. Lothaire Bluteau is also an inveterate gambler and his gangster boss takes the horse. Sutherland and La Paglia decide to steal it back – with some humorous touches. However, when they are pursued by one of the gangster’s henchmen, Sutherland shoots him in self-defence and bury the body.

This is a well-written blend of serious themes with comic touches.

The film was written and directed by Mark Malone, who has made comparatively few films, but his first feature film directing was Killer with Anthony La Paglia.

1.An entertainment? Serious themes with comical and farcical touches?

2.The city setting, police and crime? Apartments? Shops? The ordinary world? The world of gambling? The racecourse? The countryside? Authentic realism for such an entertainment? Musical score?

3.The focus on Pally, the raid, the chase, the shooting, his heart attack? Hospital? Retirement from the force? At home, watching television, depressed? Suicidal? Charlotte visiting him, their divorce papers, her cooking for him, their relationship? Ray coming to visit him, going out for a drink, the proposal? The details of the proposal, Pally’s disbelief? His love of horses? His finally being persuaded?

4.Charlotte, her love for Pally, separation, divorce papers? Coming to visit? Her new boyfriend, Pally attacking him in the restaurant? Pally coming to their house, the boyfriend? Wearing his dressing gown? Her discovering Sam, her looking after her? Her involvement in the story, the burial of the dead man? Going to the racetrack, the win? A future or not?

5.Ray, stepbrother, his deals? Going to see Pally, his earnestness in presenting the proposal? Smooth talking? Genial and persuasive? Yet criminal? Pally realising the difficulties for criminal behaviour? Their going to see Tony, seeing him bashed? The horse? Tony and his agreeing to ride the horse?

6.The blackmail of the doctor, his affair? Selling the horse? The discovery of the polyp? Its being fixed? The horse and its ability? Ray and his love for the horse?

7.Tony, his huge gambling debt, Frank Finnegan and his demands? The stealing of the horse? Ray wanting to steal it back, Ray and Pally, the night, getting the wrong horse, getting the right horse? The pursuit, the henchmen, the chase, the shooting? The plans to bury the body?

8.Tony, his being trapped by Finnegan, letting him gamble again? Tony and his addiction? The huge debts? Yet his love for his daughter and caring for her? His agreeing to lose the race?

9.Pally, the need to raise the money to race the horse? His confrontation with the doctor and robbing him? Ray raising the money? Their entering the horse? Tony to ride it?

10.Sam, tough, her relationship with her father, threatening his enemies? Her being left outside the gambling house? Pally finding her, taking her home, Charlotte and her looking after her? The cigarette before bed?

11.The plan, getting the money from the winnings to pay back the debt? Pally and Ray and their discussions with Frank Finnegan and his demands?

12.The threats to Tony, the race, his deciding to win? The excitement of the race, the change of attitude in Pally and Ray? Trying to save Tony?

13.The confrontation with Finnegan, in the stables, shooting Tony? The stampeding of the horses by Sam? Finnegan and his being crushed by the horse?

14.The happy ending with the horse, Pally and Ray, Charlotte and Sam?

15.A concoction – but with a touch of truth, a touch of realism, and funny?