THE PERFECTIONIST

Australia, 1985, 93 minutes, Colour.
Jacki Weaver, John Waters, Noel Ferrier, Steven Vidler, Kate Fitzpatrick, Jennifer Claire, Linda Cropper, Maggie Dence.
Directed by Chris Thomson.

The Perfectionist is based on a play by David Williamson who has adapted it for the screen. Beginning with Stork in 1971, Williamson has contributed a great deal to the Australian film industry with film versions of such plays as The Removalists and Emerald City. He also wrote screenplays directly for the screen including the adaptation of Christopher Koch’s The Year of Living Dangerously.

This is a domestic drama, a focus on a couple and their children. The husband, played by John Waters, is an academic who has been working on his thesis for nine years, encouraged by his arrogant judge father, Noel Ferrier. Jacki Weaver plays his wife, concerned with the running of the household and bringing up the children. However, she wants to do a term’s course – there is a reaction from the husband until he finds that an American academic has been working on the same material as himself and has disproved the theory. Suddenly the husband goes through a conversion, wants to be a house father, goes to parenting groups, leaves his wife free to do her studies. She has previously employed a Danish migrant, played by Steven Vidler, to look after the children and her relates to them very well. She encounters him again and begins an affair, moving out of the house.

The film focuses on the characters, the effect on the children, the husband bringing his perfectionism from study to the running of the household, the pressures that this made on his wife, his plea for her to come back, and a happy sequence with the family around the table when she returns.

The film was directed by Chris Thomson who directed such films as the adaptation of Peter Corris’s The Empty Beach as well as the Kylie Minogue vehicle, The Delinquents.

1.The work of David Williamson? In theatre? For the screen? For television? His themes, family life, relationships, the academic world and its repercussions on home life?

2.The Sydney settings, the home, the more affluent home of his parents, the academic world? The location sequences around Sydney, using the beauty of Sydney, the musical score?

3.The title, its focus on Stuart, his perfectionism with his thesis, taking so long? Wanting ideal conditions in the house? His change of his perfectionism to the family, the rules, the meetings, the votes, going to the parents’ groups? The oppressive nature of his perfectionism, especially for Barbara? Her finally not being able to support it? The children and their response, collaborating with their father?

4.The character of Stuart, his academic work, his self-importance? His attitude towards Barbara’s studying, his contempt, his thinking that he was intellectually superior? The encounters with Erik? In the house, with the children? Erik and his telling Stuart the truth, Stuart’s arrogant response? Getting rid of Erik? The visit to his parents, his father’s support? His finally telling the truth, that his mother was an alcoholic, that his father was arrogant? That he didn’t want to bring his children up in the way that he had been brought up? The news about the thesis, his father’s reaction, urging him to go on to something more? His feeling nine years of his life was wasted? His change, with the children, the discipline, the meetings and the votes? Barbara and her reaction? The studies, his trying to support her? His not understanding her? Her decision to leave? The relationship with Erik? Stuart’s own affairs at the beginning of their marriage? Barbara forgiving him? His trying to carry on without Barbara, the growing exasperation, the chores, the cooking, the meals? The humour of the meals with the children asking all the riddles and his finally laughing? His going to Barbara, his appealing to her to come back? His offering to change?

5.Barbara, the Jacki Weaver character? Looking after the children, the household? Finding Stuart wearing? Supporting him for the nine years? Her wanting to do a course, social work? Her going to the course, taking the baby, its playing around, the reaction of the lecturer, her asking him for extensions for essays? Her meeting with Erik, employing him? Admiring his work with the children, the relationship? Her sexual approach to him? His going away? Stuart and the end of his thesis? At home, her being able to go out, her becoming more businesslike, the student? Her friendship with Su, the lifts, the discussions? Her finding Stuart exasperating? Erik’s return, the beginning of the affair, her wanting to move out, her needing time and space for herself, to think? Stuart coming to her, his appeal? The children? Her decision to return home?

6.Erik, from Denmark, his attitudes to life, not studying because he couldn’t get a job, relating well with the children, their liking him? Stuart and his dislike? Suspicions? Barbara and her warming to him? The sexual advance? His rejecting it, his reasons? His return, the relationship, the household sequences?

7.Shirley Gunn, her alcohol problem, relating to her husband, Stuart telling the truth, her admitting it?

8.Maggie Bridges, the people at the parent group, Rosie and her running the group, the questions, the issues? Stuart and his answers? Talking with Maggie – and the discussion about music, the opera? His describing her to Barbara, inviting Barbara to the opera, their going? Meeting Maggie, Barbara’s suspicions?

9.The portrait of family, the 1980s, tensions in the family – and the possibilities of reconciliation rather than an easy way out? The final sequence with the family happily around the table?

THINGS WE LOST IN THE FIRE

US, 2007, 117 minutes, Colour.
Halle Berry, Benicio Del Toro, David Duchovny, Alison Lohman, Omar Benson Miller, John Carroll Lynch, Alexis Llewellyn, Micah Berry.
Directed by Susanne Bier.

There are some films which immediately click and you know you are going to stay with them and enjoy them. There are others which take a long time to get into and you are not sure whether you will become fully involved. I was actually thinking this through during the first half hour or so of Things We Lost in the Fire and deciding that it was not a must-see film but it would be interesting if one happened upon it.

I am not sure at which point my opinion changed but, by the time of the final credits, I had a much greater admiration for the film and what it was communicating.

Though there is a reference to the garage fire of the film’s title early in the film, it is not until towards the end that the meaning is made clear. As might be guessed, the screenplay says that it is only ‘things’ that are lost in fires; we still have people and relationships that keep us going.

The first part of the film moves around quite a bit time-wise. Almost immediately we discover that someone we thought was going to be a central character has died. The explanation of what happened is not given until later in a tragic flashback. What we have is the widow grieving, comforting her two children and dealing with those coming to the funeral. She decides to send her brother to inform and pick up her husband’s best friend, someone she has detested for years. He and her husband grew up together and despite his being a failed lawyer and heroin-addict, her husband never gave up on him. He also becomes a link to her dead husband.

In fact, there are quite a few flashbacks to the happy 11 year marriage, the love between husband and wife and their relationship to their children, much of which is quite moving.

However, the bulk of the film is the tension between the widow and the addict. She invites him into her house to keep the link with her husband. He is marvellous with the children – which she then resents. He goes to Narcotics Anonymous meetings where a recovering young woman befriends him. A neighbour also befriends him and offers him a job. In this kind of film, it seems that the children always resent the new presence or potential parent-replacement – but, not at all, the children here respond well to him. It is their mother who has the problems which have some devastating consequences for him.

The film has been directed by Danish Susanne Bier (who made the fine films, Open Hearts, Brothers and After the Funeral). It is her first English-language film. Trained in the austerity of the Dogme manifesto, she brings a European sensibility to this American story as well as more intimate techniques of hand-held camera, frequent close-ups of eyes, lips, profiles as well as a feminine sensitivity to characters, especially to the wife and daughter.

And the performances are fine. Halle Berry has not had such a good role since she won her Oscar in 2001 for Monster’s Ball. David Duchovny brings great warmth to his scenes as the husband, a good man who loves his family, who is completely generous to his seemingly unredeemable friend and who dies trying to help someone else. John Carroll Lynch brings depth to the neighbour bewildered by the death and harassed by his snobbish wife.

But it is Benicio del Toro as the addict who gives a truly memorable performance, full of nuances which illustrate the weakness and the addiction as well a great deal of innate goodness. His cold turkey scenes are convincing and harrowing.

One of the wise words of advice in the film is the urging of characters to ‘accept the good’. There are other wise themes: that all of us, no matter in what poor light we see ourselves or how low we fall, are lovable; that an untimely death can be the occasion for someone else’s coming to life again; that life is basically about love, second (or more) chances and about hope.

1.The title, the explanation at the end of the film? The comparative importance between people and things? A people film?

2.The Danish director, her Dogme background and style? Transported to the US? The importance of close-ups, of particular aspects of the face? The importance of lighting?

3.The American background, ordinary, the home, hospital, institutions? The musical score?

4.The pace of the film, the gradual involvement of the audience, the gradual build-up of insights, of hope? The theme of accepting the good?

5.The structure of the film: family life, the death, Brian, his background, Audrey and her having to cope, the response of the two children? Her brother supporting her? Sending for Jerry? The flashbacks? Sadness – and the progress to hope?

6.Brian as the focus, a good man, the eleven years of the marriage and relationship, the ease between husband and wife, the ease with the children? The designer, the home, sharing? Love? The friendship with Jerry from childhood, a loyal friend despite Jerry’s drug addiction? Visiting him for his birthday? Helping him, not losing faith in him? A presence in his life?

7.The re-creation of Brian’s death, helping the woman and the attack by the man, his pulling the gun, shooting Brian? The futility of his death?

8.Audrey, in herself, her love for her husband, her grief, her mother helping her, her personal fragility, the funeral, serving others with tea and comforting them, her mother helping? The relations and their coming? Her brother, his friendship with Brian, his support? Sending him for Jerry? Her past resentments towards Jerry, his coming, his presence, talking, her explanation of her dislike of him in the past? Her motivation for bringing him – the question of atonement, his possibility of filling some of Brian’s presence?

9.Jerry’s story, the friendship with Brian at school, studying law, his career, the drugs, the explanation? His describing the feeling of drugs? Going downhill? In the drug apartment, the interiors, Brian visiting him? His later relapse, going into the squalid area of the town with the other addicts?

10.His work in the hospital, Audrey coming to see him, inviting him to move in, the converted garage? His wariness? Adjusting? His strong relationship with the children, their responding to him rather than resenting him, playing with them, the bonds he created? Helping? The girl and her disappearance, Jerry knowing where she was, the information from Brian’s confidences in the past? Audrey watching all this, her beginning to react against Jerry, being upset?

11.Howard, the neighbour, at the funeral, smoking, his critical wife, talking with Jerry, taking him jogging, the past jogging with Brian, Jerry being puffed out? A sincere friend, getting him to go back to study the law, offering him the job? Jerry and his study, passing, the possibilities?

12.Audrey’s outburst, ousting Jerry? His going downhill again, the drugs, Kelly and her visiting the house, talking to Audrey, their going to the squalid area, bringing Jerry back?

13.Jerry, apologising, the kids and their concern? His promising to come back when he was cured?

14.Jerry, the Narcotics Anonymous meetings, talking, the members of the group, the encounter with Kelly, talking with her, her own experience, her optimism? The attraction towards Jerry? Her concern, trying to track him down when he missed the meetings, going to Audrey, their finding him?

15.The visualising of the cold turkey experience – and inviting the audience to share the experience, empathise? The horrors in the cold turkey experience?

16.Howard, his reconciling with his wife, the continued friendship with Jerry?

17.Jerry, going to rehabilitation, his promise to the family? Audrey, coming to terms with the death, to terms with Jerry, with her children, hopes for the future?

WAZ

UK/Ireland, 2007, 95 minutes, Colour.
Stellan Skarsgard, Melissa George, Selma Blair, Ashley Walters, Paul Kaye.
Directed by Tom Shankland.

A very well-made film of its kind (not one that appeals to ordinary cinemagoers but of great interest to horror fans) – with some ideas as well as terror. It is a down-market Se7en and an up-market Saw. While it does have some grim corpses and some gruesome torture moments, the makers say that they are not so much interested in the torture as in the experience of pain and the motivation for decisions about saving one’s own life at the expense of the life of a loved one.

The title of the film refers to an equation used by social scientists to measure altruism in animals and human beings, the capacity for self-sacrifice. Characters reflect on the meaning of this theme.

The film is a police investigation in New York City (with some location photography but much of the film made in Belfast with a British cast). Eddie (Stellan Skarsgard) is a grizzled detective who has seen a lot of murder. Westcott (Melissa George) is his partner, new on the beat, courageous but wary and putting up with the sexism in the squad room. When several bodies are found with the equation cut into them, they investigate a scientist which gives them a lead to the killer. The motive is revenge for a horrendous crime by a gang whose members are being executed. Eddie’s contact with one of the members, Danny (Ashley Walters) leads him into a dangerous confrontation with the killer and a testing of his own emotions.

A dark film (much of it taking place at night, on the streets and in ugly basements and apartments), it is a film for those interested in the genre rather than a general audience.

1.A film of horror? Terror? The 1990s and films like Seven? Terror, torture, crime, sin? The 21st century and the torture films like Saw, Captivity, Hostel? This film using some of these techniques? Better? And with some ideas and moral questions?

2.The title, the mathematical formulas, equations for social research, based on fact? The issues of human optimism, human altruism?

3.The visual style, low budget, low definition, the moving camerawork, performances? Light and dark? Space and movement? The musical score?

4.The New York settings, location filming, Belfast standing in for New York?

5.The introduction to Eddie and Helen Westcott, in the precinct, types, partners? The precinct and the sexist attitudes, tough? The new call, discovering the body, the carving in the body, the neighbourhood, being careful, Helen approaching the gang, the risks? The introduction of the theme ‘Waz’?

6.Helen as police woman, young, new, tough, her being wary? The relationship to the other men in the precinct? The visit to Doctor Gelb? Partnering Eddie? Her concern about Eddie, his relationship with Danny? Eddie and his going to visit Danny, the knock on the door, the twin and his death? Calling the ambulance? Helen’s suspicions? The investigations, the interrogations? The plot and development seen from her point of view?

7.The character of Eddie, experience, age, tough, with the bodies, the examinations, at the autopsy, finding Wesley hanging? The other victims? His capacity for detective work? Working with Helen, letting her approach the gang? His relationship with Pierre? Doctor Gelb, the drugs, his dealing, the animals and the experiments, altruism and love, his trying to escape, the shootout? The link with Jean Lerner?

8.Eddie and his visit to Danny, the corpse, the background information about the previous case, the gang, the rape and torture of Jean Lerner, the murder of her mother? Evidence? The brutality of the crime and their participation? Motivation for her revenge?

9.Elly, the crack, Dominic, living in squalor, a character in herself, part of the group, her being taken, the torture with Dominic and his death?

10.Jean and her reasons, using the same principle? Life, experience, Doctor Gelb?, the formula? Her taking the victims, the torture, the issue of love, self-preservation and killing the one one loves? The gangster and the pregnant girl, the twins, Elly and Dominic, Pierre and his grandmother?

11.Her taking Eddie, the reasons for her taking him, his cover-up for Danny? Spoiling the evidence? Giving him the drug, stripping him, the torture, his nails? Danny in the chair? Her taunting him, saying Danny did not love him? Danny telling the truth, Eddie still loving, prepared to die, his throat cut?

12.Danny coming out, Jean giving up? Helen and the group and bringing the case to a close?

13.The sinister aspects, the visuals of the torture, in a context? The sociological and mathematical background? Serial killer, motivations? The film-makers and their declared interest in presenting pain rather than torture?

BE KIND REWIND

US, 2008, 101 minutes, Colour.
Jack Black, Mos Def, Danny Glover, Mia Farrow, Melonie Diaz.
Directed by Michel Gondry.

Michel Gondry has built up a reputation in his native France and in the US for offbeat, whimsical comedies that can delight as well as offer food for thought, films like Human Nature, Eternal Sunshine of the Spotless Mind and The Science of Sleep. They don’t appeal to everyone. It is probably best to have a ‘different’ sense of humour, a bit fey, a bit childlike/childish and a pleasure in the non-predictable.

Be Kind Rewind is one of his slighter films that will either irritate no end or exert a fatal charm that will draw you in. The irritation factor is compounded by the fact that the star is the irrepressible Jack Black – at his most Jack Blackish.

We remember those old movies (from Capra and others who show a mixed response to human nature and are mistaken for optimists) where there is an old man, a little old lady or a family which is holding out against the authorities who have pulled down every other building to promote luxury apartments and progress. The little olds own the only house not bought up – and they wont’ sell.

This time it is it is the grizzled grey-haired Mr Fletcher (Danny Glover) who owns a dilapidated video story, called Be Kind Rewind (no DVDs yet), in a dilapidated corner building where, allegedly, Fats Waller was born.

Can he save the shop and the building? Is it worth it in Passaic, New Jersey (the screenplay adding insult to injury by running down run-down Passaic)? Can his slow but nice assistant (Mos Def) and his oddball friend Jerry (Jack Black) raise enough money for repairs?

When Jerry tries to sabotage the local power plant, he gets sabotaged himself, electrified – which has disastrous effect on all the tapes for rent in the shop. When Mr Fletcher’s friend, Miss Falewicz (Mia Farrow of all people) wants to rent Ghostbusters, they don’t have it, try to borrow it from their large, upmarket rivals (which Mr Fletcher has gone to spy on to get ideas about how to run a modern store). Refused, they get the brainwave (no, ‘brain’ is far too flattering) to make their own version. This is pretty silly but does the trick. Once they start doing their own versions of Rush Hour 2, King Kong, Driving Miss Daisy and 2001, with loads of others on their production slate due to public demand, the audience will either opt out or start to enjoy the film immensely.

Speaking of Ghostbusters, Sigourney Weaver turns up as the Trenton official who reminds the would-be directors about copyright laws and huge fines.

The ‘little people’ have their day when the locals all turn up, inside the shop and out on the streets in crowds, to watch the home-made film about Fats Waller – who was not born in the building at all. So, that’s a Michel Gondry film.

1.The work of Michel Gondry, offbeat, whimsical, sensibilities for humour, sense of humour?

2.Imagination, the Fats Waller story, the Fats Waller film, Passaic, New Jersey, change, the movies, technology, video, DVD? Make your own video?

3.The title, the name of the shop, Videos Usage, Mr Fletcher, Michael, Jerry, the business, the customers, lack of customers, the New Jersey officials, the deadlines?

4.New Jersey, the street, the building, the garage, caravans, the authentic atmosphere? The musical score?

5.The credits and the Fats Waller film? The ending with the film? Black and white, acted, the impact? Jerry and Michael and the Fats Waller graffiti under the tunnel, the police? The ethos, the myths? The Fats Waller songs? The irony that the story was not true?

6.Mr Fletcher, his trip, going to the train, bequeathing the shop to Michael, Michael finishing his sentences, his going to spy on the upmarket shop, the customers, his interests, the ‘How to run a video store’? Jerry and Michael, their friendship, characters? Their movie talk?

7.The graffiti and the police? The ladder and the raid? Jerry and his creating a mess in the shop, stands collapsing …? Michael as the adopted son? The issue with the raid, the metal cover, the ladder, Michael not participating, Jerry and his being electrified, the effect on all the tapes and wiping them? The reaction by Miss Falewicz, the other renters?

8.Jerry and Michael sparring, desperate to help the shop, Miss Falewicz? wanting to rent Ghostbusters, her decision? The decision to make the film themselves, the song, being Bill Murray, the humorous re-enactment? The sense of humour for these sequences?

9.The help from Alma, going to the shop, her sister not interested? The re-enactment of Rush Hour 2 and the various parodies, The Lion King and the discussion, King Kong, the huge list and the titles put on screen, 2001 and The Wheel, Driving Miss Daisy …?

10.The customers being satisfied, discussing them, the gang arriving, paying their twenty dollars, the two lines for action and comedy, the variety of requests, local interest?

11.Mr Fletcher and his return, his shock, listening to Michael and Jerry, the authorities and the plan, Alma and her aims to get the money?

12.The variety of productions, the queues outside the shop, the films being ‘sweded’?

13.The official, her arrival, the humour of Sigourney Weaver taking the part? The discussions, the copyright, the costs and fines?

14.The finale with the Fats Waller film, people watching it in the shop, the sheet on the window, people watching it in the street, local spirit, applause?

15.A film that is both fey and whimsical? Its capacity for appeal as well as irritation?

OVER HER DEAD BODY

US, 2008, 93 minutes, Colour.
Eva Longoria Parker, Paul Rudd, Lake Bell, Jason Biggs.
Directed by Jeff Lowell.

An undemanding romantic and ghost movie designed for an easy night out. It is also a Hollywood attempt for Eva Longoria to make a popular transition from television and Desperate Housewives to stardom on the big screen. She seems to be enjoying herself in the role of Paul Rudd’s fiancée who, even on their wedding day, is such a control freak that her interventions are the death of her (literally). She may or may not have seen Noel Coward’s Blithe Spirit or even Ghost, but she does a fair bit of intervening in her fiance’s life, always to protect him, of course, but more than a bit possessive when it comes to dealing with the potential rival.

The rival is played by the vigorous Lake Bell (also from television, from Boston Legal). She is a would-be psychic who runs a catering business on the side with friend, Jason Biggs. She tries to help the forlorn almost-husband but her psychic skills do not work. When she starts falling in love with her client, the ghost steps in with a vengeance (literally).

Nothing particularly original, but it is not that kind of film. Rather, it relies on some charm from the stars, the humour of some awkward situations, especially the ghost having to communicate to her fiancé via a parrot (whose voice is credited to the writer-director!) and the audience wanting to see how the ghost gives up, does her good turn and gets to heaven (almost).

1.Popular romantic comedy? Ghost story? The traditions of the screwball comedy? Of the intervening ghosts? An up-to-date version?

2.The Los Angeles settings, affluent society, the world of the vet, the world of the psychic, the world of caterers? Homes, restaurants? Believable atmosphere? The musical score?

3.The title, the humour, Kate as a ghost, Ashley and her experience of the ghost? Her romancing Henry – and Kate’s interventions?

4.The prologue, the introduction to Henry, his love for Kate, the plans for the wedding, the wedding day, Kate’s bossiness, with those doing the serving, with the ice sculptor, the irony of her being crushed by the ice sculpture after arguing whether angels had wings? Her going to Heaven – the confrontation with the angel, Kate telling her off, the angel disappearing – and Kate left on Earth to fend for herself?

5.Henry, a year of mourning, staying at home? Chloe and her interventions? Getting him to visit Ashley? Their meeting, the discussion, his not believing in psychics? The accidents with Dan in the kitchen? Chloe and her continued interventions, getting Henry to meet Ashley, the supermarket encounter, Ashley and her words from Kate’s diary? Henry’s growing interest, going out together, the meals, falling in love? Kate’s arrival?

6.Ashley, in herself, her catering work, the friendship with Dan, the gay friend? The upsets in the kitchen? Her psychic powers – or not? With Henry, the attraction? Her being forced to intervene by Chloe? The supermarket encounter, going out, the dates, her enjoying Henry’s company, falling in love?

7.Kate, materialising, her interview with Ashley, the voice from the dead? Ashley realising what was happening? Kate and her continued interventions – the comic touch, bossiness, the breaking wind sequence? Her turning up in different places, in the medicine cupboard? Her sabotaging the relationship? The weekend away, her turning up, driving Ashley away?

8.Chloe, the revelation of the truth? Henry and his reaction? Kate and her disappearance? The effect on Henry, other dates, his comments about cats? Ashley and the other dates, their coming on, her rejecting them? Her being miserable?

9.Dan, his devotion to Ashley, the revelation of the truth? The five years together, sharing, the best of friends? Ashley upset, rejecting Dan?

10.Henry, at work, the fat dog, his antipathy towards cat owners?

11.Kate, her meetings with the sculptor, their discussions about missions? His mission to help her to see the truth? Her realisation that she should help Henry? Her going to Ashley, conceding her place, being gracious – with the controlling touch? The new encounter, falling in love, the wedding, Kate and Ashley having a chat at the back of the church? The ceremony, the dancing? Dan and his meeting Chloe and their clicking?

12.The happy ending for all – but with Kate going back to Heaven and still being controlling with the angel?

US MARSHALS

US, 1998, 131 minutes, Colour.
Tommy Lee Jones, Wesley Snipes, Robert Downey Jr, Joe Pantoliano, Daniel Roebuck, Tom Wood, Irene Jacob, Kate Nelligan, Patrick Malahide.
Directed by Stuart Baird.

A sequel to The Fugitive although it might be better seen as a remake. Tommy Lee Jones, stern but trying to be a touch more humane, pursues a fugitive. There is quite a spectacular plane crash rather than a train; later the fugitive does a huge leap from a building... The main difference is that Harrison Ford's doctor was a true victim using almost superhuman resources to flee the police and justify his name. This time the fugitive is Wesley Snipes who is a government agent (and so more than adept at escaping pursuers) so that there is not the kind of personal identification that the audience did with the original. That said, the film is a smooth and slickly made actioner from the director of Executive Decision and offers all the elements of an entertaining, but not memorable, thriller. Entertaining formula.

1.The popularity of The Fugitive? The film as a sequel? Remake? Quality?

2.Audience interest in the character of Sam Gerard? His pursuing criminals? Innocent victims? The reworking of the original plot?

3.The range of locations, Chicago, New York, Pennsylvania countryside? The vivid aspects of the cities? The cities as characters? The musical score?

4.The title, the role of US law and order, the role and range of the marshals, the FBI, police, collaboration?

5.The international case, national betrayals, the Chinese, secrets, the agents involved, greed, the set-ups and cover-ups?

6.The prologue, the car, the crash? Mark and his going to hospital? His fingerprints at the scene of the crime? In hospital, Maria getting him out, paying? His escape?

7.Sam Gerard, his personality, his team, seeing them at work, situations? With Mark? With United States Marshal Catherine Walsh? The witnesses? Gerard and the touch of brutality? Catherine Walsh and her setting him aside? Making him the escort? Mark and the capture, on the plane? The journey, the Chinese passenger, action, the hole in the plane? The special effects for the flight, the descent, the crash? The rescue, those able to be rescued and not? Gerard and Mark, the water, the gun, firing at Gerard, Mark’s escape?

8.The agencies, Bertram Lamb and the Security Service (??**Secret Service?) director? The role of Special Agent John Royce? His volunteering for the job? The interview with Sam? The keeping of secrets? Catherine Walsh and her later confrontation of Bertram Lamb? The truth? Mark being one of the Secret Service agents?

9.Mark, the revelation about his work, his background, secret, being able to be cut adrift? His being taken, in the swamps, on the plane, the escape? With Maria? The old couple and taking the vehicle? Going to New York City, the flat, the surveillance of the Chinese Consulate, meeting Maria in the dress shop? His meticulous planning?

10.Maria, her love for Mark, her work, Starbuck’s, the hospital, the agents visiting her house? The shop, the dress? At the cemetery? Unable to get over the wall?

11.Gerard, his always wanting to succeed, the suit, the various jobs of the team, especially Cosmo Renfro? Bobby Biggs, Noah Newman? Savannah Cooper? The differences of opinion with Royce? The questions? The information? Going to the gym, finding the dead body? Setting up surveillance? Pinpointing Mark’s location? The New York flat? The pursuit in the streets, the pursuit of the alternate suspect? People going to the cemetery?

12.Royce, in the way, the loner, the shooting, his gun, the truth, killing Newman? Wanting to kill Mark? His cover, lies, the eventual confrontation, the fight with Gerard, on the wharf, the boat, his death?

13.Gerard and his tracking Mark, the cemetery, the clashes, the apartment, on the roof, Mark’s leap, going away on the train, the confrontation on the wharf, fighting Mark on the lifting bale? Falling into the grain?

14.The supporting characters, the work of the US marshals?

15.The end, the vindication of Mark? Sam and his taking the group out on the town? A satisfactory ending for all?

THE TEXAS RANGERS

US, 1936, 98 minutes, Black and white.
Fred Mac Murray, Jack Oakie, Jean Parker, Lloyd Nolan.
Directed by King Vidor.

The Texas Rangers is based on a story by King Vidor, in turn based on documents about the history of the Texas Rangers. The film is a tribute to them.

Fred Mac Murray and Jack Oakie portray outlaws who work with Lloyd Nolan. However, when they are separated, Mac Murray and Oakie join the Texas Rangers in order to get information for further robberies and help in the search for their friend. However, it emerges that Lloyd Nolan is a dyed-in-the-wool outlaw while the other two are redeemable.

Jack Oakie’s character offers some comic style to the film, gives it something of a heart as he wants to remain loyal to the Rangers and to confront his partner. Fred Mac Murray’s character is more hard-headed, is tamed by Jean Parker as the daughter of the major in the Texas Rangers. Eventually, after Jack Oakie is killed, Mac Murray confronts Lloyd Nolan in a dramatic shootout.

The film is conventional in retrospect, the loyalty of the Texas Rangers is emphasised. However, the presentation of the Indians is rather more racist than later films would be.

The film was directed by King Vidor who had directed The Big Parade and was to go on to direct a number of significant films, especially such films as Wilson, Duel in the Sun and War and Peace.

The film was remade as Streets of Laredo in 1949 with William Holden, Macdonald Carey and William Bendix in the respective roles played by Fred Mac Murray, Lloyd Nolan and Jack Oakie.

1.The impact of this kind of western in the 1930s? The strong Paramount treatment? The parallels with the westerns of Cecil B. de Mille at the time?

2.The Texas locations, the outpost, the desert countryside, the mountains? The homesteads? The musical score?

3.The tribute to the Texas Rangers? The foundation, their heroics, their ethos? The praise of the Rangers and what they contributed to the state of Texas, being prepared to lay down their lives?

4.The opening, Wahoo and the stagecoach, Jim, Wahoo and Sam and the robbery? Dividing things up afterwards? The confrontation, the shootout? The separation of Jim and Wahoo from Sam?

5.Their joining the Texas Rangers, their motivation, Major Bailey, accepting them? Forgetting the past? Their own plans? Their becoming part of the Rangers? The work, the fight with the Indians, the desperate shootouts, the pursuit, in the mountains, the boulders coming down the mountains, Jim and Wahoo climbing, Wahoo’s being wounded, Jim and the victory? The flight of the Indians? (And the rather racist and superior tone of the dialogue against the Indians, especially in the young boy, David?)

6.David, his family being killed, his being anti-Indian? Wanting to go with Jim and Wahoo? Their taking him to town, his going to Major Bailey’s house, Amanda and his reaction against her bossiness? Jim and Wahoo visiting? Amanda and her surly attitude? Her being infatuated with Jim, Wahoo and his false explanations, Amanda and her flirting with Jim? His reaction? His being surprised that she should say she loved him?

7.Jim, the meeting up with Sam, the plans for future robberies? The corrupt towns? Major Bailey’s explanation of civilisation and corruption? Jim and the contacts, the corrupt leaders, the court case, his arguing the case, the judge, the verdict? His change of heart and falling out with Sam?

8.Major Bailey, his concern about corruption, concern about Sam? His arresting Jim? Wahoo going out to confront Sam, the game of cards, Sam shooting Wahoo? His body being carried back to the fort?

9.Jim, in prison, asking for release, going after Sam? The contact with Maria? Pulling the guns, the chase, the shootouts, Sam and his confidence, Jim prevailing?

10.The return, the reuniting with Amanda? Jim’s future?

11.The familiar western ingredients? 30s style?

CLOVERFIELD

US, 2008, 86 minutes, Colour.
Lizzy Caplan, Jessica Lucas, T.J.Miller, Michael Stahl- David, Mike Vogel, Odette Yustman.
Directed by Matt Reeves.

What a sweet title for a film, all pretty and pastoral. Actually, it was initially a code name during the production taken from a street near the producer’s office. But, word got out about the film and this unintended title stuck. It is nicely deceptive for those who don’t know what the film is about (which, more or less, was how I saw it) but, with box-office news and saturation advertising, most moviegoers well know that this is a monster movie.

It certainly fits into the mood of the times (and there must be a solid Ph D thesis somewhere here). Why is it that there are quite a number of high profile films these days, especially from the US, which are featuring menace, disaster and the end of the world? With continued threats of epidemics like SARS or bird-flu, with natural disasters and fears from climate change hurricanes and other phenomena, the post September 11th response to sudden and unknown terrorist attacks, maybe audiences need this kind of story up there on the big screen to process feelings about it all. That’s what the producer says and he may well be right.

By the way, when we say ‘on the big screen’, we should note that it would be a great pity just to see Cloverfield on a screen which is smaller than we are. It is meant to be seen on a big screen with the stereo sound vibrating all around us. We should be there in the middle of it.

Actually, the film takes about twenty minutes to get going. That is, we introduced to the 20-something characters through some video camera footage dated April 27th and then, in great (too much?) detail, at a farewell party in upper Manhattan on May 22nd. Just when one is tempted to say ‘enough already!’, there is reverberating quake and the whole movie changes. The monster has appeared and, in the vein of Godzilla or Gorgo or those huge rampaging monsters, wreaks havoc on the city.

What makes this film completely different and a tour-de-force of film-making is that we know the characters who are not just going to be mere monster-fodder. And one of them is holding the camera and, for the best part of an hour, we are visually limited to what his camera can see. Everything is limited to the span of the camera lens, sometimes seeing a lot, often just missing out (especially the monster itself which is now and then quickly glimpsed), confined to the dark in subway tunnels, with the night light revealing the attack of some mysterious creatures, or following the large group of people fleeing and the small group which is trying to get back to the apartment to rescue their friend.

This means that the technology is up-to-date: cameras, cell phones, emergency power generators that work… And a significant placement for Nokia! The producer refers to this phenomenon of having the ability to photograph everything and put it on the net, the ‘Youtubification’ of today’s culture.

The psychological effect of all this for the audience is that everything is seen (except for some TV helicopter footage) generally from the ground level where the New York buildings loom (and are seen to be destroyed as is the Brooklyn Bridge), from the small powerless position of ordinary human beings. When we finally see the monster, we stare up at its towering figure and gaping maw just as the camera lens does.

Godzilla, War of the Worlds, The Invasion, 28 Days Later, 28 Weeks Later, The Day After Tomorrow, I Am Legend, even World Trade Center and, now, Cloverfield. What is this trend mirroring? What is its challenge?

1.Audience expectations? The title, the tone, marketing, reputation?

2.The contemporary trend of disasters in cities, menace, fatal, people coping? The pessimistic outlook? The cathartic effect?

3.The tradition of films like Godzilla – to World Trade Centre?

4.A smaller-budget film, unknown cast, New York locations, special effects, destruction, the monster, the creatures? The musical score – and the orchestrated finale in the last credits?

5.The camera device, audience seeing everything through the camera lens, its limits, hit-and-miss, the choices of the photographer, the style, the voice-over, capturing dialogue? The editing? The need for an amateur look? Daylight, interiors, the streets? The night light, the light in the tunnel, the effect? The immediacy, hand-held camera, sense of realism, audiences identifying with the characters and situations?

6.The point of view, human, limited, small, New York City and the tall buildings, the impact of the explosions, the helicopters, the monster? Creating fear?

7.The initial twenty minutes of establishing the characters, the video, identifying the couple, Jason, the 27th of April, waking up, life and style, going out, going to Coney Island? The contrast with the 22nd od May? The party, Hud using the camera, the farewell to Rob, Rob as a character, Marlena and the interview, Lily, the various interviews? Hud being distracted? The situation, the characters, the interactions – and the audience ready to follow these characters during the crisis?

8.The sudden quake, the accident with the ship, the emergence of the creature, information on TV, the emergency lighting, the explosions, the people escaping the buildings, in the streets, the head of the Statue of Liberty flung into the street, the crowds, the dust from the collapsed buildings, the sirens, the police, leading the crowds to safety? The camera, Rob going into the store, the TV information, Nokia and the film, glimpses of the monster, fear and injuries? Going into the subway, the creature’s attacking them, wounding Marlena, the dark, the rats fleeing, the tunnels? Going to the shop, the drinks? The importance of the cell phones? The contact with Beth? The sense of mission to get her? The police okaying it? Offering the helicopter? The promise, the group and the arrival, the leaning buildings, going up, climbing across the buildings, the rescuing Beth, the further collapses, explosions, all together, the close-up of the monster, the helicopter, the escape, the end?

9.Rob as leader, wanting to find Beth? Lily and her strength of character, Marlena, offhand, wounded? Hud and his wanting to document everything? People filming? The atmosphere of photographing everything, for publication on the Net?

10.The introduction and ending about official documents, not to be copies, secrets? What actually happened?

11.The what if? Scare, imagination, facing fears, death and disaster?

RAMBO

US, 2008, 95 minutes, Colour.
Sylvester Stallone, Julie Benz.
Directed by Sylvester Stallone.

Sylvester Stallone proved that at age 60 he could revive his iconic creation, Rocky Balboa, after five movies over a thirty year period. He adjusted the character of Rocky to his late 50s and made an agreeably emotional fight film.

At age 61, he resurrects his other iconic character, John Rambo, after three films over a 25 year period, still doing battle but not nearly so genial as Rocky.

Both characters are instantly recognisable world-wide – Rocky the emblem of underdog success (along with Bill Conti’s theme music), Rambo the emblem of fierce aggression, fighting for the underdog and, with the exception of the initial film, First Blood, amassing a huge body count.

For his final Rambo actioner, Stallone has Rambo working anonymously in Thailand. He is approached by a group of US evangelical missionaries (whose need to do good seems more important than the needs of the people) to take them into Burma with medicines and religious books. We know it will be a fraught journey because we have already been exposed to the ruthless Burmese army attacking the Karen rebels (which has been going on for sixty years and has been called a genocide), massacring, burning and looting and taking the young men for military service.

When the village where the missionaries are working is attacked, Rambo goes back with a group of tough mercenaries to rescue them. This happens in the rain and in the dark – and then they are pursued by a huge number of soldiers. All might seem lost until Rambo finds a machine gun nest and it is almost no contest.

This is where the violence becomes fierce and then brutal as the blood lust, no matter what the justification, takes over the characters – and, probably, the emotions of many in the audience. Stallone has his heart in the right place in supporting the Karens against the government and military, but his trigger finger is…

1.Stallone and the image of Rambo, an icon? In world vocabulary, its meaning?

2.Stallone at sixty-one, Rambo for the 21st century, the 20th century heritage, his Vietnam experience, American rejection, in Afghanistan in the 80s, Burma in the 21st century?

3.The ethos of the Rambo films: war, genocide, military aid, humanitarian aid, defence of the innocence, world opinion, influence, violence begetting violence? Anger and vengeance?

4.The issues of violence, the contrast with brutality and ferocity? The culmination of the film?

5.The Thai locations, Thailand, the river, Burma, the mountains, the terrain, the heavily orchestrated score?

6.Rambo as a relic, living in Thailand, working with the snakes, supplying them, the bosses? The approach of the missionaries? Refusing Michael, agreeing with Sarah? His motives for going, the gift of the cross? Rambo changing or not?

7.The dialogue, the various aphorisms about the world, aid, the church, needs, killing?

8.Travelling up the river, the missionaries as a group, encountering the pirates, the attack, the threatened rape, killing the pirates, blowing up the ship?

9.The missionaries and their arrival, helping the people, the dentist, the doctor, the religious help, the effect?

10.The film’s introduction to Burma, the military, the Karen tribes, the sixty years of persecution, their history, as Christians? Attacked by the military, the brutality, the killing, the rape, taking the young men for military service?

11.The missionary and his approach to Rambo, getting the mercenaries, Lewis and the eyeball clash with Rambo, the other members of the group? The slow boat up the river? Defying Rambo, outstaring him? Rambo in charge?

12.The strategy, the attack, the missionaries in the cages, the pigs feeding on the missionary? The officer in charge and the young boy? The soldiers, the girls, their drinking, their behaviour?

13.The commandos’ style, killing the guards, the release of the prisoners, the escape, running through the jungle, the pursuit, the dogs? The weapons?

14.Ramo and Sarah and their running, Rambo finding the machine gun, the boat coming? The attack with the machine gun, the body count?

15.Survival? The purpose of the film? The military action, adrenaline-pumping? Americana?

16.The missionaries, the value of their going to Burma, not living with the people, going in briefly and coming out again? Rambo’s critique of their needs rather than the needs of the people?

17.The theme of Rambo being away from America, America changing, the final scenes and Rambo going home?

THERE WILL BE BLOOD

US, 2008, 158 minutes, Colour.
Daniel Day Lewis, Paul Dano, Dylan Freasier, Kevin J. O’ Connor, Ciaran Hinds.
Directed by Paul Thomas Anderson.

An epic piece of Americana that has impressed critics, audiences and award givers – especially for Daniel Day Lewis’ intense performance.

Based on the novel, Oil, by Upton Sinclair, this is a story of oil exploration and entrepreneuring skill at the beginning of the 20th century. It is not a sweeping saga with romantic overtones like Giant. Rather, this is a picture of grim and constant hard work, of men completely committed to success with oil, who are rugged and competitive and who pay the price emotionally for their obsessive quest.

Daniel Day Lewis does not make many films but has that chameleon-like quality for letting his own personality disappear into a full-on characterisation. He was Christy Brown, the poet with cerebral palsy in his Oscar-winning performance in My Left Foot. He was the rugged pioneer in Last of the Mohicans and the New York aristocrat in Age of Innocence. He was also the ruthless gangster in Gangs of New York. Here, he is Daniel Plainview, a loner who prospects for minerals, then for oil. He adopts the baby of a man who dies in an accident and brings up the boy. When the boy loses his hearing during a shaft explosion, he cannot face it and he lets this relationship go.

More powerful is his conflict with the shrewd son of a rancher who sets up his Church of the Third Revelation, determined to control Plainview, bring in donations and build his own church empire. Paul Dano has the surface innocence and goodness but also the steely determination and competitiveness that mark Daniel which lead him beyond his capacities. Another interesting character is Daniel’s half-brother, Henry, with whom he might have made a relationship after breaking one of his rules and speaking about his past life and his feelings.

This is an American male world, a world of achievement founded on the American dream and establishing American capitalism.

The location photography suggests a past long gone. The musical score has a wide variety of styles that drives the action or lets us rest and pause before the next intensity. (And Daniel Day Lewis’ performance becomes more and more intense leading up to a theatrical violent climax.)

Paul Thomas Anderson received a lot of notice for his Boogie Nights and then his extraordinary covering of many stories in Magnolia. He has adapted Sinclair’s novel and directed a film that offers significant images of American history and its manifest destiny culture.

1.The impact and acclaim? As drama, character drawing, a piece of Americana?

2.The awards, Daniel Day Lewis’s performance? Paul Thomas Anderson’s direction?

3.The adaptation of Upton Sinclair’s novel, his issues, focusing on capitalism, not so much focusing on social issues? 19th century America, the opening up of the west after the settlement? The American dream, the capitalist dream? Hard work, mining and wealth, mining and dangers? The discovery of oil, exploration, entrepreneurs, exploitation? The wealth of the oil discoverers? The background theme of religion, the nature of God, hypocrites and double standards? The relevance to the contemporary scene?

4.The locations, the California desert, barren, the ranches, the mines, the oil derricks, the towns? The orchestrated score – and its variety of tones, moods, styles?

5.The introduction: wordless, the introduction to Daniel Plainview, his work in the mine, hard work, the digging, the discoveries, his falls, the accidents, the oil, the teams, the derricks?

6.The visual style, the use of close-ups, the use of long shots, the pace of the images, for contemplation? For drama and interaction?

7.The tribute to the work of the pioneers, hard and difficult work, the shafts, makeshift mines, the regular collapses, the discovery of oil, the collaboration of the group, the man and his baby, the accident, his death, Daniel adopting the baby?

8.Daniel Plainview and his character, the later explanations of his life, alone, his parents, anger, leaving home? His father and mother? Competitive? The move from Kansas, the mines, a shrewd intelligence? Fletcher and his help? The deals? Buying up the land, using H.W. as a motivation for persuasion for people to sell, compassion for the child?

9.H.W., as a baby, with his father, Daniel rescuing him, loving him, their travelling together, his listening to all the talk about the deals, his accumulated knowledge about mines and deals? The life together? The accident, his deafness? Daniel and his rescue? The care for him? His drinking the milk, going to San Francisco, on the train, Daniel not staying? Abandoning him? The boy’s return, the restaurant? The humiliation? The play, the young girl – and the transition to 1927 and his being grown up?

10.Paul Sunday and his visit, his plain talk, shrewd, suggesting the deals, Daniel and his discussing and arguing? The gains? The visit to the family, Daniel and H.W. quail-hunting, the tent, the milk from the family, the shooting with the birds, talk? The meeting with Eli, his hard-headedness, the deals? His father and his being willing to give in? Eli’s hard stance? The rest of the family?

11.Eli and his family, the focus on religion, his demands, his plain religion, wanting the money, the building of the church? The actual church, seeing him in action, Daniel watching him? The healings – and the later prayer over H.W? His expanding his church? The tensions with Daniel? The buying up of the land, the deals? The confession, his dominating Daniel’s spirit, the baptism, welcoming him? Yet the deal for the pipeline? Daniel’s gain? The rivalry, the anger?

12.Henry and his arrival, his story, Daniel opening up to him, a brother? His knowledge of the family, his character, the deals, partnership, the time on the beach together, his making a mistake, Daniel’s anger, testing him, his death, burying him? Eli knowing what happened? Daniel being trapped and the consequences of his anger?

13.1927, Daniel’s success, the lavish house, drinking, the bowling alley? H.W. and his arrival, the clash with his father? The confrontation, his decision to leave? The rival company? Daniel unable to accept this, telling him the truth, that he didn’t love him? H.W. saying he was glad? That he would be a competitor?

14.Eli, his return, the twenty years of success, the radio ministry, asking for money, his depression, Daniel’s deal, pressurising him to make his confession, the comparison with what he did to Daniel? The fight, Daniel bashing him? The end? What did it profit for Daniel to gain the whole world?

15.Daniel Day Lewis’s performance, intense, the last section, the 1927 atmosphere, the theatrical intensity building up to the murder? The significance of the title?