MAD HOT BALLROOM

US, 2005, 106 minutes, Colour.
Pierre Dulaine, Yvonne Marceau, Otto Cappel.
Directed by Marilyn Agrelo.

Strictly Ballroom, Strictly Come Dancing… No problems in finding an audience for a film about dance. This is a very entertaining documentary from New York City where a program of teaching ballroom dancing to young children in schools and entering their teams in competition has been growing since the mid 1990s. As with the very lively documentary about spelling bees and children’s competitions, Spellbound, Mad Hot Ballroom follows the training and preparations of several schools in vastly differing neighbourhoods of Manhattan, Queens and Brooklyn.

You know how it is going to be. We visit the schools, meet the teachers and children, see them in action. We are given explanations of the social difficulties, of the problem children. We listen in to the kids discussing all kinds of topics (especially eagerness or awkwardness with the opposite sex). We do get glimpses of some of the parents but this is an area that could have been more strongly developed. Without the same kind of input from the parents, we do not understand the children as much as we would like. The children themselves, from multi-racial backgrounds, do reveal a lot of how they think and feel.

What of contests? Looking at the disappointed faces of the losers, we wonder at the value of such competitiveness and its effect. The compensating factor is that the children have learned a skill, learned to relate and work as a team and take responsibility.

For those who love the dancing there is plenty, much of it skilled (and some of it not!). Since I lived for a year just down the street in upper Manhattan, Washington Heights, from one of the schools, I knew whom I was supporting: the Indigo team. And they were very good.

1.The popularity of the film? In the context of many dance films? Television ballroom dancing shows?

2.The quality of the documentary, no voice-over, showing the characters, following their lives, the art of dancing, the competitiveness?

3.The dancing, the photography of the dancing and audiences sharing the exhilaration – while sitting in their seats? The program for training the children? The styles and the selection of the dances? The musical score?

4.The focus on the different schools, the different areas of New York City? The social status of each area? The wealth or poverty of the students? The range of teachers and their influence on the children?

5.The presentation of the children, the range of children and their ages, boys and girls? Abilities and lack of ability? Their being difficult at school or good students? Their involvement in the dance training and the competition?

6.The benefits of the training, for character, for manners, for some purpose in life, for some skills? For socialising? For competitiveness, ambition and hoping to win, dealing with loss?

7.Pierre Dulaine, the establishment of the competition, its importance in New York City, for the students? His personality, the personalities of the various people involved in the competition? Their collaboration? Their influence on teachers and children?

8.The teachers, their different personalities, their methods of teaching, example, coping with difficulties?

9.The parents in the background, their interest in their children, their social status? The hopes for the children?

10.A glimpse of a cross-section of New York City, a microcosm?

11.The rehearsals, the traumas and upsets? The thrills and achievement? The competition, tensions, performance? Winners and losers?

12.The build-up to the finals, the participation of the students? The final achievement? The winners from Manhattan and Washington Heights?

13.The audience experience, sharing with the children and understanding them? The achievement of the teachers? An understanding of the variety of social classes in New York City?

FACTOTUM

Norway/US, 2005, 95 minutes, Colour.
Matt Dillon, Liv Tyler, Fisher Stevens, Adrienne Shelley, Karen Young, Marisa Tomei.
Directed by Bent Hamer.

Writer Charles Bukowski. Born in Germany, he was brought to the US as a child. He brought a European sensibility to the tradition of the Beat Generation and the kind of outsider to mundane America as was William Burroughs. Bukowski’s addiction was not drugs but alcohol – he disliked prison because it had the wrong kind of bars!

Bukowski and his fictional alter egos have been portrayed (quite convincingly) by Ben Gazzara in Tales of Ordinary Madness and Mickey Rourke in Barfly. Bukowski is the embodiment of the educated bum, a mixture of sleaze and philosophy. As portrayed here by Matt Dillon, he is more clean-cut (by comparison) and, to that extent, less convincing. However, what Dillon does convey is the possibility that this alcoholic professional writer could actually succeed in getting work published, despite his antagonistic attitudes and presumptions.

However, Factotum is based on several stories and this screenplay meanders from one episode to another, one drink to another, one attempt at relationship to another (with Lili Taylor and Marisa Tomei). Maybe, Bukowski’s characters and experiences are intrinsically interesting, but not particularly here in Factotum.

1.Audience interest in Charles Bukowski? His life? On the edge? His novels? Articles? The films made from his work – and his alter ego on screen (Barfly, Tales of Ordinary Madness)?

2.The city setting, an anonymous city? The contemporary setting – decades after Bukowski’s own time? The apartments, the business offices, the bars, the streets? An authentic feel? The musical score?

3.The focus on the character of Henry Chinski? Matt Dillon’s presence and performance? More clean-cut than the traditional Bukowski character? His drinking? His family background – and his return to his parents, the glimpse of his parents? His range of jobs, leaving them, awkwardness? The interviews? His clashes with his publisher? His trying to write? The range of his relationships, an inherent violence? Leaving people in the lurch? His collapse, a physical, mental and moral collapse? Yet the possibility of his being published?

4.The blend of the serious and the comic? A succession of anecdotes rather than a dynamic thrust in the narrative?

5.The introduction to Henry? His being fired from his job at the ice factory? His living in the hotel? His writing his stories? The clash with the editor at the Black Sparrow Press? The job at the pickle factory, the clash with the foreman? Fired again? At the bar, his meeting with Jan? Moving in with her? The sexual liaison? The consequences – drinking, gambling, the races, their clashes?

6.Henry, his being unwell, the decision to leave Jan? Her reaction? Meeting Laura? Going to the house, Pierre as the benefactor, his wealth, idiosyncrasies? Grace and Jerry – and their presence in the house, the relationship with Pierre?

7.The trip on the yacht, Grace upset, the trip abandoned? The character of Pierre and his relationship with the women?

8.Laura, her personality, Henry leaving her? His decision to return to his parents? The clashes with his father?

9.His going to the shoe factory, employment, fired again? And his going back to Jan?

10.His illness, the crabs, the New York Times? His job as a janitor and cleaner? His drinking – and being fired again? His losing Jan, her going to the businessman?

11.Henry, in the depths, the failure at the employment office?

12.His receiving the letter from the Press – and the acceptance of his story? The possibility of change? (The reality of Bukowski’s life and career and the drinking?) The importance of the episodes, the anger in Henry? The jokes, the one-liners, the silences? The interviews – and the pickle factory and the silence compared with the expected discussion?

13.Human dignity, desperation, degradation? The serious aspects, the comic aspects? This carry-over into the female characters, especially Jan?

14.While a glimpse into a character and his life – to what purpose?

A SMALL LIFE

Ukraine, 2008, 60 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Alexander Jovna.

A Small Life is a brief Ukrainian story, a short story told by a monk about a little boy whose mother died, was taken in by a farmer, but rescued from famine by two kindly artist monks to whom he becomes an artist apprentice. However, when he finds a young girl who is ill staying in the monastery, he paints her, watches over her but catches chill and dies. There is a pathos about the story and a charm.

The film is made in a very Russian style, many of the compositions like silent films with captions, and introduction to the film with silent footage recapitulating some of the dire aspects of Ukrainian history and suffering. The film also has some glowing fantasy and dream sequences. While the film is in this Russian style, it lacks the austerity of some of the classic directors and, instead, gives a perspective from a child which has a sweetness about it that many audiences might find too cloying. However, it is a pleasant film about Ukraine and its spirit and spirituality.

1.A short story, a Ukrainian legend, Ukrainian history, art and religion? Monasteries?

2.The opening, the silent film footage, hardships in Ukrainian history, the weather and the winds, hunger, the range of people, survival? The editing and the pace?

3.The transition to the colour photography, its beauty, harshness, light and dark, the seasons? The musical score: the plaintive four-note theme and its repetition, the orchestrated music?

4.The voice-over, from the monastery, the story of Philip, the death of his mother?

5.The visual style, iconic, contemplative, slow pace, time for people to ponder, the framing – and the action almost like that of silent films with captions? The symbols?

6.Philip, the cold, his mother dying overnight, her hand on him? The farmer, watching, taking Philip to his home, his wife in the kitchen, the children upstairs watching? The farmer and his bluntness, the famine, giving Philip turnips? The little boy wanting his mother?

7.The boy in the woods, the snow, asleep, the monks finding him, taking him to the monastery, caring for him? The austerity of the monastery? Their room and studio? Meeting the abbot? The monks at work, their painting explaining the icons? The saint? Philip mixing the paints? His own attempts at painting? The monks praising him for his skill? The Holy Spirit and the dove?

8.The little girl, her illness, her father, praying in the chapel, lighting the candles? Philip and his attraction? The vision of the saint and the appeal for him to heal the little girl? The painting during the night, Philip and his going to watch the girl through the window, the cold, his own illness?

9.The memories of his mother, in the bright light, the images of the monks with his mother, the little girl, the saint?

10.Philip’s illness, the monks caring for him, his death? His burial? In the snow, the monks at the grave?

11.Later, the girl returning with her father, the monk giving the gift of the painting? Her contemplating it? The memories of Philip?

THE GUITAR

US, 2008, 93 minutes, Colour.
Saffron Burrows.
Directed by Amy Redford.

The Guitar is the work of Robert Redford’s daughter, Amy. She dedicates it to her brother James because of his love for music.

However, the film is very much a woman’s film. Immersed in the enormous crowds in New York streets, Melody, the central character (played with great aplomb by Saffron Burrows), seems swamped as an individual. She then receives a death sentence when the doctor explains to her that she has cancer of the throat.

The film is an exploration of what a woman in a particularly secularised world might do faced with the sentence of death in two months. Melody decides that she will spend all her money, after getting some severance pay when fired from her job. She also is alienated from her boyfriend who is unable to listen to her and wants to talk more about his therapy and his finding his inner child. Melody then rents a loft, spends all her money on furniture, decorations as well as lavish food (from expensive to indulging in pizza).

She isolates herself in the loft before she dies, encountering only an African American who delivers all her packages – and has a liaison with him. She also encounters a young woman who brings the pizzas and who comes back to the apartment – and she has a liaison with her. The film seems to indicate that in the face of death one should try every experience, especially every physical and sensual experience.

While the moral of the film might seem to be eat, drink and be merry (in all aspects of life) for tomorrow we die, in fact it is not. It is more eat, drink and be merry for tomorrow you will not die. When the crisis finally comes for Melody, when the package deliverer and the pizza girl take responsibility for their own families, she has to face the doctor again and finds that she is in complete remission.

This leads to a new phase of her life, having no money, keeping only the guitar (which she bought because of a childhood memory which is seen in flashbacks where she longed for a guitar but her quarrelling parents could not afford it). Eventually, playing for coins in the park, she is able to join a group who play in a club – and find fulfilment.

1.A women’s film, in the sense about women and women’s issues? Illness, coping, not coping, death? The prospect of death? At a given time?

2.The title, the focus on the guitar, the name Melody? The flashbacks, the shop, the guitar in the window, bright red, the little girl wanting it, her longing, her parents and their squabbles, their refusal, her stealing the guitar from the shop, the chase by the owner? The effect on her life? A symbol?

3.The New York City settings, the crowded streets, the anonymity, the buildings? The doctor’s office, the workplace, the loft?

4.The importance of the interiors of the loft, empty space, filling it, gradually building it up, the goods, the furniture, the luxuries, the music?

5.The moral/fable: a completely secular fable, the absence of anything transcendent? Wants and needs, satisfying oneself, narcissistic, luxury, money no object, the difficulties and constraints of time? Melody’s background, the absent parents? The break with the boyfriend? Her relating to the carrier and the pizza woman? Sexuality, sensuality? Eventually having to face the consequences? Eating, drinking? The issue of true values and where one’s treasure is? Issues of identity, life? Melody and her complete isolation and self-absorption, no consideration of others, no issues of world justice or charity?

6.Melody, her age, in the crowd, people dumping her, the biopsy, her illness? The month or two of life? The discussions with Brett, his self-pity, wanting to find himself? Her being sacked, four weeks’ severance pay?

7.Melody as bereft, no relatives, no-one to draw on?

8.Seeing the advertisement, the loft, leaving her apartment, the discussions with the man and the lease, the limited time, her occupation, becoming at home, her dream world, literally throwing boxes and clothes away, naked in the loft, starting again? The catalogues, her credit cards, the phone being installed, the unlisted number? The king-size bed, the lounge, the furniture, clothes, curtains and decorations? The antiques? The guitar and the expensive sound system? Indulging in food and drink? Quality food and pizza?

9.Audiences responding to a woman facing life with little time to live, no obligations, deciding what to do with complete independence?

10.The phone as the only link to the outside world, isolated, the setting it up, using it for ordering things?

11.Roscoe, his delivering the parcels, sympathetic, helping her, the background of his marriage for seven years? His return, bringing the flowers? The sexual encounter? Cookie, and the threesome? His pregnant wife – and Melody letting him go? His smile of satisfaction and getting out of the relationship?

12.Cookie, delivering the pizza, her rough manner, her criticisms about the tip? The return, bringing the pizza, talking, Melody asking why she had come? Her being engaged? The background of the boy with his connections? His hitting her? The sexual advance, the relationship, Roscoe? Her being battered, her decision to get married in a few weeks – and severing the relationship with Melody?

13.The guitar, the music, the video teaching how to play, playing and fulfilment for Melody? Her not seeming ill? Her credit cards finally giving out, on the phone, no money left?

14.Her concern, going to the doctor, after realising she had lived more than two months? The doctor’s verdict and her complete remission? Her complete change of life? One in a million?

15.The man with the lease, wanting her to move, the final eviction notice? Her bargaining with him? Selling all her furniture, the limited money? Everything going except the guitar?

16.Walking the street, following the man with the guitar, playing in the park, the few coins, the drug addict and giving her the speaker, his being arrested? Her playing, the other musicians, playing together? Going to the club? Her happiness in playing and singing?

17.The film as schematised and contrived in its plot? A fable? Completely secular? Its depth or lack of depth?

SKY HIGH

US, 2005, 100 minutes, Colour.
Michael Angarano, Kurt Russell, Kelly Preston, Danielle Panabaker, Mary Elizabeth Winstead, Linda Carter, Bruce Campbell, Dave Foley, Cloris Leachman.
Directed by Mike Mitchell.

This is a really pleasant surprise and made me sorry that I had noticed that director Mike Mitchell had made the first Deuce Bigalow film and Surviving Christmas. This is a lot better, much better.

It’s almost as if you had The Incredibles in live-action. Mum and Dad are heroes who can be called upon at any time to right the world’s wrongs (they are The Commander and Jetstream). Meanwhile, they have a nice domestic life at home. The crisis comes when their son, Will Stronghold, has to go to high school (Sky High which is only for those with superhuman powers, the heroes, and those who are gifted but not in the same league.) He can’t bring himself to tell his parents that he is gawky and has no powers, especially since Mr Stronghold is one of those square-jawed heroes who can’t imagine that anybody would not be like him.

What a relief for him and us when he does get his powers – which get him into all kinds of high school trouble. Lynda Carter is the principal.

Needless to say, there is a crisis in the school at prom night when a vindictive opponent, humiliated long since by The Commander and Jetstream, tries to destroy the school. What follows is lots of stunts and effects while, enjoyably, Will saves the day and finds his true love.

This could have been really terrible and corny, but it isn’t. The screenplay is witty and funny. It does not take itself too seriously even while The Commander takes himself very seriously. He is played by Kurt Russell who enters into the spirit of the thing with fine comic timing and earnest moralising and paternal pride. Kelly Preston is a nice counterbalance as Jetstream/Mum. Michael Angarano (Dear Wendy, Lords of Dogtown) is just right as the potential nerd who becomes actual hero.

A light-hearted adventure most of the family could enjoy.

1.An entertaining high school story – with a difference?

2.The alternate high school? For superheroes? The similarities with an ordinary American high school? The homes, similarities and differences? The environment – and the whole of the alternate society? The visuals for the locations, costumes? The musical score and the songs?

3.The title, encapsulating the themes?

4.The introduction to the Commander and Jetstream? The background of their being the superhero duo? The memories of the past? The American parents? Their teenage son? His going to high school? The preparation – and the son not telling them that he lacks superpowers?

5.The introduction to Will, his age, his relationship with his parents, their setting the standards for superheroes and powers? His consciousness that he has no powers? Getting ready to go to the high school, his friendship with Layla? Her being in love with him? His not being aware of it?

6.The high school, the students? The principal and Linda (Lynda?) Carter from Wonder Woman)? The staff and their attitudes? The enrolment, the separation of the students? The heroes? The sidekicks? Will and Layla as sidekicks? The lower division for students?

7.The group of sidekicks, their friendship: Ethan, Magenta, Zac, Layla? The contrast with Warren Pierce? His background as the son of a villain? His resentment towards Will – because of the Commander catching his villain father?

8.At home, Will confessing the truth to his parents? The build-up to his fight with Warren – and discovering that he did have some powers?

9.Gwen Grayson, attractive, Will falling for her? Their outings? Layla and her reaction? Her pretending to date Warren? Her trying to make Will envious?

10.The Commander, his pride in his son, their going into his inner sanctum? All the mementoes from his superhero days? His asking Will not to let anybody come in? Will and his allowing Gwen to go in, during the party?

11.The party, her organisation, the kissing? The stealing of the Pacifier?

12.Gwen, making mischief, talking to Layla, telling Layla that Will did not like her? Will and his reaction, the clash with Gwen? Layla and her not responding to Will, his phone calls?

13.The Sky High Prom, the Commander and Jetstream and their presence? The fact of their inaugural award, Superhero of the Year? Will, his being upset, staying at home?

14.Gwen, the revelation that she was the supervillain, Royal Pain? Her voice as Royal Pain? Her using the Pacifier, changing the Commander and Jetstream into babies? The prom crowd also becoming babies?

15.Will, his response, coming to the rescue, the sidekicks all helping? The defeat of Royal Pain? The beginning of a new romance with Layla?

16.All the ingredients from high school films and stories and musicals? With the added difference of the superheroes (and memories of the X Men schools)?

EVERYTHING IS ILLUMINATED

US, 2005, 106 minutes, Colour.
Elijah Wood, Eugene Hutz, Boris Leskin.
Directed by Liev Schreiber.

A young Jewish New Yorker is told that ‘everything is illuminated by the past’.

We have come to realise ever more deeply that our quest for being as fully human as we can possibly be is to be grounded in our roots. We have a need to go back into our family tree, our ancestry. We feel the need to probe the secrets and mysteries we have inherited so that we can understand ourselves better. We need to achieve some kind of emotional balance. These themes are at the core of Everything is Illuminated.

Talented actor Liev Schreiber (The Manchurian Candidate) has adapted a novel by Jonathan Safran Foer and directed this film. It is a restrained and sometimes muted portrait of the New Yorker and the story of his visit to the Ukraine to find his grandfather’s village.

The early sequences establish Jonathan Safran Foer’s situation. He is an extremely buttoned-up young man, always formally dressed with thick-rimmed glasses. He is photographed to look uncannily like Cary Grant – though his behaviour is more of a constricted Clark Kent. He is an inveterate collector. He souvenirs everything, especially about his heritage and his past, and plastic bags them and pins them on his overcrowded notice board. When his dying grandmother gives him a photo and a brooch, he decides that he will go to seek his roots. Foer is played by an ultra-serious, scarcely smiling Elijah Wood.

Meanwhile in Odessa, where a strict father can scarcely tolerate his earring-wearing, American music-loving son, Alex, Foer’s request for their Jewish heritage-seeing service is taken up by Alex’s grandfather. The journey takes them into the Ukrainian countryside (where most people treat intruders from the city and overseas with indifference or hostility). After several dead ends and basic accommodation and food (especially for vegetarian Foer who baffles the meat-devouring locals), they find a woman who is able to shed light on the story and show them the site of the village and reveal the appalling massacre of over a thousand people by the Nazis.

As it turns out, it is a journey of revelation for the grandfather, a time for confronting his own past.

Eugene Hutz is persuasive as the awkward Alex, full of ambitions (and unfettered by memories of the Communist past) and is a foil to Elijah Wood’s earnestly prim Foer. Schreiber has written an elegiac piece and it is photographed accordingly in muted colours. It invites its audience into an unfamiliar world but challenges them to appreciate Jewish suffering and the universal desire to discover roots.

1.The original book? A memoir by Jonathan Safran Foer? His work as a journalist? His search for his ancestors?

2.The New York setting, the 21st century? Foer as a journalist, his work?

3.The contrast with the Ukraine, Kiev, the streets, the seedier side of the city? The Ukrainian countryside? The village, the search for the site? The river? The musical score?

4.Jonathan and his personality, uptight, his suit, his glasses, bookish? His being a collector? The range of items that he kept in his bags? To what purpose?

5.The title? The traditional Yiddish meaning? In terms of Jonathan’s search?

6.Jonathan and his grandmother, her death? The American Jewish community? His Jewish heritage? His decision to search for the woman who saved his grandfather from the Nazis? His trip to the Ukraine?

7.The background of the Ukraine, Kiev, the city? Meeting Alex? Alex and his enthusiasm, his odd English? His job as accompanying Jonathan? His translator? The bond between the two, the odd adventures? The Laurel and Hardy-type comparison between the two?

8.The trip to find the village? The flashbacks, the Nazis, the 1940s and the war, Jonathan’s grandfather, Augustine? The treatment of the villagers by the Nazis?

9.The driver, Alex’s grandfather, his attitude towards the past, the anti-Semitic touches, his cynicism, his pretending to be blind, his guide dog and his complaints? An idiosyncratic character? His contribution to the search?

10.Alex’s grandfather and his flashbacks, the Nazis, the shooting of the Jewish man, the star on his jacket? His advice about searching for a house, the sunflowers?

11.The difficulties in finding the village, the trek through the woods, finding the house? Meeting the elderly woman? Her turning out to be Augustine’s sister? Her being the only survivor of the massacre in the village?

12.Jonathan, the information from the old lady, the story of his grandfather, the massacre in the village, the grandfather finding a home, taking Augustine, her being pregnant?

13.Her memories of Alex’s grandfather – and the contrast between the two elderly men?

14.Finding the lost village, Alex’s grandfather, his being before the firing squad, his escape and survival? The irony of his suicide after the trip to the village?

15.Alex, his life in Kiev, his hopes and ambitions, his comic style, a future?

16.Jonathan, the completion of his mission, his collecting the information, the effect on him and his understanding of his family, his heritage? His future?

THAT THING YOU DO

US, 1996, 105 minutes, Colour.
Tom Everett Scott, Liv Tyler, Steve Zahn, Jonathon Schaech, Ethan Embrey, Tom Hanks, Giovanni Ribisi, Charlize Theron, Alex Rocco, Kevin Pollak.
Directed by Tom Hanks.

Tom Hanks has gone into the writing and directing business (and acts here as well) with a pleasant but familiar story: the hopeful young band who are discovered by the talent scout, have a hit record and go on to movies and TV - but are they a one hit wonder? The title of the film refers to the song that is their hit - and it is played often enough to last a lifetime. The setting is Pennsylvania 1964 (echoes of the Beattles) and it is given nostalgia visual and musical treatment. The young cast led by Tom Everett Scott, Liv Tyler and Jonathan Schaech are enthusiastic. Hanks is their manager. It's a nice kind of film, the dream that not only can every American become president, but they can also become a showbiz personality. Genial nostalgia.

1.A memoir of the 1960s? The rock ‘n roll era? Nostalgia? The re-creation of the era?

2.Eerie, Pennsylvania, a town of the 60s, the electronics store, the restaurants, the schools, clubs? The contrast with the American road, the range of cities and gigs? Los Angeles, the movie set, television, the hotels?

3.The rock ‘n roll era, the songs, the music and its style? The title song – its Oscar nomination, its very, very frequent use during the film?

4.The focus on Guy Patterson, age, experience, playing the drums, his skills, knowledge of jazz musicians, working in his father’s store, his relationship with his father, the family? His friendship with Tina? His friends, their request, the drummer and his injury, his decision to join the group, his leadership? The singing of the song, his relationship with each of the members? His friendship with Fay? His decision to perform, the response, people dancing, the build-up to the record?

5.Jimmy, his composition, at the sessions, his place in the band, singing, his song? His relationship with Fay? His moods, ultimately his clash with Mr White, his wanting to leave the band? His bad reaction to the information on TV that he was engaged to Fay? His confronting her, dumping her? Her strong-hearted speech back to him?

6.Lenny, enthusiastic, friendly, enjoying everything, with the girls, eventually going to Las Vegas, marrying?

7.The player, his personality, enthusiasm, his meeting the marines, John joining up, the push-ups, absenting himself, not being able to be found, going to Disneyland and enjoying it? Mr White and his getting the substitute, his skill with the guitar?

8.Their hearing the recording, in the shop, their getting the agent, his bookings, his going as far as he could, his handing them over to Mr White’s? management?

9.Mr White, type, plans, tough agent, the tour, the theatre and the microphones? The film – and Jimmy’s reaction? The detail of filming, the later dubbing of the music? The television program – and the success of the song, the response of the audience? The girls? The problems, Lenny getting married, the player absent, Jimmy and his mood? Mr White and his decisions and Guy’s decision to leave?

10.Guy and Dell, at the bar, Marguerite and her being with Guy, introducing him? His talking, in the record studio, Dell hearing him play, their jamming together?

11.Fay, nice, her love for Jimmy? Her friendship with Guy? Her being sick on the plane? Her getting ready for the television? Her hair and her dress? Her enthusiasm in the audience, the shock of her being dumped by Jimmy? Her speech to him, the expressions about being kissed? And the fact that she said shame on herself for loving him? Her leaving, the farewell to Guy, his love for her, her returning with him?

12.Tina, the cool blonde, the girlfriend, the band being beneath her, her going to some of the gigs? Her going to the dentist and dumping Guy?

13.Guy’s father, the shop, competition? The selling of the goods? At home, their excitement in watching the band on television?

14.The final pieces of information about each of the characters – a summary of what they did, their success? The happy ending?

DOMINO

US, 2005, 128 minutes, Colour.
Keira Knightley, Mickey Rourke, Edgar Ramirez, Delroy Lindo, Mo’ Nique, Mina Suvari, Jacqueline Bisset, Dabney Coleman, Brian Austin Green, Lucy Liu, Christopher Walken, Tom Waites, Jerry Springer.
Directed by Tony Scott.

This is a very flashy film with more than a touch of what used to be called ‘psychedelic style’. It was filmed on 35mm film with High Digital cameras. This has enabled director, Tony Scott, to draw on his long history of making commercials to employ an enormous range of colour effects, sweeps, palettes that characterise MTV-influenced movie-making. That means it will be visually exhilarating or distracting and exhausting depending on taste.

The screenplay is flashy as well. It’s something of a moving mosaic, as complicated and sometimes as unfathomable as a jigsaw puzzle. It was written by Richard Kelly who achieved some notoriety with Donnie Darko which he both wrote and directed. That was a tantalising drama combining reality, fantasy, off-kilter imagination. Domino is definitely off-kilter.

Tony Scott is entitled to bring the story of Domino Harvey to the screen. He had known her since she was twenty and had been in discussions with her about a film on her life and her adventures. He sees himself as being a father-figure to her for a decade or more. He had also known her associates and been fascinated by them.

At the beginning and end of the film, Domino Harvey announces that she is a bounty hunter. With her comfortable and socialite family background, her educated accent and her being the daughter of actor Laurence Harvey (seen in this film in clips from The Manchurian Candidate), she is an unlikely bet for taking up the career of a bounty hunter. However, she was a rebel, ready to take risks, exhilarated by adrenalin pumping as she pursued and caught criminal, attracted to what might be called the ‘low life’. In 2005, Domino Harvey took her own life.

The film-makers announce that this film is based on a true story and just as we are taking that in after seeing a swift paced, brutal attack on would-be thieves, they add, tongue-in-cheekily, ‘sort of’. The film goes backwards and forwards with Domino’s life, gets us lost in who are the villains and who are not (even resurrecting characters we have seen being executed), so that by the gun-battle climax at the top of the Stratosphere Hotel in Las Vegas, it is difficult to tell who is gunning whom down!

This is a ‘post-modern’ blend of the comic, the intensely individual, the brutal (reminding us that Tony Scott directed the Tarantino script, True Romance). Keira Knightly, still on a startlingly rapid rise to stardom, is Domino, Mickey Rourke does a variation on his usual as her boss. Venezuelan Edgar Ramirez is Choco, the third member of the team. Domino is a whirl of a film.

1.Based on a true story? Laurence Harvey’s daughter? Her work as a bounty hunter? Robbery and drugs? The postscript of her death?

2.The contrast between Domino’s British upbringing? The style of English education, home life? The contrast with the world of Los Angeles, criminals, bounty hunters? The world of television, reality shows?

3.The visual style of the film, hand-held camera, blurred colour? The editing and pace? The immediacy? The artificiality – corresponding to the blur of Domino’s life and work? The musical score and the wide range of contemporary songs? Classics?

4.The world of reality television, Christopher Walken as the producer, his interest in bounty hunters? Cameramen, directors, cast? The immediacy of reality television? Its sensationalism? Domino fitting into this world? Jerry Springer?

5.The English background? Domino’s mother? The fact that Laurence Harvey was her father? The influence of her father’s fame? The proper English education? Her mother’s English style?

6.Domino breaking out of England, going to Los Angeles? The framework of the film? The interview by the FBI? The ten million dollar robbery from Las Vegas? Her remembering her story?

7.Her modelling career, the other models? The motivation for becoming a bounty hunter? Her friendship with Ed Mosebey, with Choco? Their world? Tough?

8.The introduction of Claremont Williams, his work as a bail bondsman? His family problems, his daughter, the granddaughter and medical bills? His contacts with criminals? With the mobsters?

9.Domino and her personality, attracting the television? The crew following her round, the TV pilot?

10.The decision by Claremont to organise the robbery? Las Vegas? Drake Bishop, his casino, management? His involvement with the Mob?

11.The robbery itself? The detail? Lateesha and her involvement? The plan about the money? The cash, the fees? The attorney, his giving the information to Cigliutti? Claremont and his work for Cigliutti, laundering his money?

12.Cigliutti, his action, suspicions of Claremont?

13.Lateesha, her being taken by the FBI, the interrogation, her using it to implicate Cigliutti, his two sons, other associates? Pinning the robbery
on them?
14.Domino, Ed and Chico, their taking Cigliutti’s sons, Claremont’s instructions? Their giving them to Bishop, his action with the sons?
15.The mobster, the reaction to Bishop, revenge, presumption about his sons’ death?
16.The double dealings, Domino, Ed and Chico and the money, in the skyscraper, the handing over of the money?
17.The build-up the dramatic, highly dramatic shootout, in the skyscraper, the mobsters, Bishop and Ed and their deaths?
18.Domino going free? The irony of her dealing with drugs? Her death as the film was being made?
19.An interesting life – or an ultimately futile life?

ELIZABETHTOWN

US, 2005, 124 minutes, Colour.
Orlando Bloom, Kirsten Dunst, Susan Sarandon, Alec Baldwin, Bruce Mc Gill, Judy Greer, Jessica Biel, Paul Schneider, Luden Wainwright, Gaillard Sartain.
Directed by Cameron Crowe.

This is a strange cinema experience. Just over two hours… of what?

The plotline had potential: bright young man’s shoe invention fails and leads to huge company debts; in the meantime his father dies and he has to leave California to collect the body in Kentucky; his Kentucky kin are friendly but want the father buried there; he befriends a rather desperately extraverted flight attendant; his mother and sister come to the funeral… Actually, it doesn’t end there, but that’s another matter.

The shoe thing is made much of at first with Orlando Bloom (wilting more than a little as he ponders failure and fiasco) reassuring himself with repetitions of ‘I’m fine’ and then confronting the boss (Alec Baldwin, slightly manic as if he were still in court confronting Kim Basinger about child custody). Things are a bit manic at home, especially with Mum (Susan Sarandon) going gung-ho on cooking, stand-up comedy and tap-dancing to deal with her grief.

This is all more than just whimsical – and he has not yet met Kirsten Dunst as the incessantly talking flight attendant. He does not have to be with her for the chat and chatter – we have one of the longest mobile phone conversations in cinema history. (Let’s hope it puts a stop to imitations and homages!)

There’s a lot more but, as the film goes on and one listens to the dialogue, the confusion concerning what’s it all about is not allayed. So much of the dialogue is articulately inconsequential. So, it stops and starts, pauses and digresses (especially with a show-stopping performance where the plot is put on hold for a tour-de-force speech, song and dance by Susan Sarandon at her husband’s wake, and a suggestive story that makes all the previously antagonistic relatives and Kentuckians just love her). Cameron Crowe (as we know from his semi-autobiographical Almost Famous) was a music journalist so he accompanies the plot with continuous hits from the past.

And the ending…? The timeline of all of this makes little sense. Four days are mentioned at one stage but how so much could be done in four days defies belief – and a complainant on the IMDb points out that big jets do not fly from LA to Louisville, so there!). Kirsten has organised a car trip for Orlando back to California with stops programmed to the minute and music to accompany each emotional moment (all when she should have been working on flights to Hawaii).

Perhaps it is just that Elizabethtown is a modern American fairytale land that does not entice audiences to believe in it.

1.The impact of the film? Cameron Crowe’s reputation? This film considered as a failure?

2.The Oregon settings, the business world? The contrast with the south? Southern hospitality, lifestyle? Homes, funeral ceremonies, dances? The contrast with the open road, trekking across America?

3.The title, the focus on the town, the people, Drew and his growing up there, his family? His experience of returning? The effect on him? The musical score? The range of songs? Especially at the end and the focus on Martin Luther King, on the victims of the Oklahoma bombings? Appropriate or not?

4.Drew, his age and experience, away from home? His work, design, the shoes? The mistakes, the failure? The encounter with the bosses, their severity? His losing so much money? The consequences? The effect on himself, suicidal?

5.The phone call, the information about his father? The effect, his decision to go to the funeral? Take delivery of the body? The flight, the few people on board, the encounter with Claire? Her interest in him, the attraction, their discussions?

6.His arrival home? His relationship with his mother, her personality? Strong-minded? The rest of his family? Friends from the past?

7.The body, the preparation for the funeral? The attitude towards cremation? The celebrating of the funeral, the coffin, what it contained? The grief?

8.The discussions? The effect on the family? Heather and Jessie? Their strength of personality, in relationship with Drew? Their mother?

9.The way of coping with the grief, going to the dance? Hollie and the exuberance of her dancing, the expression of her personality, her ded husband?

10.The band, the music, the accident, the fire, the consequences?

11.Claire, her meeting Drew, her being with him, the hotel, their talking, her support of him, his getting strength from her?

12.Her giving him the map, his decision to follow the route, the indication on-screen of the journey, his stopping, finding Claire? The possibilities for a happy ending – what would his future be?

13.A portrait of an American family, functional and dysfunctional? The world of business and its pressures? Coping with the pressures of modern life?

MARCH OF THE PENGUINS

France/US, 2005, 81 minutes, Colour.
Narration by Morgan Freeman.
Directed by Luc Jacquet.

These penguins made a surprisingly successful march during the 2005 summer through the American box-office with more tickets sold than for many holiday films. Documentaries have to be very well made to excite the word of mouth that persuades people to come out to see a film. It seems that the penguins did not disappoint. There are millions of people out there who enjoy nature documentaries, who are devotees of National Geographic programs and the Discovery Channel who appreciate an opportunity to look, close-up, at a year in the life of the Emperor Penguins of Antarctica.

How they live in Antarctica and why they stay remains something of a mystery even after we watch the film. After all, the penguins in the summer comedy Madagascar, were escaping from New York zoo to migrate to Antarctica. It seems they think they were misinformed and so gave up the ice and snow and turned up in tropical Madagascar.

Antarctica is snow and ice and frigid water under the icecaps. The summer lights are long but still cold. The winter darkness, despite the Aurora, is long and long. To see the penguins marching single file over the icy wastes, standing day after day, week after week, huddling together to find some warmth while their bellies are empty and a enduring a long wait until they are filled again with the mother penguins returning from a hundred kilometre trek to the water to fill up on fish (and try to avoid death from sea predators), almost defies belief.

Director, Luc Jacquet, and his team spent a year in the Antarctic, filming a great deal of footage but not knowing how well their material had turned out because lab facilities were so far away. One can only admire the courage, patience and human endurance in remaining to film the story of the penguins. Much of the film is quite spectacular, enabling the audience to live quite easily and vicariously this experience of life and death, of birth and nurture.

The cycle of reproduction, of the laying of the eggs, of the fathers’ protection and incubating of the eggs, of the mothers’ foraging the food, the companionship of the surviving families, the growth of the chicks and their independence and the fact that the cycle begins again and the family never more see each other is quite movingly portrayed.

The English version has a voiceover by Morgan Freeman which brings great ‘gravitas’ to the events. Humans are prone to anthropomorphise animals and their stories, to make the parallels with human life, trying to see how animals are just like us. (Christian groups in the United States were reported as recommending the films to their congregations because of the emphasis on family values). The original French version actually has a voice cast of prominent actors (Charles Berling, Romane Bohringer) playing the dialogue between some of the penguins as does the Japanese version. How this works, or how cute it is, English-language audiences will never know. They have to be satisfied (and are, with good reason) with Morgan Freeman’s commentary.

This may be a good moment to mention the French tradition of nature documentaries, especially for audiences who may not have caught up with Microcosmos and Winged Migration.

1.The impact of the film in France? In the United States? Worldwide? The popularity of penguin themes? The detailed treatment? The authentic feel?

2.The cinematography, the long work on the life of the penguins, over many months? The detail of the penguins? The detail of Antarctica? The ice and snow? Underwater?

3.The change for the American version: the elimination of the voices of the penguins, the anthropomorphism? The different narration by Morgan Freeman – with the touch of the anthropomorphic? Morgan Freeman’s dignified and solemn tone? The new musical score?

4.The title, the focus on the life of the penguins over a year, the movement of the males and females? The hatching of the eggs? The cycle returning?

5.The presentation of the seasons, the cold of winter and the blizzards? Ice and snow? The comparative warmth of the summer? The trek of the penguins?

6.March, the winter, the Emperor Penguins and their emerging from the sea, the march of more than seventy miles, the walk to the breeding ground? The males and the females and their union?

7.May, the darkness? The females, the laying of the eggs, only one egg? The balance of the eggs on the female’s feet, the protection from the ice? The process of the transferring of the egg from the female to the male’s feet? The danger for the destruction of the egg?

8.June, the tired females, the hunger, the departure for the sea? The longer journey, the winter ice? Going to feed? The role of the males, guarding the eggs, the huddle, protecting one another from the cold, the movement of the circle to give each one a chance for warmth? The lack of food – for more than four months?

9.August, the hatching of the chickens? The return of the females over the ice? Their taking over from the males, the males going to the sea? The strong males, the weak males, some dying on the way? Their going back into the sea? The swimming and the feeding?

10.September, the chicks growing, starting to walk? The attack by the giant birds, the petrels?

11.November, the chicks and the moulting, the departure of the adults? The chicks following the adults? Going into the sea? Feeding? The impact of the underwater grace of the penguins swimming?

12.The explanations of what happened? The cycle – and the years passing, and the movement towards the breeding ground to start the cycle again?

13.The value of this kind of documentary, the commentary, the experience of the Antarctic by the audience, the seasons, the close-ups of the birds and their lives?