THE NORTHMAN

US, 2022, 136 minutes, Colour.

Alexander Skarsgaard, Nicole Kidman, Claes Bang, Ethan Hawke, Anya Taylor-Joy, Gustave Lindh, Willem Dafoe.

Directed by Robert Eggers.

Savage is a word that comes to mind very quickly while we watch The Northman. If time travel journeys were available, going to 895 A.D. in the countries of the northern Atlantic, might not be in the top 10, let alone in the top hundred destinations. It is a dark an alien world. But, that is what celebrated director, Robert Eggers (The VVitch, The Lighthouse) does – and immerses us into the harshness of Viking life, the primitive aspects of Viking communities, myths (Odin and Valhalla), superstitions and witchcraft, and an atmosphere of brutal power, bloodthirsty behaviour.

And, while we admire the film craft, the recreation of the period, the Viking life, we might be wondering why we are being taken there. One of the immediate answers is that history shows us that life is always brutal, whatever forms it takes. That in looking at this savage, even barbaric world, we are looking at human nature. In some of its most basic forms and behaviour.

The film is certainly rousing, spouting volcanoes, the freezing seas, the Viking ships, the village (with its minimal mod cons!), gruff interactions, power rivalries, murder. And, the son of the King (Ethan Hawke in a brief role) is called Hamnet. And, as the plot progresses, we see that it is an adaptation of the story that inspired Shakespeare.

One of the features of The Northman is the continued reference to wild beasts, the King father and son going through a ritual, imitating beasts, absorbing their spirits – and Hamnet, as he grows older, confronting beasts, and, eventually, having to let loose the beast within him.

Hamnet grows up to be a big, strong, warrior, played by Alexander Skarsgaard, but fleeing from his home and the tyranny of his uncle, he has become a slave. He and others are sold to a ruler on a small island – and this is his uncle who was conquered and exiled to this island along with his unpleasantly aggressive son. And, Hamnet wants to save, to avenge his mother, Queen Gudrun, Nicole Kidman, who certainly has her moments, unexpected and transformed. There is an emotional complication when Hamnet is attracted to one of the slaves, Olga, who has supernatural powers and witchcraft, played by Anya Taylor Joy.

Life on the island is brutal, especially for the slaves, but Hamnet proves himself during a Savage game, more than a touch gladiatorial, with an iron ball and clubs and he is promoted. Which gives him the opportunity to put his vengeance plan into action.

There are many fights throughout the film, vigourously and viciously choreographed, more than a touch gory deaths, building up to the final confrontation, the drama unfolding not as we might have expected (unless we were keeping the plot of Hamlet in mind).

So, this is human nature in the Dark Ages, brutal, even bestial, and the challenge to our image of our civilised selves as to how much brutality and bestiality there is in our world today.

1. Viking epic? Recreation of the period? Viking locations, land and sea, mountains? The Viking people, lifestyle, warriors, battles? Background of superstitions, religion, mythologies?
2. The location photography, Iceland, Ireland? The vast terrains? The seas? The photographic style, landscapes, seascapes, close-ups, choreographed fights, darkness and light, shadows? The musical score, the instruments, drums and beats?
3. The work of the director, acclaim for his work and this film?
4. A brutal world, in day-to-day life, rugged, harsh, primitive, savage?
5. The introduction to the Vikings, the seascapes, the ships, the Warriors arriving home, ceremonies and rituals, the king, the warrior, harsh, confronting his wife, greeting his son? The animal rituals and the spirits of animals in the men? Bequeathing his heritage to his son, the metal? His brother, illegitimate, his brother’s son, part of the entourage? The confrontation, the killing of the king? The escape of the sun? Using his wits?
6. The transition to Russia, years later, the boats, the galleys and the rowers? Slavery, labour? Hamnet, the transition from child to adult, strength, big build, work?
7. The slaves, being rounded up, being transported? Hamnet and his encounters with Olga? Being transported? The news of his uncle, being defeated, exiled to the island?
8. The island, the landscapes, the buildings? The inspection of the slaves, Hamnet and his uncle, his cousin, the cousin’s arrogance? Wanting to see his mother? Memories of his mother, devotion to her, wanting to rescue her??
9. Life on the island, the work, the overseers, harshness? Hamnet and his work, the buildup to the confrontation with the ball, the fighting, the elimination, Hamnet and his saving his half brother, being rewarded by his uncle, supervising the workers?
10. The encounters with Olga, the bond between them? Her background, her capacities as a witch? Hamnet and his dreams and visions? The spirit of animals, the confrontation with the dogs and wharfs?
11. His entry to his mother’s quarters, the encounter between them, the revelation of the truth about her marriage, the treatment by her husband, going off with his brother? Her son? Hamnet being shocked at the truth? The Queen telling her husband and wanting her son killed?
12. The plan, with Olga, the killing of his cousin? The grief?
13. Olga, escaping from the settlement? Hamnet, the buildup to the confrontation, killing the warriors, his being overcome? Tortured, hanging? His escape?
14. The escape to Olga, their getting the ship, his change of heart, her pregnancy, overboard and his swimming back to confront the king?
15. The background of the volcano, from the beginning, flames, the eruption, the laver? The background to the fight, the naked fight, the brutality, deaths? The death of the Queen?
16. The Dark Ages, primitive life, barbarity, beast learners? The film observing human nature, living and dying by the sword, power, lust, basic instincts?

COBALT BLUE

India, 2021, 115 minutes, Colour.

Neelay Mehendale, Pateik Babbar, Neil Bhoopalam, Anjaoi Sivaraman.

Directed by Sachin Kundalkar.

An Indian film of 2021, taking up themes of sexual orientation, the traditions of Indian society, the law, family expectations, coming-of-age and dealing with sexual orientation.

The setting is Cochin in 1995. The central character the film is a young man, Tanay, accepted by his family as a poet and writer, encouraging him. He has an athletic brother who wants to get married. He has a very athletic sister, skilled at hockey, wanting to be in the national team. His parents have migrated from the north to Cochin, finding it something of an alien society and their having to adjust.

The film shows Tanay at lectures, friendship of his lecturer whom the audience expects to be homosexual and he later is revealed as gay. When Tanay’s grandparents die, a room in the house is let to a visitor, an artist, photographer, idiosyncratic, who becomes friendly with Tanay and begins a relationship with him. In the meantime, there are difficulties in the house because the daughter does not want to get married, has interviews with matchmakers, is pressurised so that her brother can marry. Then, unexpectedly and not so explicitly developed in the screenplay, the daughter runs off with the tenant. She returns, more confident herself as a woman, but complying with family expectations. The tenant disappears.

This has a devastating effect on Tanay. In the meantime, a nun who appears throughout the film, friend of the family, who has been disappointed in love has entered the convent, helps the daughter to apply for a hockey coaching job, which she receives – and leaves home. In the meantime, with the family’s approval, Tanay has won a scholarship for a writing course and leaves home. In the train he is robbed of his typewriter, lives from hand to mouth, but eventually begins the story which the tenant had encouraged him to write, drawing on a colour that the tenant had used for painting in his room, Cobalt Blue. A final scene shows the tenant at a bookshop admiring the book.

The film is an example of changing attitudes towards sexual orientation in India – and, at the end, there is a poster for Fire, the Canadian-Indian, India-set lesbian themed film.

1. The title, the paint and colour in the room, the final novel?
2. The Cochin setting, the city, homes, universities, the streets, hockey, the sea? The musical score?
3. Indian life, traditions, the 20^th century and changes, 1995 into the 21^st-century? Family, traditions, caste, the place of daughters, marriage, arrangements? Issues of sexuality? Homosexuality? Against the law, repression, secrecy?
4. Tanay and his story, his comments on migration in the Steinbeck class, the attention of the lecturer, childhood, the father moving to Cochin, his job, the mother and willing to move, bringing the children? A different world? Growing up? The home, his sister, tomboy, playing hockey, her ambitions? His brother, work, hoping to marry? The death of the grandfather, the gathering, mourning? The death of the grandmother?
5. 10 A, his writings, the family appreciating this, his poetry, hiding his books? Enjoying reading? The issue of the room, sharing with his brother? Lack of privacy? His relationship with his family? The dominating father?
6. The decision to lease the room, the arrival of the photographer, settling in, cobalt blue, the photos, 10 A intrigued? The personality of the photographer, not answering questions? The friendship with 10 A, in the room, reading and discussing? The bikes? The invitation to go to the lake, the sexual encounter, the effect on 10 A, his realisations?
7. 10 A and his love for the photographer, preoccupation, company? The photos? The photographer and his job, remodelling the spice centres?
8. The sister, her place in the family, the hockey, not wanting to marry, required to marry so that the brother could marry? Matchmakers? Her being transformed, the week, clothes?
9. Mary, the nun, her background story, the sisters in the conference, none is continually seen throughout the film? Her advice to marry, support, not wanting the sister to make the same mistake as she did? Disappointment? Posting later, receiving, bringing the good news? The sister, submissive, the experience of running away with the photographer, the film not showing much of this, difficult for the audience to appreciate? The return? The effect on her, sexuality? But going off to the hockey centre?
10. 10 A, his visit to the lecturer, they’re talking, the sexual encounter, turning’s reaction? The disappointment of the lecturer? The return visit, providing the page for the application for the writers course, 10 A offering himself, the lecturer refusing, talking about the closeted situation in India?
11. 10 A, except for the course, the family rejoicing, his leaving, travelling, taking his typewriter and book, the typewriter stolen in the train, his wandering, stealing the food? Beginning to write his novel?
12. The publication of the novel, the photographer seeing it in the window, seeing the dedication to him, the man at the lake?

DOWNTON ABBEY, A NEW ERA

UK, 2022, 127 minutes, Colour.

Hugh Bonneville, Elizabeth McGovern, Maggie Smith, Michelle Dockery, Tuppence Middleton, Hugh Dancy, Dominic West, Laura Haddock, Alan Leech, Imelda Staunton, Jim Carter, Joanne Froggatt, Phyllis Logan, Penelope Wilton, Robert James-Collier, Brendan Coyle,

Directed by Simon Curtis.

Whether you were a constant visitor to Downton Abbey during its television years, or whether you discovered the Crawleys in the first cinema adaptation in 2019, or whether you come across this film unaware of its history (no, that’s impossible), this visit to Downton Abbey, with an extended trip to the south of France, will be satisfying easy entertainment.

It is 1928. The talkies are taking over from silent films. And, believe it or not, this is very important for all those at Downton Abbey, upstairs and downstairs, because, for financial reasons, despite ideological fastidiousness, Robert Crawley has agreed that a film can be shot in his venerable home (to help pay for repairs on leaking attic roofs).

But, there is another story running alongside the moviemaking, Violet inheriting a château in the south of France, a dispute about ownership and a will, an excursion by the British to the Riviera. The two stories are intercut.

For those who have been following the history of the family for so long, everybody is present, has a significant role in the drama, with Maggie Smith once again doing her famous putdowns, though shocking everyone by actually saying she is sorry about an issue, something, she acknowledges, that nobody would have been expecting from her. And the key characters of the family, played by Hugh Bonneville, Elizabeth McGovern, Michelle Dockery, all have their moments of drama.

Life downstairs is much the same, friendly, gossipy, loyal service, Mr Carson presiding (Jim Carter) and the moderating influence of his wife (Phyllis Logan). But they are very much caught up in the moviemaking.

Actually, the moviemaking sequences are quite interesting, a silent film just as talkies were coming in and the company having to adjust their film to talking. Dominic West is suave as the leading man, Hugh Dancy as the film’s director. Laura Haddock has an interesting role as a blonde bombshell whose diction and delivery will eliminate her from the talkies. Bring Julian Fellowes must have been watching Singin’ in the Rain.) And, while she is a figure of fun, snobbery and disdain, she does get the opportunity to come much more human.

Lady Mary becomes unexpectedly involved in the filmmaking, lending her voice for dubbing, giving advice for production – and introducing Mr Mosley, the local schoolteacher, who discovers his talent for writing plays for the cinema. And the scenes for the dubbing and how the sound engineering worked in those early years is interesting and entertaining.

So, the expected material, the expected cast, costumes and decor, and a lovely reversal of roles when the extras for the film go on strike and the downstairs staff have to take their place, all dressed up and exceedingly stylish.

Unless you are a fixated ideological socialist who cannot bear the British traditions of upstairs-downstairs, here are two hours of escapism, easy enjoyment, light entertainment.

1. The opportunity to welcome all the characters from the series, the history of Downton Abbey? And filmmaking? An excursion to France?
2. The importance of costumes, decor, upstairs, downstairs? The Abbey, the grounds, the interiors? The château in France, exteriors and interiors? The musical score, the familiar themes, songs of the period?
3. Audience knowledge of the characters, their stories? Their all being present in this film version? The comfort of familiarity?
4. Upstairs, Robert, head of the family, getting older, the next generations, his loving relationship with Cora, her illness and his concern, the visits to the doctor, reassurance? His relationship with his mother, ageing, illness? With Mary and the next generation? With Carson and the downstairs staff? The coming of the film company, his reluctance, ideological differences, the need for repairs to the roof, his consent, and to be absent for the filming?
5. Violet, age, her sardonic remarks, her later apologising and everyone surprise? The issue of the Villa, the relationship in the 1860s, her being left the Villa, the mystery of her relationship with the French noble? Her not revealing anything until the end?
6. The Villa, the widow, her attachment, her resentment of Violet, the relationship before her marriage? Her son, his love for his father, respecting his wishes? The British coming to the Villa, Robert and Cora, other members of the family, Carson and the entourage? Very British, especially Carson, his clothes, the heat, buying the hat? The parents and the leaving of the château to Sybil by Violet, the mother coming to the Riviera? The discussions, the mother and her resentment, the parties, Robert and his worries, the final resolutions?
7. Robert, his father, the visit to France, his being born nine months later, his concern about his paternity? Fears of exposure and ridicule? Not finding the truth until the end?
8. The film company, the director, seeing him in action, the attraction to Mary? Mary, the household, her character, widow and her dead husband and the accident, her second husband, his being away in Turkey, his neglect? Supervising the filmmaking? Lending her voice for the dubbing? Her ideas for a sound film, and their being taken up? Mr Mosley, teacher, loving film, present on the set, writing scenes, his being hired? (Phyllis, her role in the household, age, spinster, Mosley and his career and his proposal, everybody hearing it?)
9. Carson, the old traditions, running the household, his relationship with his wife, her moderating his behaviour and attitudes? Her intervening with the actress, the maids helping the actress?
10. Barrow, homosexuality, the 1920s, his past disappointments, Guy and the attraction, the proposal, his accepting, Lady Mary and her understanding?
11. Guy, the glamorous film star, British, time in the US, career, his good voice, with Myrna, with the servants, the attraction to Barrow, the proposal? The success of the film?
12. Myrna, the blonde bombshell, arrogant, with the servants, petty? Performance, her terrible voice? The coming of sound, Mary dubbing for her? Feeling her career in ruins? The maids, their friendship, talking with her, supporting her, her participating in the film, allowing Mary to dub, going to America and a future?
13. The details of making the film, the silent film style, Mary and the director going to the movies, everybody going to sound, few to see Myrna’s film? The sound engineer, the details of his work, his command of the situation?
14. Isobel and Violet, coming to watch the filming and, Violet and her disdain? Robert arriving home and bursting in on the film set?
15. Downstairs, the couple and her father living on the farm, the cook and setting her cap at the man, discussions, resolution?
16. The range of downstairs staff, their work, serving the guests, personalities?
17. The extras on strike, the downstairs staff all dressing up for the scene, Carson at the head of the table?
18. Everybody gathering for Violet’s death, her final words, the emotions, her funeral? The new generation and hopes? And the close-up of the portrait of Violet at the end?

THE UNBEARABLE WEIGHT OF MASSIVE TALENT

US, 2022, 107 minutes, Colour.

Nicolas Cage, Pedro Pascal, Tiffany Haddish, Sharon Horgan, Paco Leon, Neil Patrick Harris, Lily Mo Sheen, Alessandra Mastronardi, Demi Moore, David Gordon Green, Ike Baronholtz.

Directed by Thomas Gormican.

The immediate thought while watching this tantalisingly titled film is what a good sport Nicolas Cage must be. To have agreed to the enterprise in the first place. To have participated so enthusiastically in the second place. And to display his life and career on screen with such acting and dramatic zest.

Obviously, this is a bit of cinema fun for everyone concerned and for the audience, especially those who have had an admiration for Nicolas Cage despite the multitude (to say the least) of action quickies that he has been making in recent years. This one, of course, sends those up. (And, to respect Cage, he did win the Best Actor Oscar in 1995 for his alcoholic in Leaving Las Vegas.)

In a sense, this is a film that has its cake and eats it! The cake is presenting a Nicolas Cage action show. Eating it is in the fact that it is all tongue in cheek, a sendup, we can have all the action while mocking it.

Then, there is Cage’s alter ego, a digitised version of his younger self who, in the final credits, is named as Nicolas Kim Coppola (which is Cage’s actual name). The alter ego is the younger swaggering self, making demands, taunting, but needing to be KO’d.

The cowriter-director, Tom Gormican, was daring to ask Cage to participate in this self-mocking enterprise. The popularity of Being John Malkovich meant that Being Nicolas Cage was taken for a title. And, there was a precedent, Adaptation, starring Cage and written and directed by Spike Jonze and Charlie Kaufmann, who made Being John Malkovich!

As the film opens, Cage is pleading for a role that will get him a comeback, arguing with his agent, Neil Patrick Harris. Meanwhile, he struggles with his ex-wife (British comedian, Sharon Horgan), tries to relate to his 16-year-old daughter, making her watch the 1919 German expressionist film, Cabinet of Dr Caligari. She is rebellious.

But, he accepts an invitation to go to Mallorca, hosted by Javi (Pedro Pascal) in a lavish coastal villa. Javi has written a screenplay he wants Cage to star in. However, in the background, then in the foreground, drug dealing criminals, surveillance by the CIA in the form of Tiffany Haddish and Ike Barinholtz. Cage is seconded by them to spy on Javi, to find the location of a politician’s kidnapped daughter, and deal with his ex-wife and daughter being abducted to the Villa.

So, the rest of the film is action adventure, espionage, surveillance, assassins, dealers, fights, shootouts, car chases, the lot.

Which means then that we have a typical Nicolas Cage movie underlying and overlaying an entertaining movie spoof – with all kinds of enjoyable references to many of Cage’s other films.

As this film is being released, Cage already has for action shows in post-production, including playing Dracula in Renfield.

1. Being Nicolas Cage? An acknowledgement of his screen persona and career? Serious and comic?
2. The settings, the world of LA, moviemaking, homes and apartments, screenings? The contrast with Spain, the island, the château, the town? The CIA headquarters? The mansion, the pool, the interiors? The countryside, the cliffs, the roads, chases and shootouts? The musical score?
3. The title, its tone, amusing?
4. The range of Cage’s earlier films being referenced, action shows, and Guarding Tess?
5. The basic premise, Nicolas Cage, his career, his action shows, preoccupied with it, the prospect of a good role and his focusing on it, his age and being offhand, throwing Javi’s script in the wastepaper basket? At home, separation from his wife, relationship with his daughter, 16, getting her to watch the Cabinet of Dr Caligari? Her reaction? Disputes? Her birthday party, the visitors, her mother, his being late, preoccupied, drinking, the cake, his speech?
6. Being offered $1 million, the decision to go to Spain, meeting Javi, Cage putting his foot in it? And the appearance of his younger self, digitally altered, tough attitudes from the past, giving advice? His having a holiday, relaxing, the discussions with Javi? Resisting the screenplay? Their talking, going to the cliffs, the swims, his changing his mind?
7. The CIA agents, the kidnap issue, the dead girl disappeared, the drug dealers, getting in touch with Cage, enlisting him, to spy on Javi? His reluctance, the opposite of his screen heroes? His spying, the discussions, yet bonding with Javi, discussions of scenes, going into action, being creative with the screenplay?
8. The agents, in continual radio contact, his searching for documents, the surveillance area, almost being caught, the dangers?
9. Javi, wealthy, head of the family, his cousin and the drug deals? His love for Alexandra, her strong personality, taking charge? Cage and his misinterpretation of Javi? The audience watching Javi ambiguously? And then learning the truth?
10. The cousin, the drug deals, Javi’s nominal head, the kidnap of the girl, the elections?
11. The action adventure, paralleling Nicolas Cage’s films? Sending them up?
12. The abduction of his wife and daughter, their disbelief, the dangers, being taken, meeting up with the kidnapped girl? And her amazement that it was Nicolas Cage to the rescue?
13. His impersonation of the Mafia chief, the belief, the expose, the thugs, the shootings? The CIA agents and their being unmasked, dead?
14. Cage and Javi, the heroics, the driving, the vehicles, the actions and stunts, shootouts? The ex-wife, the girls, their participating in the action?
15. Everything resolved, the shift to the premiere of the film, the applause, Javi nervous outside, Cage and the reconciliation with his family?
16. Nicolas Cage as a good sport for participating in this spoof and send up – as well is emphasising his career and action shows?

SALINGER

US, 2013, 120 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Shane Salerno.

J.D.Salinger was a key figure in American literature in the 20^th century, not only the writing itself, but the enormous impact of his novel, The Catcher in the Rye. In his later decades, Salinger was something of a recluse, a mysterious figure, still writing, speculation about unpublished writings, journalists trying to contact him. He died in 2010 at the age of 91.

This is an extensive documentary, giving the background of Salinger and his family, the influences on his growing up, his initial writing, a relationship with Oona O’Neill and the disappointment when she suddenly married Charlie Chaplin, his war service, detailed from D-Day to the concentration camp openings and V-Day in Europe.

There is a vast range of talking heads throughout the film, several biographers, although this film is based on the work of one of them, Paul Alexander, who appears throughout the film. The range of literary critics as well, other novelists and playwrights including John Guare, A. E Hotchner, E.L. Doctorow, Tom Wolfe. There are interviews with a number of friends over the years, especially Jean Miller who, as a young girl, had quite an influence on Salinger. There are interviews with his estranged daughter, Margaret, some more favourable comment from his son, Matthew. There is background material on his first wife, Sylvia, a German with Nazi background, migrating with him to the US and soon after separating. There is more background on his second wife, Claire, sympathetic for her life, his neglect of her, the ultimate divorce. Only brief glimpses of his third wife, Colleen. But there are long interviews with author, Joyce Maynard, contacted by Salinger and eventually living with him for a while but, ultimately denounced by him.

Also a number of talking heads from the entertainment industry, interesting comments from Martin Sheen, brief comments from Philip Seymour Hoffman, John Cusack, Edward Norton. Interestingly, he allowed one of his stories to be filmed by producer Samuel Goldwyn but was dismayed with the result, My Foolish Heart.

So, with many visuals, photos, film clips (including filming of rehabilitation of veterans at the end of the war), recreations of some episodes in Salinger’s life, background footage from the various periods which recreates the atmosphere of those periods.

Extensive background is given to Salinger’s writing career, early short stories and publications, his war experiences, letters home, the impact of the short stories after the war and his acclaim, his career with the New Yorker. There is a lot of comment, naturally, on the writing of The Catcher in the Rye, how it relates to Salinger himself and his personality, his war experiences. It was published when he was in his Early 30s – and young readers of the 1950s and, then, especially in the 1960s, resonated with his character, Holden Caulfield.

While Salinger could be very sociable, especially with his friends, dining out, going to clubs, he was also reticent, especially concerning writing and his career, shunning book tours, shunning the media, something which continued until his death. But, he was committed to writing, whether it was read or not, writing for himself.

This documentary also gives the background of his writing Franny, eventually of his writing Zooey, the writing of Raise High the Roofbeams, Carpenter and other stories.

The episode with Joyce Maynard is given highlights, with a long interview with her, calmly telling of her time with Salinger, then expressing her disappointment, information about his writing to other young women, including an au pair girl whom he ultimately marries. There is some final footage with some journalists actually meeting him just before his death, and photos of him in old age.

The film gives information about the novels and stories which he had labelled ready for publication. There is also his foundation with rights over all his writings – and the forbidding of any film version of The Catcher in the Rye. The list of approved works for publication list dates after the making of this film, from 2015 on.

This documentary is an excellent opportunity to learn something about Salinger and provides a basis for further research and understanding.

THE WHISTLERS/ LA GOMORA

Romania, 2019, 97 minutes, Colour.

Vlad Ivanov, Catrinell Marlon, Rodica Lazar, Sabin Tambrea, Antonio Buil, Agusti Villaronga

Directed by Corneliu Porumboiu.

The director of this film also ventured into police and crime work with Police, Adjective.

The focus of this film is on a police official who is seen to be playing both sides of the law, under the command of a female officer, yet links with drug dealers and criminal connections in the Canary Islands.

The action veers from Romania to the Canaries.

The film has chapters, highlighting each of the main characters throughout the action, then their interactions, crime connections, betrayals, police investigations, the central character and reprimands from his mother.

The title refers to a technique allegedly in the Canary Islands where people learn bird sounds and intonations and modulations which correspond to the spelling of words, communicating that way and defeating surveillance.

A slight crime adventure with sardonic overtones.

1. Romanian crime story? Serious, sardonic humorous touches?
2. The Romanian settings, crime, police precincts, homes, the streets? The contrast with Spain, the sun, the sea, the cliffs, the towns, the villas? The musical score?
3. The title, the focus on communication, phonetics and the bird whistles, in the Canary islands, Cristi and his inability, his being taught, the lessons and the vowels and consonants and the sounds, the whistling being used for information?
4. The structure of the film, chapters highlighting the various characters, by name?
5. The convolutions of the plot, the action in Romania, the action in Spain? Interlinked? The finale, glamorous and lights in Singapore?
6. Cristi, the focus, his relationship with his mother, a good boy, police, playing both sides, the contacts, information, the drugs, the money? Involving his mother in the deception? The introduction, arrival on the islands, being taught the communications, the encounter with Gilda, the sexual encounter, her partner and the money? The convolutions of the plot, Magda and her associate, her suspicions of him, yet his reassurances? His mother upbraiding him?
7. The range of criminals, leadership, control, connections, betrayals?
8. Zsolt, the money, relationship with Gilda, the encounters with Cristi, Magda, the arrest, the setup, the confrontations?
9. Delta, the connections, Zsolt, with Cristi? The plans, the rescue, at the motel, the Klerk, his merging the policeman, her killing him? The money and the mattresses, being got out?
10. Gilda, the Villa, visiting Cristi’s mother, Magda in the house, the confrontation?
11. Cristi, being shot, the wound to his head, the cover, in hospital, getting out, the bird whistles, builders information, going to Singapore?

JIMMY SAVILE: A BRITISH HORROR STORY

UK, 2022, 125 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Rowan Deacon.

The story of British entertainer Jimmy Savile, his legendary impact on British audiences for almost half a century, then his being unmasked as a monstrous predator was a shock to most people. His story is alarming in so far as a public figure can have such a respected reputation, mix with everyone, including the British Royal family and Prime Minister, Margaret Thatcher, raise millions voluntary work in hospitals, can yet have a private life and be a long time abuser. (Australia has had its parallel experience with Rolf Harris.)

This documentary has two parts. While, in the first part there is acknowledgement of Jimmy Savile’s life and behaviour, the aim is to communicate to the television audience the life, the entertainment career, the public face of Jimmy Savile. For British audiences who remember him, it will be more than a walk down memory lane, seeing the adoring crowds, his playing to the crowds. For those audiences not familiar with him, it will seem extraordinary, irrespective of whether he was a criminal on not, that who could achieve such a public persona, be ever present, and receive such broad acclaim.

Which means then that the first part of the documentary continually raises the enigma of who Jimmy Savile really was. It means that the second part of the documentary will be the investigation of his life, indications of complaints for decades, the reaction of the police, the disbelief that such a public figure could be a predator, the gradual growth of complainants and the consequences.

There is an extraordinary amount of television footage available for the documentary makers, going back to the 60s, the beginnings of his career, his work as a DJ, Top of the Pops, the very popular show, especially aimed at children, indicating that Jimmy could fix anything, the children writing letters with their dreams, and his achieving them for the television audience, visits to Israel, a young girl patrolling with the police in Downing Street… There is the wondrous reaction of the children, the acclaim of parents, of the general public.

He suddenly presented as an eccentric, in his clothes, in his hair over the decades, in his look (a touch of the Marty Feldman), his manner of speaking, his wisecracks. The film also highlights the extraordinary lengths he went to to raise millions of pounds for charities, 28 years he spent as a volunteer as an ambulance man or working in the hospitals. There are grateful authorities. There are grateful members of the public, and, especially, those with spinal injuries. There are all kinds of stunts that he performed, walks, running, his passion for wrestling, bike riding.

The film also makes a great deal of his friendship with the Royal family, chatting with the Duke of Edinburgh showing him round, a friendship with Prince Charles and Charles writing to him to get advice for speeches, Diana coming to the hospitals and meeting with the patients. He also became firm friends with Margaret Thatcher, many scenes with them together, her promoting him to knighthood. He is pictured on many of the talk shows, especially with Michael Parkinson, and celebrity guests like Alan Alda.

But, in the first part, there is talking heads like theatre critic, Mark Lawson, who are indicating suspicions. In the second part, there is the journalist Meiron Jones, who for some years investigated Savile, try to persuade the BBC to screen his program, ITV taking it up – and his later being vindicated. There is also the chief of London police, Michael Hames, who began investigations but retired from the force, seen talking in retrospect.

And, some victims emerge, some giving extensive interviews to the screen, some explicit descriptions of Savile’s misbehaviour and molestation. And these increased during the second part. There is the strange phenomenon that several would joke about his private life, about the ladies, about his case coming up next Thursday…

Throughout the documentary there are many talking heads, especially from a number of journalists who interviewed him on radio and television, looking actually at the footage in their later lives, some disbelief. There is also the disbelief of his biographer, Alison Bellamy, who was befriended by Savile and who now has boxes of his documents, reading from some of his letters, especially the correspondence with Prince Charles. And there is Roger Ordish, looking back in some disbelief, on the years that he produced the children’s program, 1975-1994.

The film raises the question about samples life, his Catholic background, his bond with his mother, his career and being continually on the move, living in a caravan, no one-to-one relationships, some of the journalist probing this with him and his offhand answers, or refusal to answer. The point is made that he lived his persona, cheerful, always active, always an eye on the camera, looking straight to camera and winking, depending on the adulation of the crowd. There are some psychologist remarks about his triumphant attitude, superiority, that he was always right.

During the 2010 is, there were the revelations about his past. While the film shows his Catholic requiem and burial, there are also scenes where the rather large Tombstone was removed during the night and destroyed.

In many ways, watching this documentary is a gruelling experience, a puzzling experience, and, in view of revelations about public figures, a disillusioning experience.

(Netflix released at the same time, a documentary on the serial killer, John Wayne Gacy, and his being unmasked eventually as the decades-long predator. It is very clear from the Jimmy Savile documentary, Savile created a media persona, living up to it, developing it, association with the rich and famous, but revealing very little of his underlying personality and monstrous behaviour. From the Gacy interview tapes, we hear Gacy himself creating a similar kind of persona which people responded to favourably, until this persona-mask was taken away and the truth revealed.)

GHOST DOG: THE WAY OF THE SAMURAI

US, 1999, 116 minutes, Colour.

Forest Whitaker, John Tormey, Cliff Gorman, Richard Port now, Tricia Vessey, Henry Silver, Victor Argo, Camille Wimbush, Isaach de Bankole.

Directed by Jim Jarmusch.

Ghost Dog is a striking film written and directed by Jim Jarmusch. In the late 1980s, Jarmusch established himself as a specialist and significant Dir, initially working on small budgets. His reputation increased during the 1990s with such films as Dead Man. He continued working through the first two decades of the 21^st-century.

This is an unexpected film. It is reminiscent in some ways of Jean-Pierre Melville’s gangster film, the Samourai. This time the samurai hitman is played by forest Whitaker, dressed in black, hairstyle, laconic, reading his Samurai texts which are seen on screen but which move very rapidly, a spoken aloud, inviting the audience to think, contemplate – but the audience not given sufficient time to absorb them. Ghost Dog is also adept at weapons but uses his guns to shoot.

He is loyal to the gangster Louis, who rescued him from a beating in the street when he was young. He communicates with Louis by carrier pigeon. When he mis-calculates at the scene of a hit, the gangsters want to eliminate him. The gangsters are led by very solemn Henry Silver and a very care-less Cliff Gorman. John Tormey plays Louis effectively.

The film consists of the gangsters search for Ghost Dog, some inept hitmen, indiscriminate in their shooting. But, Ghost Dog eliminates most of the gangsters, having a meeting with Louis, wounding him so that he has a cover with the bosses, but, finally a kind of high noon showdown in the park.

There is a gentle subplot with Ghost Dog going to Park, meeting a little girl, having a conversation with them about friends, lending her books. Is also very friendly with the ice cream vendor in the park, Isaach de Bankole.

Suddenly, very different kind of plot, inviting the audience to take seriously the story of the samurai hitman.

1. The films of Jim Jarmusch? Subjects, style?
2. The New Jersey settings, apartment blocks, pigeons on the roof, the gangster meetings, mansions, parks? Atmosphere? The musical score?
3. The title? The symbolic name for the Samurai hitman? The importance of the traditions of the Samurai, Japan, hitmen, loyalties? The continued quotes throughout the film – explaining Ghost Dog? Philosophy of life? On-screen briefly and rapidly, how much comprehension by the audience?
4. The portrait of Ghost Dog, the flashback and his being bullied in the street, Louis rescuing him, shooting the assailants? The scene recurring at the end of the film? The young man growing up, loyalty to Louis, philosophy of life, isolated, African-American background, has style, black clothes? His skills with weapons? The communication by carrier pigeon? His mission, killing the gangster, not seeing the girl, leaving her alive? The consequences?
5. The gangster Chiefs, their personalities, their meetings and discussions, holding Louis to account, his excusing himself? Ray Vargo, in charge, well-dressed, sinister, his later looking at the cartoons (and the director including so many violent cartoons, guns, biggie guns in the world exploding?)? Sonny, violent, thinking himself smart? The various underlings? The inept assassins, going to the rooms, shooting the man with the pigeons?
6. Louis, the meeting with Ghost Dog, the discussion about the situation?
7. The destruction of the pigeons, the effect on Ghost Dog? His wandering the city? His friendship with the ice cream vendor, French language, ice creams? The little girl, conversation, asking Ghost Dog about friends, the ice cream and his friend? The discussion of books, reading Rashomon? His giving her the book of Samurai sayings? His return them, the confrontation with Louis, the dangers, emptying the guns, Louis and the conversation, the past loyalties, the retainer? Ghost Dog understanding Louis must avenge his master’s death? The shooting, the girl the gun, empty?
8. Ghost Dog, stealing cars, changing numberplates, driving to the mansion, the wholesale shootings?
9. Louis, taking the girl, the wounded gangster, held up by the tough policewoman, the gangster shooting her?
10. The combination of the hitman gangster story with the philosophy and ideology of the Samurai?

GOTTI

US, 2018, 112 minutes, Colour.

John Travolta, Spencer Rocco Lofranco, Kelly Preston, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Leo Rossi, Stacey Keach, Chris Mulkey.

Directed by Kevin Connolly.

John Gotti emerged during the last decades of the 20^th century as the head of the Mafia families in New York City. This is his story – as told by himself from his perspective. It is a star vehicle for John Travolta who enters into the spirit of the story and got his character, drawing on his Italian-American background, the creation of a very severe character, stern in face, and, at the end, an old bald man, sickening and dying. Travolta’s wife, Kelly Preston, plays his wife, Victoria.

Prior to 1972 there were many gangster films especially about the mobsters of the depression era. Then came The Godfather, enhancing the screen image of the Mafia, giving it come kind of elevated dignity, even as it showed the the grim aspects of brutality. It had portraits of the corruption of evil. And there were many gangster films to follow during the 1970s.

This portrait of John Gotti has no elevated dignity. The story tells his rough and violent background. It uses the framework of Gotti’s son visiting him in prison towards the end of his life, the son who had been drawn into the life of the Mafia despite his graduating from West Point, wanting to do a deal with the authorities for a shorter sentence for himself and his being able to renounce the Mafia and take up an ordinary life with his family.

The story is initially told in flashbacks, from 1999 and Gotti in prison to the 1970s, young, family, marriage and children, employed by the bosses, seen doing violent hits, rising with reputation, making allies, taking over, and, during the 80s, emerging as a leader, plotting against other leaders, engineering assassinations, even in the streets. However, he was arrested a number of times, brought to court, but had successful lawyers and was found not guilty. However, with the framework of the film, he eventually was arrested and sentenced to 5 life sentences.

The audience has to pay attention to try to distinguish which gangster was which and where there were loyalties. There are some strong character actors in supporting roles including Stacey Keach, Pruitt Taylor Vince, Chris Mulkey.

For those interested in the New York Mafia, it is an opportunity to give some consideration to the presence of John Gotti, ruthless and ambitious, yet a family man, idolising his children, but ultimately hardheaded and hardhearted.

The film was written by Leo Rossi who appears in the film as Gotti’s friend and chauffeur with Lem Dobs, British writer (Romancing the Stone, Kafka, Dark City).

More of a curiosity item rather than essential viewing about the Mafia. (Not so well reviewed and received on release.)

MEMORIA

Columbia/Thailand, 2021, 136 minutes, Colour.

Tilda Swinton, Elkin Diaz, Jeanne Balibar, Juan Pablo Urrego, Agnes Brekke, Constanza Gutierrez.

Directed by Apichatpong Weerasethakul.

This is a film with a strong reputation, the work of celebrated Thai director, Apichatpong Weerasethakul. In the leading actor is one popular with a wide range of popular and specialist directors, Tilda Swinton. Both are out of home territory, the action taking place in Colombia, in the city of Metal in and this surrounding mountainous countryside.

Part of the reputation is the films winning the jury prize in calm 2021, but having a very limited release, in the US, travelling across the country, cinema by cinema.

The director, who writes his own screenplays, has an imaginative approach to his work, not so much interested in narrative, but rather introducing characters, staying with them, images. There is limited dialogue in this film and no musical score background, though some music introduced as part of the events. The director also uses the techniques of fixed camera, some sequences here lasting many minutes. There are two or three sequences where the camera moves, one a tracking shot of Tilda Swinton walking along a medal in city footpath pass shops. The camera work demands attention, concentration, contemplation.

We are introduced to Jessica Holland, Tilda Swinton, woken by a loud bang. We see her going to a musicologist (and something of a 10 minute tutorial on sound engineering) to recreate the sound. But, then she cannot find him. We do see her with her sister in hospital, a meal with her and her family, various visits to lecture rooms, libraries, research… And, going out into the countryside, visiting a huge tunnel excavation, and time spent with an older fish-scaler. That is some narrative for a 136 minute film, but narrative is not important. What is important is Jessica, her experiences, in reality, in her mind, her encounters, questions about life, communication. And this is key for the last half-hour of the film – which does not prepare us for a shock moment and the emergence of a green monster -like alien spaceship.

This reviewer relies on a marvellous lecture by Australia’s eminent poet, A.D.Hope, at the Australian National University English course in 1960. The lecture was on the poet, T.S.Elliott, and his understanding of what he called the “object of correlative”. The poem, according to Elliott, was not to be analysed in terms of narrative or cause and effect consequences. Rather, images were evocative, eliciting emotions and understanding, for the reader to respond, relish, retain this new awareness. And this seems to be an effective way of responding to Memoria, each image, each experience, the occasion for this poetic, object of correlative response.

To clarify: T.S. Eliot used this phrase to describe “a set of objects, a situation, a chain of events which shall be the formula of that particular emotion” that the poet feels and hopes to evoke in the reader. There must be a positive connection between the emotion the poet is trying to express and the object, image, or situation in the poem that helps to convey that emotion to the reader. (Change poet to director, poem to film sequence.)

So, not a review, but a response.