THE GUILTY

US, 2000, 112 minutes, Colour.
Bill Pullman, Devon Sawa, Gabrielle Anwar, Angela Featherstone, Joanne Whalley.
Directed by Anthony Waller.

The Guilty is a film that has the courage and the indulgence of all its convictions. It uses every device in the book to offer a ripe melodrama.

Bill Pullman portrays a corrupt lawyer who rapes his new secretary (Gabrielle Anwar) and then is made a judge. She wants an apology which he refuses. She threatens to expose him and he arranges for her murder. However, he arranges the murder with a young man who has just found out that the judge is his father. He has also encountered the secretary and her room-mate. It all gets complicated when he refuses to even open the envelope with the information about the murder – but one of his friends who is in debt to drug dealers does and actually commits the murder. The young man is then framed, is helped to escape by the judge, who also sets up the drug dealers to murder the murderer. In the meantime, the judge’s wife is having an affair with his partner which the judge discovers and orders her out. There is a final irony where the judge is undone. The film is the equivalent of a quick airport read, enjoying itself and helping the audience anticipate every move with an emotional response (rather than an intellectual response).

Direction is by Anthony Waller who made the strange thriller Mute Witness with Alec Guinness.

1. The popularity of this kind of melodrama? The ingredients of murder, sexual betrayal, coincidence, hidden identities? The film enjoying and indulging in all these conventions?

2. The city setting, the affluent world of the lawyer, the courts, his home? The contrast with Nathan’s home, his living in the old abandoned building, the industrial wasteland? The apartments? The contrast between rich and poor? The musical score?

3. The title, to whom did it refer, why?

4. The focus on Callum Crane, his work in the court, the libel case, his getting huge money for his client even though she didn’t deserve it? His partner and the consideration of him as unscrupulous and amoral? His tense relationship with his wife, her children? The phone call, his being appointed a judge? His self-satisfaction, his drinking?

5. At work, his impatience in the court, wanting a Shakespeare quotation, angry with his assistant, with Sophie? Finding her still at work, inviting her out, her leading him on, the return to her apartment? Her refusing, his raping her? The consequences for him, trying to ignore it, his finally firing her through his assistant? Her reaction, her telling Tanya but not identifying him? Her being fired? Her decision to expose him, the confrontation?

6. Nathan Storey, coming out of jail, Denis Emilio, the stolen car, crashing, stealing? His going home to his mother? His clash with his stepfather? Finding out the truth about the judge being his father? His wanting to meet him? His seeing him, saving him from the muggers in the parking area? The judge’s response, realising that he was not fond of the police, having only a short time before Sophie’s confrontation, giving him the information to kill her?

7. Nathan, his encounter with Tanya, friendship, the crash and his letting her off? The meal, going to the apartment, Sophie wanting out? His camping in the corridor? His friendship with Tanya, the antagonism of her boyfriend and his not letting her in? His taking Sophie to dinner? Angela being hurt?

8. His not wanting to commit the crime, putting the money down the drain? Leo and the standover tactics of the drug dealers? His getting the money, the information, his decision to kill Sophie? Denis and his being upset, ringing Sophie, the message for Nathan?

9. Sophie, her not wanting Nathan to come in, locking him out, his beating at the door and the witness seeing him? Her not letting Leo in, his getting into her apartment? Her mother’s phone call? The confrontation, Leo killing her? Nathan and his being upset with Sophie’s involvement, not believing her, running to save her, unable to, being accused of the murder?

10. The judge, everything seeming to be in order, his speculation about resigning, reading of her death? Seeing his wife having the affair? Ordering her out? His wanting to burn the tape? His meetings with Nathan, the tape, helping him, Nathan throwing him over the banister and threatening him? His going to see Denis, rehearsing him in a message for the police? Leo and the confrontation, his setting up the drug dealers to kill Leo, their killing him?

11. The police, Nathan’s arrest, interrogations, the evidence? Nathan and the discussion with Tanya? His understanding the truth, his confronting the judge?

12. The judge and his wanting to save Nathan, his rehearsing Denis, Denis’s speech to the police? Nathan and his getting away after being let out, the reunion with Tanya and her forgiving him?

13. Everything in order, the judge and his career, sentencing a man to ten years for rape? His wife, her awkwardness with him, the affair with his friend? His ordering her out – and her telling him that she had actually posted the letter to the DA – and the police arriving to arrest him?

14. The melodramatic aspects, stereotypical characters and situations, coincidences – all done with a heightened and emotional involvement that is pop entertainment?

GODSEND

US, 2004, 104 minutes, Colour.
Greg Kinnear, Rebecca Stamijn Stamos, Robert de Niro, Cameron Bright.
Directed by Nick Hamm.

Dr Frankenstein had the best intentions, to create life. Dr Robert de Niro, whose institute is called Godsend, wants to create life but audiences need to be alert to his motives and his methods.

A very happy family (dad, Greg Kinnear, mum Rebecca Romijn Stamos, Adam, their son, Jonathan Bright) are plunged into tragedy and grief when Adam is accidentally killed. Could Robert de Niro have the answer to their prayers, the possibility of cloning their son? The screenplay makes the distinction between what is legal and what is moral, morally good and morally bad. What the Dr Frankensteins of this world (and of the literary and cinema world) forget is that as they attempt to ‘play God’, they are prone to temptations of hubris.

After setting up the biogenetics and ethical questions and seeming to say that all is well because we feel good about it, it then moves, as do so many films which raise biogenetic questions, into critical mode and dire warnings about errors, procedural mistakes and unknown malevolent motives. This means that Godsend moves into horror movie and slasher thriller – the excitement of which tends to make us forget somewhat about the moral message the film was made for in the first place.

1. Impact of the film as a film about science, a film about family, a film about bioethics, ethics?

2. The horror dimension of the film? A portrait of a scientist playing God, playing the Devil? The tradition of such films as The Omen?

3. The naturalistic style of the film, no special effects, the human drama, the performances, the realism and the eerie atmosphere, dreams? The musical score?

4. The prologue, Paul and the muggers in the street, his being a teacher, valued, the apology of the mugger? Jessie and Adam’s birthday party, waiting for Paul? His arrival, the gift? Taking Adam to the store, the sneakers, going outside and playing, the accident, dying in Jessie’s arms? Paul kneeling at the phone in grief?

5. The funeral, its mood? Richard Wells and his appearance, his ideas, Jessie and Paul’s reactions, his persuading them to listen to him, the restaurant scene, Paul’s antipathy, his touching Jessie and her love for her son? The consequences of this information and proposition to each, at home, their argument, the grief, what Jessie wanted most, Paul watching the video, his agreement?

6. The technology, the issue of cells, dying after seventy-two hours? The plan for cloning as illegal, as immoral? The need for secrecy? The process, the surgery, the effect on Jessie, her pregnancy and happiness, the difficult birth, counting for the child to breathe? His paralleling the birth of Adam?

7. The brief sketch of the happy life together, the new house, the new job, eight years passing?

8. The repeat of Adam’s birthday, the beginning of a difficult time, Adam’s dreams, Zac Clark and his presence in the fantasies and dreams, an evil personage? His appearing at the windows, in the mirror, the bath sequence and the collapse of the curtain, his disappearance? His becoming increasingly evil and threatening? Adam with premonitions about his parents? The children taunting Adam at school, the rivalry on the swing, his spitting at the teacher? Adam and the transition to Zac, his parents and their bewilderment? The possibility of his having the original Adam’s memories, going to the test with Richard, Richard calling him Zac, Paul wanting a second opinion? The boy drowning? Adam’s presence, Paul seeing the bicycle? The build-up to the finale, the truth, the memories, the burning of the house, Zac killing his mother? The possibility of this being repeated for Adam’s parents?

9. Richard Wells, smooth-talking, friendship, past teacher? His proposition, illegal? The issue of ethics? His providing the job and the house for Paul and Jessie? His visits, seeing him at work in the Godsend Centre, the secrecy, his seeming to be a normal doctor? Jessie and her going to lunch with him, Paul’s reaction? Adam and his sleep, the memories, the decision to have the test, his being hypnotised? The revelation of the truth? The attack, Paul and his going to the city, his return, the chapel, Richard’s disappearance – and in secrecy looking at the obituary pages?

10. Paul and Jessie, the happy decision about the cloning? The later build-up of tensions, Jessie mothering her son, protecting him? Paul and his being more disciplined, the bicycle, the discussions, meals, Adam’s behaviour, Paul observing him, the bath, the discussions at school, the reaction of the principal? The destruction of the darkroom? The threat to Jessie, her career, photography? Their going to Richard, the chapel sequence, the angers, Paul and his going to the city, going to the school, checking the records, the drawing on the wall, going to the nanny, her story about Zac’s destructiveness? His death? The revelation that he was Richard’s son?

11. The climax, the church, Adam and his therapy, their moving house, the eerie sequence with the cupboard? Hope, the possibility of Zac returning?

12. The film as psychological thriller, as horror story?

13. The film as science, technology, bioethics, cloning and the possibilities?

14. The film as exploring morality, ethics, bio-genetics, the emotional consequences, the intellectual consequences? A critique of cloning?

GET REAL

UK, 1998, 111 minutes, Colour.
Ben Silverstone, Brad Gorton, Charlotte Britten, Stacy A. Hart, Kate Mc Enery, Patrick Nielson.
Directed by Simon Shore.

Get Real is based on a play by Patrick Wilde, What’s Wrong With Angry? The play is opened out for the screen, focusing on the town of Basingstoke and the school which the main characters attend.

The film is about coming out, the focus on the central character, a sensitive boy who is persecuted at school but who is homosexual and actually cruises the parks where he meets one of the head boys who keeps his sexual identity secret. The film shows the bonds between the two as well as the fears of the boy who hasn't come out and his wanting to keep his reputation.

The film focuses on the boys, their struggles, their relationships with their friends, with their families. With its school setting, the film offers discussion material for teenagers who want to probe these questions of identity. However, the behaviour of the characters in cruising in the local parks seems somewhat precocious.

1. Impact of the film? For what audience? Teenage audience? Parents and teachers? Providing a sound basis for discussing issues of sexual identity?

2. The town of Basingstoke, the ordinariness, homes and streets? The parks and the cruising? The school, classrooms, playing fields? An authentic atmosphere that audiences could identify with? The musical score and the range of songs from the Doctor Who theme to Aretha Franklin?

3. The title, the challenge, as applicable to Steven and John? The impact of the original name of the play, What’s Wrong With Angry?

4. The character of Steven, being in Sixth Form, at home with his parents, his studies? His friendship with Linda, her knowing his secret? The reaction of the students, the macho types and their queer-baiting him, just on appearances? The credibility of his going to the park, the encounter with the older man, the married man? The meeting with John? His reputation in the school? The encounter, their discussions, wanting to forget about it, John and his attraction towards Steven, opening up, the sexual encounter, love? In the park, the police, John getting away, Steven and the police taking him to his parents, the reaction of the parents? The issue of coming out? John and his fears? Steven and his studies, the essay, his anonymous essay, Get Real, his perspectives on sexual orientation and the repercussions in growing up and in school? John and Steven and the embrace, John and his bashing Steven to save his own reputation? The prize-giving, Steven’s speech, the support of family and friends? Steven and his friendship with Linda, the issue of the driving test? The L-plates – and driving off into the future?

5. John, his reputation in the school, macho type, his friends? His attitude towards Steven? The irony of his cruising in the park, the irony of his encounter with Steven? His embarrassment, the decision to ignore it? His visiting Steven, his talking to him, his ability to open up? The sexual encounter and its repercussions? The emotional consequences? Their behaviour in the park, the police? John’s getting away, his fears? The embrace and his bashing of Steven to save himself?

6. Linda, her knowing the secret, her friendship with Steven, what they had in common, the issue of the driving test, her crush on the driving instructor? Her support of Steven? The end and their both getting their driving licences?

7. The portrait of the school staff, the principal, the decisions to be made about students’ behaviour? The build-up to the prize-giving? Steven’s essay? Coming out? The response?

8. The parents, their coping with the issues of the sexual orientation of their son? Their understanding it or not?

9. Issues of sexuality and behaviour, judging by appearances, prejudices? Secrecy? Steven, his behaviour, his home, jokes? The décor of his room? At the dance – and surreptitiously looking at John? The film’s advocacy of honesty and its benefits for teenagers coming out?

REVENGE OF THE MIDDLE-AGED WOMAN

US, 2004, 90 minutes, Colour.
Christine Lahti, Brian Kerwin, Bryan Brown, Abby Brammell, Caroline Aaron, Maggie Lawson, Cynthia Harris.
Directed by Sheldon Larry.

Revenge of the Middle Aged Woman is as expected. It focuses on the break-up of a twenty-five-year-long marriage, the husband (Brian Kerwin) walking out on his wife suddenly and taking up with her young assistant at the Los Angeles Chronicle (Abby Brammell). Christine Lahti portrays the middle-aged wife – something she did two years earlier in the telefilm Open House where, once again, her husband walks out on her.

Christine Lahti is a very strong screen presence (And Justice for All, Whose Life Is It Anyway). Here she is a very poised woman, happily married, with two children, a good job – and it all falls around her. She decides to cope, relies on her friend Madeleine for advice as well as from her mother. She meets up again with her first love, an Australian, played typically by Bryan Brown, with whom she travelled in her young adult years. However, he could not commit himself and continued to be a travel writer. While her husband eventually thinks about coming back, she decides not to have him back, relishes her freedom and the opportunity to start a new life. She sees the marriage of her daughter, gives advice to her son to leave his selfish girlfriend. In the end, she goes to Umbria to join the Australian in his olive farm – which opens up possibilities for her and a different life.

The film will be appreciated, especially, by middle-aged women who have had similar experiences.

1.An entertaining film? Interesting? Questions raised about marriage, commitment? Middle age? New lives?

2.A piece of Americana, the American city, Los Angeles? Homes, friends? The newspaper? The social life? The musical score?

3.The title, the tone, Rose’s experience? Nathan leaving her, her shock, her losing her job, the insults and the humiliation, Mindy? Her mother, Madeleine? Her stances? Hal? A future?

4.The flashbacks: Rose, with Hal, the travels all over the world? In Brazil, her pregnancy? Losing the baby? Hal not being able to commit to her? Sad on the plane, Nathan sitting next to her, comfort? Marriage?

5.Rose’s voice-over, her actions, her mind, the differences? Her observations about herself, her emotions, what was happening to her? Her decisions, her future?

6.The portrait of Rose, competent at work, friends with Mindy? Achievement in her job, the book reviews, her astute comments? Her relationship with Nathan? Working with him? His coming home, wanting to talk, his awkwardness? The truth and her disbelief? Her reactions? Her shock, talking with Madeleine, her mother? At the office, everybody sympathetic? Simon and his firing her? Her packing up and leaving? Seeing herself as invisible, the man borrowing the chair at the café? Her being at home, the news and her son’s reaction, Rachel driving all night, her reaction? Their taking her side? Her continuing to work in the garden, her drinking with Madeleine? Her openness to Nathan coming back? This changing? The confrontation with Mindy and her telling her the truth? Nathan and his coming in, the discussions about dividing the property? Wanting to move into the house? Hal Thorne and his message, going to the party, meeting him again? Having dinner with him, the possibilities, Rachel intruding? Nathan and his coming back, asking to come back? Her decision to stay free? Encouraging him with Mindy, the possibility of children? Mindy’s coming to her, the twins and the pregnancy? Her going with Madeleine, France? The visit to Umbria, Hal and his receiving her? An open ending?

7.Her final comment – the revenge of the middle-aged woman as a life well lived?

8.Nathan, his kindness towards Rose, the twenty-five years of marriage, taking each other for granted? His leaving, awkwardness? The affair with Mindy? His being in and out of the house? Mindy and her turning up at Rose’s wedding dinner? Rose telling her off? Nathan and his awkwardness, coming back to Rose, her rejecting him, wishing him well? A credible characterisation of a middle-aged man, dissatisfied in marriage, going with a younger woman – and the effect?

9.Mindy, at work, making a play for Nathan, it becoming serious? Friendship with Rose and working with her? The betrayal? Talking frankly? Turning up at the house, at the wedding dinner, Rose telling her to leave? Nathan and his awkward speech about marriage, taking Mindy away? Mindy finally coming with the news about the twins?

10.Madeleine, good friend, sharing, drinking – and her story about her husband and the condoms?

11.Rose’s mother, widow, advice, the dinner for her grandchildren? Her advice about Nathan?

12.Hal Thorne, the past, successful writer, meeting Rose again, the talk, the dinner, the possibilities? Rachel’s intrusion? His invitation to Umbria, Rose accepting?

13.Rose and the job interviews, the various offers? The phone call from Simon and her keeping him waiting, telling him off?

14.A glimpse at a fiftysomething woman, her experience, the shattering of her life, rebuilding it? The background of the story of the governor, his affair, his wife’s suicide? The film’s positive outlook on a future?

187

US, 1997, 119 minutes, Colour.
Samuel L. Jackson, John Heard, Kelly Rowan, Clifton Collins Jr, Tony Plana, Karina Arroyave, Lobo Sebastian.
Directed by Kevin Reynolds.

187 is the Californian code for murder. However, the setting of this absorbing and disturbing drama is education, the high schools with their mixture of conventional schooling and violence problems from the streets and gangs of the city.

Director Kevin Reynolds has made action shows like Robin Hood, Rapa Nui and Waterworld. His focus here on personal drama is quite unexpected and successfully intense. The use of colour filters for contrasting atmospheres and a wide range of cinematography styles, slow-motion, unexpected angles, means that the audience is conscious of the techniques as well as the issues.

And the issues are strong. They are also familiar from movies like The Blackboard Jungle to Stand and Deliver. However, Samuel L. Jackson as a teacher, severely wounded by a vengeful student, trying to make a difference with an indifferent class, and the unpredictable developments in the plot (including the teacher's personal religious beliefs and prayer) make this a challenging film.

1.The film written by a teacher, observations on teaching, education, difficulties in the United States in the 1990s? An alarming film, pessimistic – what hopes?

2.The film in the tradition of American school films, from The Blackboard Jungle and its troubles through to the more optimistic and challenging films like Stand and Deliver?

3.The 1990s, the big city neighbourhoods, the students, thugs, oppressed, poverty, racism, the pressure of families, single parent families, peers and violence?

4.The presentation of New York City as well as Los Angeles, their similarities? The use of particular coloured filters and light for creating atmosphere? Yellows and blues? The musical score?

5.The significance of 187, the threats in Trevor Garfield’s book, the student threatening, the call for the police for a murder?

6.Samuel L. Jackson as Trevor Garfield: in himself, dedicated to his work, love for science, the classroom sequences, the students and their lack of attention, his persevering? His anxieties, the message in the book, the discussions with the principal? The shock of his being stabbed?

7.Fifteen months later, his moving to Los Angeles? The effect of the stabbing on his personality, considering himself dead already? Life in Los Angeles, alone, offering to be a substitute teacher?

8.The portrait of the school, like New York schools? His going into the wrong room? Dave Childress and his introduction, guiding him to the right place? Going into the class, the students? The staff, Childress, Ellen, the principal and his concerns and his lack of experience in the classroom?

9.Trevor and his teaching, his hopes? The clashes with Benny? The clashes with Cesar? Rita and her cooperation? Stephen as the white boy, his disdain? The classes, Trevor and his perseverance? The successful science classes? The class about the muscles in the hand? The confrontations?

10.Ellen Henry, her work with computers, discussions with Trevor, realising who he was, her abrupt moving and apology? Sharing, the relationship? The smears on the computer message, her sending Stephen to the principal? The events, comfortable with Trevor? The killing of the dog? Benny and the threats? His body being discovered, going with his mother to the morgue? Her fears? Wariness of Trevor, not going out with him?

11.Dave Childress, his attitudes, easygoing, with Rita, the sexual relationship, the discussions with Trevor, realising about the killings?

12.The principal, wary about litigation? The meetings, Cesar and his accusations against Trevor? His finally dismissing him from the school?

13.Trevor, the effect of the past, Los Angeles, his nerves? The clashes with Benny? The clashes with Cesar, confronting him, going to his home, meeting his mother? The contrast with Rita, her cooperation, the encouragement he gave her? To be a writer? Her wariness? Stephen and his antagonism? Racism?

14.The deaths, Benny and his death? Cesar and the arrow and the drugs? The cutting off of his finger? The discovery of Benny’s body? The death of the dog? The finger and the inscription written on it, sent to the hospital? Cesar and the stitching of his finger, in the classroom?

15.Cesar and his toughness, his family background, his brutality towards his mother? His clashes with Trevor, the taunts? The confrontations? The arrow, the cutting off of his finger? In class, his resentment? His accusations against Trevor?

16.The film’s build-up of an uneasy world, tensions, exploding?

17.Cesar and his two friends, confronting Trevor, the Russian Roulette, Trevor and his pulling the trigger? His taunting Cesar about his courage, games, macho? Controlling him? Trevor’s death? Cesar and his stance, his own death?

18.The graduation, Ellen and the discussion with the teacher, reassessing Trevor? Rita, her speech, her tribute to Trevor?

19.The film as a comment on American education, the strains and problems in American society?

DIALOGUE AVEC MON JARDINIER (CONVERSATIONS WITH MY GARDENER)

France, 2007, 109 minutes, Colour.
Daniel Auteuil, Jean Pierre Darroussin, Fannie Cottencon, Alexia Barlier, Hiam Abbass.
Directed by Jean Becker.

There are not many films about strong and deep adult friendships. Michael Radford's Il Postino was one, the friendship between Nobel prizewinning poet, Pablo Neruda, and the postman on the Italian island where he lived in exile from Chile. This time the friendship is between a painter and his gardener.

We soon learn that the two men were friends in school together but the artist was sent to boarding school and they lost contact after a prank with an exploding birthday cake. Leo, the gardener, has answered an ad placed by the artist who has left the city and returned to his mother's home and wants to clear some of the land and create a vegetable garden. He is also in the throes of a divorce (his fault) and tensions with his daughter.

Daniel Auteuil makes the artist (not such a good one on the evidence of some of his paintings) more sympathetic than he really is. He pleads with his wife, pleads with his daughter but keeps up some of the friendships which threatened his marriage. He also engages in a caustic conversation with a pretentious art critic – where he presumes that he is an arbiter of taste and honesty. However, he mellows in his conversations with Leo, in reminiscing with him about his life, in shared activities like fishing, in helping him through his terminal cancer. He pays a final tribute to Leo by painting his wife (Hiam Abbass) and exhibits a series of paintings of simple tools and vegetables that were Leo's world.

Sometimes, despite himself, the artist is petty bourgeois and condescending in his approach to life and people.

However, the film really belongs to Jean-Pierre? Darroussin as Leo. He is a good man, a simple man in the best sense who is truly happy (even though the local plumber was chosen instead of him for a husband by the girl he was in love with when young and he detests the plumber - and the high prices he justifiably charges), and who loves what he does. He has a kindly wisdom, a tolerance for the artist and, by the osmosis of friendship, he makes the artist a better man.

A particularly French film in its love for dialogue and in its sensibilities about friendship and about art.

Originally, the book was just a series of talks by the gardener through which a wider story was revealed. The film opens up these monologues into an attractive story. A comparison could be made with the same method for the fine and literate New Zealand/British film Dean Spanley with Jeremy Northam and Sam Neill.

1.A film about friendship, respect, adult intimacy?

2.The French style, the countryside, the house, the city? The dialogue and the strength of conversation between the two central characters? The musical score, opera excerpts, Mozart?

3.The title, the French with the emphasis on single dialogue, the English with conversations? The expectations, amongst friends, master employer, the move to equality?

4.The portrait of the painter, in his parents’ house, leaving the city, busy, the gardener coming, the painter’s mistake, the advertisement, their talk, reminiscing about the past, the flashback to the exploding cake? The introduction of their past stories, the painter going to boarding school, the gardener staying in the village?

5.The painter and his art, the separation from his wife, her wanting a divorce, his admitting his fault? In the city, meeting his wife, the meals, the discussions, her disbelief in his attitudes? His daughter, her taking sides, the later visit, her boyfriend, the father’s attitude and her anger and leaving? The painter’s hopes – and his fears that his hopes would not be fulfilled? Taking over the house, the plan to grow the vegetables?

6.The painter’s life, the exhibition, his meeting Magda, the past relationship with her, her boyfriend, his pretentious comments, the artist and his scathing attack on him, his own snobbery? Taking Magda back to his house, her presence, in the garden, sunbaking, meeting the gardener? Her reasons for leaving?

7.The gardener as a man, his age, the fulfilment of his life, his regrets that his girlfriend did not choose him, his attitude towards the electrician who married her? His own marriage, children, the painter getting his son a job? His work, unlike the painter not having any other options in mind, his love for the land, growing vegetables? The scythe, cutting the grass, planting the vegetables, watering them? Taking the painter to the shop to buy the scythe? Teaching the painter about the land?

8.The success of the garden, the vegetables, the hard work, the relaxations, the conversations between the two, their going fishing, the large fish and throwing it back?

9.The dialogue and the conversations, the gardener and his wisdom, earthy, sensible, simple and no complications? The artist and his listening?

10.The gardener’s illness, the response of the artist, taking him to the doctor, the diagnosis, the options, his continuing to work, lying down in the grass to work the vegetable patch?

11.The painter, the gardener’s wife, doing the portrait of her? His painting the simple things of the gardener’s life, the knife and the string …? The final exhibition?

12.The nature of friendship, sharing, equality and mutual benefit?

WW3

US, 2001,100 minutes, Colour.
Timothy Hutton, Lane Smith, Marin Hinkle, Michael Constantine, Terry O’ Quinn, Vanessa L. Williams.
Directed by Robert Mandel.

WW3 is interesting to look at in hindsight. It was shown on American television just under two months before September 11, 2001. It draws on experiences of the US in the 1990s, the aftermath of the Gulf War, the antagonism towards Saddam Hussein. It also draws on biochemical weapons and anthrax scares in the United States some years earlier. It posits the possibility of World War Three through the use of such weapons, put into the atmosphere in the major cities in the United States. It also posits that the Russian army is not under the control of the government and is involved in rogue activity.

Otherwise, the film is fairly conventional in its presentation of the situation. Timothy Hutton plays an FBI fraud investigator whose uncle was involved in chemical experiments and has the task to draw him back in to help. He is played, effectively, by Lane Smith. Michael Constantine portrays a Russian involved in such experiments who defected decades earlier to the United States. Terry O’ Quinn is the boss and Vanessa L. Williams and agent.

The film offers a plausible understanding of rogue bombers entering the United States, releasing the poison gases – and showing the consequences.

1.An interesting drama? From the 90s? In the hindsight of post-9/11?

2.The plausibility of the hypotheses, biochemical weapons? Their development in the United States, in past decades, in Russia? The scientists and their being called in to help? The rogue scientists and their linking with Russia? The background of an Iraqi invasion of Saudi Arabia? The hypothesis as one of the past – altered because of 9/11?

3.The title, ominous, the information at the end about the weapons and the probability of their use?

4.The focus on the episode on the ship, the chemicals, the people getting sick, the crew? The information for the government? For the media? The steward and his concern, his contracting the disease – his phone call to his wife? Too busy to speak to his son? The background of this story as a human element, the critical son, his leaving his mother, involved in the looting, walking out, at the barrier, confronting the National Guards? Returning to his anxious mother?

5.Larry Sullivan, at work in fraud investigation in the banks? His being summoned by Eric Farrell? The background of his uncle, his work, recluse? Larry going to find him, persuade him to come to help? The meeting, the family background, Larry’s mother and her blaming John Sullivan for her husband’s death? The later revelation of the truth about his father being an agent, the cover-up about his death?

6.Eric Farrell, his office, the advice coming in? Strategies? The higher superiors? Sending out M.J. Blake to the ship, her investigations? Her later going to confront the criminal? His attack on her? Her shower, being infected?

7.John Sullivan and Yuri Zenkovsky? Their past work, meeting each other? Their discussions as to what was to be done? The information about the chemicals carried by the wind, the rain being a difficulty? The identity of the rogue scientist? Going with Larry, finding the address, Larry confronting him? Throwing the canister – and its not opening? Sullivan and Zenkovsky rescuing it?

8.The mounting information about the days of the infections? The number of dead? The scenes of panic in the cities? The sports arena and the gas being let loose? People afraid, looting, the National Guard and shooting? The need for evacuations from the cities?

9.Larry’s wife, as a doctor, concern about her son? The sports tickets? His absence, her hard work, the people dying, his partner and his partner’s son? Her not leaving Chicago? Larry’s return – and the happy ending?

10.The cumulative effect of the drama, at a government level, prevention, tracking down the criminal? The background of the human stories?

THE WARLORDS

China, 2007, 128 minutes, Colour.
Jet Li, Andy Lau, Takeshi Kaneshiro.
Directed by Peter Ho San Chan.

A Chinese epic of 19th century warlords and battles with high tragic overtones.

Since Jet Li has got older (although he was born only in 1963) and begun to move away from the rather potboiling shows for the American market, he has emerged as a strong actor and the star of some serious Chinese films (Hero, Fearless). Here he is General Pang who survives a massacre and begins life again in a small village but eventually becomes the leader who takes Nanking for the Dowager Empress in a very disturbed China of the 19th century.

The film is impressive in its battle sequences, in its stylised colour photography and in its production design that immerses us into the civil strife of the times.

One needs to be attentive to appreciate just who is who in the line-up of Generals doing battle and manipulating behind the scenes.

General Pang aligns himself with a village leader, a thief, whom he recruits to the army along with the adult men of the village. He becomes his blood brother. Another blood brother is the idealistic young man who narrates the story, explains his admiration for Pang and becomes disillusioned and ultimately violent when he sees the feet of clay of his idol. This not only includes a massacre of 4000 surrendering starving soldiers, the power plays for control and the love that Pang has for the young wife of his blood brother.

The development of the war history and the personal ambitions and relationships is rather reminiscent of Shakespeare's tragedies: epic in scope, focussing on significant leaders, dramatising their fatal flaws which lead to their tragic downfall.

An impressive piece of Chinese film-making which may (or may not) be fascinating for audiences unfamiliar with the history and Chinese traditions.

1.The impact of the film as Chinese history, the 19th century, for Chinese audiences, world audiences?

2.The camera styles, the close-ups, battles and pageantry? Drama?

3.The epic scope, the colour style of the film? The musical score? Special effects?

4.The film as tragedy, the tragic hero, the fatal flaw, his downfall and the consequences?

5.The historical introduction, China in the 19th century, the 1860s, the civil war, the Tai Ping rebellion, the corrupt dynasty? The warlords? Their ambitions? The dowager empress and the end of the war? The sieges, massacres and deaths? Fifty million dead in battle or of hunger?

6.Pang in the field, under the corpses, emerging, his being saved, his regrets about his men dying, his playing dead? Wandering, recovering, the encounter with Lian, the night with her, his wondering whether it was real, her disappearance? The effect on him, going to the village, the welcome?

7.Life in the village, the visuals of the village on the cliff, the rule by Zhao Er-Hu? Zhao as leader, admitting he was a thief, his personality, his helping feed his people? His adoption of Jiang Wu-Wang? As a blood brother? Wary about his friendship with Pang? The issue of the army, Pang persuading him to join the army and bring his men? The years of fighting, feeding the people, Zhao’s social concern? His relationship with Lian?

8.Jiang, his life, being adopted, the blood brothership? His voice-over and telling the story, his explanations about himself, his admiration for Pang, loyalty, placing him on a pedestal, following him, justifying him? Into battle, the years passing, the siege and the massacre of the four thousand? Zhao’s trying to protect them? Pang and his orders, Jiang executing the orders? Lian, Jiang glimpsing them, the boat, his suspicions? His loyalty to Zhao, the realisation of what was happening, trying to warn Zhao, seeing him dead, his going to Lian, confronting her, explaining the situation, killing her? His killing Pang?

9.Lian and her story, young, married to Zhao, continually running away and returning, Pang and the night, the visits? Her being with her husband, the changes, her prosperity? Her being confronted by Jiang? Her death?

10.The generals, their plotting, motivations, jealousies, the sieges, wanting glory, issues of food and arms, the end, their disdain if Pang as governor, their kow-towing to the empress? The role of the empress? Her appointing Pang as governor? Her gratitude for the siege of Nanking – and the entry into the splendour of Beijing?

11.Pang, the years of war, military skills and success, the difficulties, the starving troops? The decision to lay siege to the town, the sudden action, his motivations because of the generals, pleading for food and arms? His ambitions, the siege, success? Zhao’s promise to the men and their survival? His decision to massacre the unarmed troops? Jiang as his lieutenant? The reasons for the massacre? The move to Nanking, his motivation?

12.Nanking, his being received in court, the dowager empress? His being named governor? His response?

13.The victory, the rivalries, the murder of Zhao?

14.Pang and his achievement, self-satisfaction, becoming governor? The generals plotting against him, considering him unskilled? Jiang, the confrontation, his death?

15.The scope of the film in terms of grandeur, drama, tragedy, China, human nature?

MAX PAYNE

US, 2008, 100 minutes, Colour.
Mark Wahlberg, Mila Kunis, Beau Bridges, Chris Ludacris Bridges, Chris O’ Donnell, Donald Logue, Kate Burton, Olga Kurylenko.
Directed by John Moore.

Another video game actioner. This one is rather lugubrious, dark, intense, a one-note vengeance journey.

Max Payne subsscribes to the Big Bang Theory: Big Guns and incessant Big Bangs.

Mark Wahlberg (stolid like a small screen cypher character rather than showing his acting abilities) is a cop whose wife and child have been killed. While working in a small, unobtrusive office, he takes the opportunity to track down the killers, especially after an encounter in a club with Olga Kuryenko (Camille in Quantum of Solace) and her assassin sister (Mila Kunis) who thinks that Max Payne has killed her.

Not always easy to follow (you probably need to be an initiate of the world of video games and play stations), the plot has Max discover a tattoo which has mythical significance (a demonic bird of prey) which leads him deeper into a government experiment with aggression enhancing drugs that went wrong. What is left but confrontations and shootouts? No peace and reconciliation here.

Surprising to see Beau Bridges and Chris O'Donnell turn up in the middle of the cover-up.

As with so many of these films, the characterisation is secondary to the production design. Here it is a CGI squalid and dark city with hallucinatory monstrous and devouring birds that offer some visual art distraction from the big bangs.

1.An action film? Based on a computer game? The computer game style, visuals, stolid hero, obstacles, overcoming them? The violence? The guns? The quest?

2.The importance of the production design: New York City but video game style, stylised? The visuals, the buildings, the interiors? The dark colour? The hallucinations, the shadows, the demonic birds? The musical score?

3.The focus on Max Payne, Mark Wahlberg and his interpretation? The policeman and efficiency at his work? The impact of the death of his wife and child? His working quietly in a back office? His vengeance quest? Seeing the tattoo, the wings? Going to the tattooist and getting explanation? The mythology? Demonic? His superiors? Jim Bravura and his help? His going to the club, seeing the thugs? His encounter with Natasha, going home with her, the tattoo? The encounter with Mona Sax? The assassin, her violence? Thinking he had killed her sister? His reliance on B.B. Hensley?

4.Max Payne and his guns, the shootouts, the explosions? His pursuing the thugs, the groups? The drugs? The revelation about the experiment? The government, the aggression-enhancing drugs, the experiment going wrong?

5.Jason Colvin, the office, Payne and his confrontation with him? Colvin and the confession, his death?

6.B.B. Hensley, supporting Payne, employing his wife? The revelation of the truth, Hensley as sinister, ordering his wife’s death? The final confrontation?

7.Jim Bravura, the contact with Hensley, with Payne? Mona Sax and her continuing her help?

8.The impact of the violent drugs, the people taking them, the hallucinations, the shadow, the wings, the birds, their deaths? Payne and his confrontation with the man who fell to his death? With the main villain, his taking the drugs, feeling supreme, dying?

9.Payne taking the drugs, the final confrontation?

10.The nature of a video game plot, contrived, government agencies, the police, drugs, experiments? Vengeance?

SCAR (SCAR 3D)

US, 2007, 90 minutes, Colour.
Angela Bettis, Kirby Bliss Blanton, Devon Graye, Ben Cotton.
Directed by Jed Weintrob.

No, it's not a sequel to The Lion King (if only it were!).

This is just another of the torture terror films that have become popular with some audiences in recent years (the Hostel films, Captivity...). They require both strong stomachs and fortitude to sit through, especially the torture scenes where young women are, as here, sliced by a psychotic young man. While the film is obviously made to capitalise on 3D shock effects and blood spattering, it actually doesn't. The audience may experience morbid temptations to speculate how the makers could have really exploited the 3D blood and gore.

A little bit more effort has gone into creating some characters. A young teenager, Joan, was tortured by a funeral home worker and made to take responsibility for his killing her friend. When Joan returns to her home town as an adult, it all happens again for her niece. In a macabre scene, we see that the new funeral director has set up a museum in the home which titillates tourists with the gory story (just as we are as we sit in the audience). The new killer is not hard to pick (and, ironically, one of his excuses for his behaviour is that his father was in Iraq and tortured prisoners – but two wrongs don't make a right).

As in the Friday the 13th tradition, a number of people start disappearing and turning up dead. Not at all a 'must-see'.

1.The popularity of the torture-horror films? The quality of this entry?

2.The use of 3-D cameras? Exploiting the 3-D effect or not? For horror purposes?

3.The American town, the past, the present? The characters, the horror? In an ordinary and realistic context?

4.Joan Burrows: her past, teenager, her friend, going to the funeral home, the encounter with Bishop? The two girls disappearing, being tied up and tortured? Bishop’s game – making each responsible for the other’s death? Joan giving in to her friend’s death? Her getting free, the attack on Bishop, killing him? Her return to the town as an adult? Her brother, the sheriff? Her niece, Olympia? Her being afraid, trying to get over it? Joining in the town life? Care for Olympia? Her going to the funeral home to purge her fear, hearing the sounds, the tourists, the funeral home as a museum of her suffering? Her encounters with Paul, her supporting Olympia’s friendship with him? The discovery of Olympia in the cellar, the repetition of the experience? Her being tied up, Paul’s words to her? Her getting free, the attack on Paul, his death, her rescuing Olympia?

5.The present, school, high school and the final year? Dating, socials, the dance? Olympia, Sandra, the parties? Her relationship with her father? The friendship with Paul, going to his house, discussions with him? The disappearance of her friends, of Sandra? Her being taken, Paul torturing her? Wanting her to take responsibility for Joan’s death? Her escape?

6.The young people, Sandra and her liveliness, her friendship with Olympia, being abducted, her death? The young couple, the boy and his reservations, the deaths of the two – and Paul and his story about their pleading?

7.Paul, his father a torturer in Iraq, his shyness? Meeting Olympia, agreeable? Going to the hospital, his concern? The revelation of his madness, imitating Bishop? His words, reasons, his death?

8.The number of deaths – especially the sheriff and his concern? The role of the police? Their suspicions of Joan, circumstantial evidence, her arrest, prison? Paul enabling her to escape? Her tracking him down?

9.Audience response to such torture films, the young men torturing women? The close-ups and the brutality? The 3-D effect?