CONFESSIONS OF A SHOPAHOLIC
(US, 2009. d. P.J.Hogan)

Probably the most balanced review for this light romantic comedy would come from a person who is neither mean nor extravagant when they go shopping. Since this reviewer is a 'scroogeaholic', then spending 100 minutes with a young woman who can't say no to a dress, a bag, a pair of shoes, a scarf or any number of accessories and can put her head down with the best (or worst) of them stampeding the doors of a bargain sale, is not necessarily what I would choose to watch.

But, here it is in this age of fashion and Sex and the City and arriving during the credit crunch (and more sales!).

Since it has been directed by P.J.Hogan who has shown how he can make comedies about obsessed young woman that make you sit up and take notice (Muriel's Wedding, My Best Friend's Wedding), then one has high hopes.

The film is blessed with Isla Fisher who can do ditzy with intimations of sense (deep down admittedly, but possible). She has glided through life exhilarated by buying (and even imagines shop mannequins giving her advice or trying to entice her) but there comes a time. Debt collectors begin stalking. Credit cards are no longer valid. Cash is scarce. What is a temporarily-poor-middle-class-ambitious-writer-girl to do?
She can turn out an article intended for a fashion magazine and put it in the wrong envelope so that she is interviewed by a finance editor – who (fate, destiny, karma?) happened to give her the remaining money when she could not pay for a green scarf she coveted. Since she becomes a hit writer using day-by-day images to explain finance, she has to lead a double life of expertise and failure (even going to Shopaholics Anonymous meetings – and ruining member's resolutions). She falls out with her flatmate, wants to borrow money from her parents (John Goodman and Joan Cusack), pretends that the debt collector is a stalker. Then, of course, it all comes undone. But...

Hugh Dancy is in what used to be a Hugh Grant role. He has the charm – but, probably, more dramatic ability than Grant. Who should be cast as the elitist fashion arbiter and editor but Kristin Scott Thomas, with a mock French English accent and stealing the scenes she appears in. John Lithgow and Julie Hagerty also turn up, so there is a strong cast.

But, this is the kind of film that has its cake while it eats it. Shopaholicism is bad – but aren't the temptations wonderful!

 

 

 

CADILLAC RECORDS

US, 2008, 109 minutes, Colour.
Adrienne Brody, Jeffrey Wright, Gabrielle Union, Columbus Short, Cedric the Entertainer, Emmanuelle Chriqui, Eamonn Walker, Moss Def, Beyonce Knowles, Tammy Blanchard, Eric Bogosian, Jay O. Sanders, Norman Reddus.
Directed by Darnell Martin.

You would need to be a devotee of old style rock and roll to be interested in this film and enjoy it. It is the story of the Chess label, established by Leonard Chess and in the 1940s but coming into its own in the 1950s and the managers' ability to search out and pick out the talented artists. They were at the centre of the black rock and roll talent of the times, especially with Chuck Berry.

Having said that, I wish the film was more interesting than it is. It is rather piecemeal and relies a lot on the audience's knowledge and patience. It is more like a collection of snapshots than a dramatic narrative. Adrien Brody is Leonard Chess, a young man who built himself up from menial jobs to club manager to entrepreneur. Jeffrey Wright is co-founder, Muddy Waters, who started in the cotton fields of Mississippi. Mos Def does a fine impersonation of Chuck Berry and Byonce Knowles is Etta James singing her song, At Last, (which Beyonce also sang at President Obama's Inauguration Ball.

Otherwise the film is the same old, same old: aspiring artists with some talent, hard times, opportunities, bickering, drugs, womanising, collapse and, sometimes, starting again. This is all punctuated with the music and songs themselves.

1.The 20th century American music history, the industry? Phases, innovations, changes and perspectives?

2.Chess Records’ history, Leonard Chess and Muddy Waters? Audience knowledge of the personalities, of the artists, music and songs, rock ‘n roll? These characters inducted into the Rock ‘n Roll Hall of Fame?

3.The period from the 40s to the 60s? The World War Two era and the prologue in Chicago, the Chess family and the junkyard? The sharecroppers in Mississippi? The transition to the 50s and 60s with clubs, studios, wealth, records, performance? The rock ‘n roll era?

4.Leonard Chess and his family, Polish- Jewish, the junkyard, his girlfriend’s parents, his wanting to prove himself, obtaining the club and prospering?

5.Alan Lomax, the music archives, going to Mississippi, Muddy Waters as a sharecropper, singing for the recording?

6.Muddy Waters going to Chicago, meeting Leonard Chess? With Little Walter? His playing the harmonica? The build-up of the studio, contracts, the studio itself? Recordings? Walter as a success?

7.Willie Dixon, his contribution to the music, his songs, providing the voice-over commentary? Helping Muddy Waters with his image, with women?

8.The personality of Howlin’ Wolf, his performance, his voice register, the confrontations, his demands, success?

9.Geneva, in herself, as Muddy Waters’ wife, living with his reputation, the groupie and the baby, the pressure on her? Her response?

10.Issues of temperament, talent, ability? Little Walter, the police bashing, separating from Chess, going out on his own?

11.Chuck Berry, his idiosyncratic style, talent, performances, dances, on the charts? Audience excitement, mixed-race response to his concerts? The presence of the police? The audience dancing on the stage? The issue of the Beach Boys plagiarising his song? Sexual difficulties, minors, spending time in jail?

12.Etta James and Beyonce taking the role? Her appearance, talent, her singing, the impact on Chess, their relationship, her background, her prostitute mother, her drug dependence, her needing to be rescued? Her songs?

13.Chess and the passing of the years, his work, eye for talent, success, the charts, the difficulties for his family, his wife, the relationship with Etta? His reputation, the decline of the studios? The visit of the Rolling Stones?

14.Decline, Etta and her overdose, Leonard and his infatuation, the racist attack? Etta’s song, the recording, his anger, the destruction of the studio?

15.The aftermath, Willie Dixon taking Muddy Waters to London?

16.The final information, the role of these personalities and their contribution to 20th century American music?

 

 

 

ALIEN

 

US, 1979, 124 minutes, Colour.
Tom Skerritt, Sigourney Weaver, Veronica Cartwright, Harry Dean Stanton, John Hurt, Ian Holm, Yaphet Kotto.
Directed by Ridley Scott.

 

Alien was first released in 1979 and made a strong impact with its focus on space horror ('in space no one can hear your scream') just two years after the release of Star Wars.

 

Alien boasts excellent space-voyaging vehicles and effects seen in great technological detail. However, the plot is traditional horror, combining the Old Dark House, disappearing characters (a huge 7 crew spaceship has numerous eerie long corridors) and lurking monster (some ugly, scary touches and lots of ooze) and a gradually accelerating pace (after suspenseful slow tracking shots and ominous close-ups as the alien is searched for) until heroine Sigourney Weaver shows that the men, led by Tom Skerritt, don't have the monopoly on heroics. John Hurt and Ian Holm must have enjoyed themselves indulging in space horror, Holm as the android and Hurt with the famous monster exploding from his stomach.. Director Ridley Scott had made only commercials and The Duellists at this stage of his career. He went on to make some classics in other genres: Blade Runner, Thelma and Louise, Gladiator. This time he set out to scare and awe a vast audience and does.

 

He worked on a Director's cut in 2003, improving the soundtrack and adding about five minutes of extra footage, mainly scenes which he had originally trimmed.

 

1. Interesting, enjoyable? Overall impact? A film of 1979: space exploration, technology? Space and horror combined?

 

2. The technical impact of the film: the visualising of space, space ships, the interior in such detail of the space ship? The visual presentation of life in space, the sounds? Colour, decor? The contribution of the score and its atmospherics? The foreign planet, the visualising of the alien, its variety of appearances, blood, ooze? The contribution of the special effects?

 

3. The pace of the film: the measured introduction, the transition to ordinary life of human beings, the extraordinary exploration, the slowing of the pace with the puzzling over the alien, the build up to suspense and the long, slow tracking shots and fear? The final speeding up with the chase, the hurry for the blasting off from the space ship and its explosion? The effects for shocks,, scares? The detail in close-ups and tracking shots for audience involvement?

 

4. The horror origins of the basic plot: the old dark house with its group of guests and dark corridors, the hidden monster and the sudden deaths, the elimination of the individuals. survival? Monster movies and stories? The red herrings, especially with the cat? The adaptation of horror conventions to the space trends of the '70s?

 

5. The importance of the space ship, the Nostromo and the overtones of Joseph Conrad? The audience knowing the space ship well, its various rooms, technologies, computers? The fact that it ultimately was destroyed? The space ship as the environment in space? The background of the commercial company, the multi-national and sinister background? The ordinary mission for oil refineries and the secret mission for getting the alien back to Earth? The irony of the computer's name as 'Mother' and the feminine voice? The hierarchy in the crew? The personalities, relationships? The substitution of a man by a robot and the control during the mission? The sinister aspects of such exploration?

 

6. The opening sequences and the introduction of the audience to the space ship? The ritual of waking up? The transition to the goodfellowship of the meals, the ordinary work, the haggling about money, contracts? Each character representing a type? Dallas as the strong American leader type, the making of decisions? Ripley and the Jane Fonda-tough woman of the '70s, strength, know-how, decisive? Lambert and her skills, her capacity for being afraid? Ashe as the science officer, impersonal, ultimately revealed as a robot? Kane as the ordinary man, the leader of exploration and the volunteer, the first victim? Brett and Parker as the collaborative workers, one black, one white? Brett and his comment, "Right" to everything?

 

7. The new signals, the orders, the visit to the foreign planet, the sinister landing, the details of exploration, the strange building, the interior with its ritual-looking decoration? Fear in exploration? Kane and his volunteering? His comment on seeing the alien, its organic meat look, the sudden seizing of him? The transition to the octopus-like growth on his face? The parasite emerging from his stomach? The gradual growth and monstrous look of the alien, the devouring, huge monster, the close-up of fangs, ooze? The finale and the monster? The perfect organism with matching hostility? The continued presence of the alien, its
hiding, attacking, its attacking human beings and the audience responding like the crew to the presence of the alien?

 

8. Kane and the medical exploration, the ugliness of the alien and its acid blood? The transition to Kane's recovery, the meal and the sudden agony and the shock emerging of the parasite? The pathos of his burial in space?

 

9. The screenplay's attention to strategies, fears, the elaboration of machines to detect the alien, the long sequences of search? The focus on Brett and the long tracking sequences, the scares with the cat, his ultimately being overwhelmed by the alien?

 

10. Dallas and his leadership, courage, communication, final confrontation, all signalled by the computer with the approach of the alien? His being trapped and begging for death?

 

11. Ashe and his opening the door to let the alien in, his assistance with the medical examination, his sitting surveying in the pilot's seat, his clash with Ripley about the program? The confrontation and his being revealed as a robot, the ooze, the decapitation, the body, the plugging in of the head and his speaking from the floor, his final destruction? Audience response to Ashe as robot?

 

12. Lambert and Parker as surviving, planning to leave on the emergency ship? Their busyness? The confrontation with the alien, the menace to Lambert, the attack on Parker and their deaths?

 

13. The effect of Ripley being left alone? Her control, her rank in the hierarchy, her initial ordering the door not to be opened? Tough, feminine? Her fears, ability to think and manoeuvre? Her trying to interrogate Mother? Her decision to abandon the space ship, the detailed plans, the time element? The rescue of the cat, blast off and the exploding of the ship? The inevitability of the alien being aboard the second craft? Ripley's being relaxed, changing for hibernation, the confrontation by the alien, her getting into the space suit and her final strategies to eliminate the alien? The final tape and the completion of the mission? The choice of Ripley as the character to win and survive?

 

14. The appeal of science fiction, the imagination of science fantasy, anticipation of the future, anticipation of the present? The value of space exploration, fears, possibilities? Man and the confrontation of space, the group? The totalitarian and capitalistic use of people in the space future?

 

15. The appeal of horror films: scares, shock, the shadow side of the human spirit?

 

 

 

FILM DISCUSSION RESOURCE

AN INTRODUCTION

A website with discussion material on several thousand films?

It is best to go back to the beginning to try to explain what is on this site, how it got there and how you might be able to use it.

Some history

One of the exhilarating aspects of life in the Catholic Church in the mid to late 1960s was the new attention given to the media and, especially, to cinema. In Europe there had been an International Catholic Organisation for Cinema (OCIC), established in what are called the Benelux nations. This was in 1928, just over thirty years after the Lumiere Brothers screened their first short films in December 1895. Some of the aims of OCIC were to promote cinema culture by review, critique, assistance in distribution of films and their exhibition and, if it were possible (which budgets soon indicated it was not), production.

This was a positive approach, in line with a 1900 year tradition of the Church encouraging the arts. Meanwhile, in the United States, 1934 saw the establishment of the Legion of Decency, an approach to movies that was more cautious, alert to possible objections and difficulties before considering the movie as a whole. World War II interrupted the work of OCIC but, by 1947 it began to be present to the professional world of cinema through juries at film festivals, beginning with Venice and Cannes. This was to spread during the 1950s to the 1970s when partnerships with Interfilm Juries led to the establishing of shared juries with Protestants: Ecumenical Juries.

This way of thinking about film was encouraged by the renewal of the Second Vatican Council, 1962-1965.

The 1960s changes

If you have a copy of New Images of Religious Film, edited by John C. May (Sheed and Ward, 1997) as well as Companion to Religion and Cinema, edited by John Lyden (Routledge, 2009) with the article, The Roman Catholic Church and Cinema, 1967 to the present, you will find a chapter he wrote tracing the developments in the English-speaking world, especially in the United States during the latter 1960s and listing a number of the books that were written at that time opening up serious cinema as well as the popular movies for religious, theological and spiritual reflection and appreciation.

This was the time when I began to write books called The Film and Films and Values and review films for the popular magazine published by my religious congregation in Australia, The Missionaries of the Sacred Heart: Annals Australia. This was the beginning of 1968. Along with reviewing, I was able to introduce some media and film courses into the seminary program and as part of renewal courses and retreats for members of religious orders. Not everyone agreed with that approach, but I was lucky enough to have a number of confreres and Annals readers who were supportive. It was just the time when films were becoming franker in themes, treatment and language. It was not always easy to find the right words for a balanced review.

Film discussion

That is the context for explaining this collection of film discussions. A group of young Catholics in Chicago took this new approach very enthusiastically and, with a great deal of energy, began to prepare and publish study guides on all kinds of films. Many of these booklets found their way to Canberra. Their impact was infectious so, in an inspired (or deluded?) moment, I decided that I would do the same. The first ‘discussion sheet’, as I have been calling them, was for the British film, Saturday Night and Sunday Morning, one of those films of the late 1950s and early 1960s that were referred to as ‘kitchen-sink dramas’, just the thing for serious discussion about values, in those days. Besides that, Paul Newman had been appearing in serious films like Hud, Hombre and Cool Hand Luke and we were seeing Christ-figures in these films.

Our Novice Master told us at the beginning of the novitiate year that a habit begins with the first act. So, from Saturday Night to Sunday Morning, I have developed a habit of doing a discussion film on most of the films that I have seen (although I am still a thousand or more behind in getting them all done). That means that this could be the greatest folly of my life or something quite special. I hope the latter even if the former is true!

A long process

Before I indicate of what use these discussion sheets might be, I should add that those on this site are part of an ongoing process. They began by being hand-written and then typed during the 1970s by some MSC students and some very good and patient friends. By 1973, I had worked out that it was better to jot some notes and then speak the material on to tape and have them transcribed. This is the moment to pay tribute to a person who has been listening to me for now over thirty years (and 99.9% of the time hearing me correctly – though sometimes inclined to question or improve my grammar), a paragon of friendship and loyalty, Phyl Coffey, from Croydon, Victoria. I know she will feel that this material appearing on this site is some sort of satisfaction for spending so much of her life listening and typing. Since 1990, it has been a little easier since the typing was straight onto the computer. However, in recent years, there has also been the task of scanning the discussions originally on paper into the computer – and she has done that too. Thanks seems, at this moment, a rather inadequate word of appreciation of what Phyl has done.

During the 1970s, Paul Stenhouse MSC, editor of Annals Australia who introduced the film reviews in the magazine, published two books of these sheets, ‘200 Movies and Discussions’, I and II. This is obviously the place to acknowledge his encouragement and support (and the fact that I saw quite a number of the films on the list with him). For the 40th anniversary of Hiroshima, it seemed a good idea to prepare a book of films on nuclear issues and Val Noone, of Catholics for Peace in Melbourne, published ‘Nuclear Films’, with about 70 discussions, in 1985. (I had better add that my good friend, Sister John Ogilvie of the Sisters of Nazareth in Hammersmith, London, scanned for me the 200 Movies books and Nuclear Films. Some more thanks.)

What does the discussion resource offer?

So, what will you find here? A growing resource for those who want to reflect on films or who want to use them for education and religious purposes. I had better ask for indulgence from potential users and remind them that my style of questions has changed somewhat over 36 years and it would be nice to edit their content and style. However, there is no time and I know readers will make allowances. I also decided not to update most of the reviews. There is a bit of historical interest seeing a review of, say, The Godfather, written on the film’s release in 1972 before Al Pacino was such a celebrity star.

Basically, the discussion sheet is a tool – like one of those informative websites that looks a bit flat because it is all written information without artwork. So, here is the writing (more than you need, probably) plus a poster.

Format

The format is this:
The poster,
Credits (country of origin, year of release, running time – which cannot always be trusted, sources often differ and films are cut, re-edited, but it gives some idea - and whether the film is in black and white or colour,
Principal cast,
Director.

Then follows a range of suggested questions. The first couple are general, helping readers and viewers to think about the film as film. Then we move into the questions of values and issues. Often, the development of the questions will follow the plot outline of the film. Sometimes, it will focus on the range of characters. I hope that this series of questions will help readers to remember the plot, identify the characters and be able to articulate what the film was trying to communicate.

For some of the films, there are no questions, only credits and introduction. These are there for completeness. The film may not be worth seeing or discussing. Or, it may be of historical interest only. But, by and large I have tried to do questions for the films, those that everybody could see or those that I have seen at festivals since the 1970s. (As I attend press previews these days and see some films that are trivial or trashy – though I am accused of liking everything I see – a friend ruefully shakes his head and tells me my trouble is that I am a completist; he doesn’t know the Enneagram but, for those who do, I would claim to be a redeemed 5, so that makes it all right!!)

Obviously, this is a project that should not be read from beginning to end (not even the questions for one film need to be scrutinised from beginning to end unless you are using that film for discussion).

Film, values and spirituality sites

If you have a copy of any of the Lights Camera Faith volumes published by Pauline Media in Boston, you will see from the annotated booklist that there is an increasing number of books on cinema and values, often with a pastoral perspective. In the annotated website lists compiled by fellow-writer, Sister Rose Pacatte of the Daughters of St Paul, you will realise that there are any number of sites on films, values, religious and spirituality. These can amplify and offer slants on the films you may be considering or studying.

Most films these years also have their own website.

The final thanks goes to the secretary general of SIGNIS, the World Catholic Association for Communication, Robert Molhant. He has been secretary-general in Brussels of OCIC from 1979- 2001 and then secretary-general of SIGNIS from 2001-2005, an enthusiast from the time he began to the time he is now finishing. ‘Thank you’ seems a meagre phrase of appreciation for all that he has done and the support and friendship he has offered during my time as president of OCIC and then of SIGNIS. It was his idea to produce a CD of 5000 titles for the SIGNIS General Assembly in 2005. It was also his idea to put these discussions on this website for which he is responsible.

And now to add some more titles – it may take a long time.

Looking for a title?

Click the icon below: O* for titles which start with numbers, A* and so on for titles beginning with A and so on. If a discussion resource has been added, the title will come up. Click the title you want and it will appear. Each film has its own, separate page.


Peter Malone, March 2009.

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

 

THE BURNING PLAIN

 

US, 2008, 110 minutes, Colour.
Charlize Theron, Kim Basinger, J.D. Pardo, Jennifer Lawrence, John Corbett, Robin Tunney, Rachel Ticotin, Brett Cullen, Danny Pino, Joachim de Almeida.
Directed by Guillermo Arriaga.

 

A strong adult drama with fine performances and plenty to reflect on.

 

Writer-director, Guillermo Arriaga, a former novelist, made an impact in 2000 with his screenplay for Gonzalez Inarritu's Amores Perros. He continued a fruitful relationship by writing the screenplays for 21 Grams as well as Babel and the screenplay for the Three Burials of Melchiades Estrada for Tommy Lee Jones.

 

One of this keynote structures is to shift times without notifiying the audience who then have to do the work themselves. This happens here as well.

 

The opening motif is fire - but Arriaga is intent on featuring the other elements, earth, water and air. A trailer in the middle of the Mexican desert explodes and burns. Later, we are shown the facts about the fire and then the deeper meaning and responsibility.

 

Water soon follows as we see Sylvia (Charlize Theron at her best) on the Oregon cliffs, promiscuous in her relationships but a poised manager of a fashionable restaurant. A mysterious stranger stalks her. This is enough to rouse audience interest and curiosity.

 

However, we move back to the Mexican- American border and the story of the two people killed in the trailer. This introduces us to two families, the poorer Mexicans and the middle-class Americans both of whom suffer with the loss of a parent in an illicit relationship. Flashbacks to the relationship occur throughout the film - and Kim Basinger is especially persuasive, vulnerable and wilful as the mother. What develops is a relationship between her daughter and the son of the dead man, trying to understand what has happened. Jennifer Lawrence as the teenage Marianna is particularly effective.

 

As the time shifts we meet a crop-duster, his partner and his young daughter who helps with the work. A crisis precipitates the means for all the strands to come together in ways that we might not have immediately anticipated. There are strong emotional conflicts which the audience shares in - with a final satisfying, understated ending that seems just right.

 

The characters are trapped in their worlds which are not always of their own makings but truth and forgiveness are the pervading values that the audience is left with.

 

1.A human and humane drama? American- Mexican relationships?

 

2.The work of the writer-director, his work as drama, characterisation, issues? The importance of unannounced time shifts?

 

3.The Oregon coast and the cliffs? The town? Restaurants, motels, streets?

 

4.The contrast with the American- Mexican border, the towns, homes, the desert, the trailers? The musical score?

 

5.The title, the opening, the trailer and the explosion, burning in the middle of the desert? Its reprise at the end of the film, and the audience knowing it was Mariana’s fault?

 

6.The introduction to Sylvia, with John, waking up, the sexual encounter, her standing naked at the window, indication of character? Her night with her client at the restaurant? The offer to Carlos? The later information about her mother and interpreting her behaviour because of her attitude towards her mother? Her friend on the staff, working together, her poise and accomplishment? John, working in the kitchen, his discussions with her, her asking him to leave his wife? The cook and the plans for meals, unannounced senators …? The advice on wine for customers? Her success? Yet standing on the cliff, gazing at the waves crashing? Possibilities of suicide?

 

7.Audience interest in Sylvia’s story, the puzzle, Carlos watching outside her house, following her, the interaction with John in the rain, Carlos giving her a lift? Her advances on him? The revelation that she was Mariana? Her story, family, mother, behaviour, Santiago, the baby?

 

8.Gina’s story, the family, burning, the funeral, the blame on the Martinez family? Santiago and his brother and his friend? Their love for their father? Their mother drinking, refusing to go to the funeral?

 

9.The flashbacks, Gina with her family, her age, her husband, the children? Meeting with Nicky, the lies, the phone calls, her being late with the family, Mariana overhearing? Watching her mother, following her, seeing her with Nicky in the trailer? The family situations, her trying to rectify the situation with the picnic? The information about her cancer, her breast removal? Her husband and his impotence, Nicky and his reverence for her wound? The final decision to meet him, Mariana following, watching, tampering with the gas, desperate with the explosion?

 

10.Santiago, his love for his father, the effect of his death, the confrontation by Mariana’s father? Going to meet Mariana, asking her to go to the desert, the catapult and the birds, cooking the bird, burning and the mutual scar? Their talk, going into the house, sleeping in the room, his promise not to touch? At home, Mariana’s visit, her mother’s reaction? The stone in the window of the family, the information about Mariana’s behaviour? Her father’s anger? Leaving, her father driving past Santiago? In the desert, pregnant, the birth of the baby, her leaving it after two days?

 

11.Santiago and Carlo, their work, crop-dusters, Maria aged twelve, on the plane, her skills with the navigation? The work, Maria going home, cooking, seeing her father crash, rushing to the site, hospital, his not speaking to her, sending her with Carlos to her mother, his being in a coma, the operation, the possibilities of success, Mariana talking to him while unconscious, her confession? Maria finally inviting her to go into the room?

 

12.Carlos and Mariana, her not being able to face her daughter, change of heart, her friend and the search of the motels, talking with Maria, explaining, asking her forgiveness? The reasons for her leaving, the insertion of flashbacks and her memories? Her looking at the photos in Maria’s room?

 

13.Peace, reconciliation, forgiveness? Past mistakes? The significance of Maria inviting her mother into the hospital room?

WHO KILLED NANCY?

(UK, 2009, d. Alan G.Parker)

The Nancy of the title is Nancy Spungen, the murdered girlfriend of Punk musician, Sid Vicious, already the subject of the 1987 drama by Alex Cox, Sid and Nancy, where the leads were played by Gary Oldman and Chloe Webb.

Nancy was killed in 1978 and, despite this well-made documentary, one might wonder who cares. She was a self-made celebrity, a pushy woman from Philadelphia,who returned from England with some notoriety as Sid Vicious' companion in life and in drugs. The talking heads of this film are as one in not liking Nancy or having anything good to say about her.

They are much kinder to Sid Vicious (actual name, John Ritchie) though regretting his early death from an enormous indulgence in drugs, a number suggesting that, though he confessed to killing Nancy, the uninvestigated details of the case might indicate that she was robbed and killed by an unknown assailant while Sid was quite out of it.

There are some clips of Vicious in interview and in performance and some glimpses of Nancy.

If that sounds interesting, then the film will be for you with its wide range of commentators, memories of punk rock in the 1970s and its contribution to contemporary music, including comments from the director, Alan G. Parker, Sid Vicious' biographer. If it doesn't sound interesting, it will seem just another glorification of the cult of celebrity.

VALKYRIE

US, 2008,121 minutes, Colour.
Tom Cruise, Kenneth Branagh, Bill Nighy, Terence Stamp, Eddie Izzard, Kevin Mc Nally, Carice van Houten, Tom Wilkinson, Tom Hollander, David Bamber, Thomas Kretschman.
Directed Bryan Singer.

At the end of Valkyrie we are told that there were at least fifteen attempts on Hitler's life. However, the best known is that of 1944, led by Claus von Stauffenberg. This film has two parts: the first is the planning and execution of the plot; the second is the aftermath in Berlin. The second part treats matters not so well known and is more interesting than the attempt itself.

During production, Valkyrie was criticised, even by the German government, for the casting of Tom Cruise as the hero, Stauffenberg. Scientology had a lot to do with the criticism as well. In promoting the film, Tom Cruise has told the press that he will not be talking about his religious beliefs but concentrating on the film.

In many ways, it is hard to accept Cruise as the German military official. However, the film begins with him writing in German and then makes a transition into English (American accented). This makes the performance more credible and Cruise gives his best to the role.

However, he is surrounded by a prestigious group of British actors in the central roles of those disillusioned with Hitler and wanting to be rid of him. The most convincing of these is Bill Nighy who puts all mannerisms and tics aside and focuses audience attention on the dilemmas of the plot and the hesitations after the attempt because the death of Hitler was not confirmed. Others include Terence Stamp, Kenneth Branagh (who is involved in an initial attempt and then disappears from the film until his suicide at the end) and Tom Wilkinson as a man who wants to cover his reputation and his life.

The screenplay, by Christopher Mc Quarrie, who collaborated with director Bryan Singer (Apt Pupil, X Men, Superman Returns) in their great success, The Usual Suspects, introduces a disillusioned Stauffenberg in the North African desert where he is wounded in action, losing an eye. On his return to Germany, he makes contacts with dissidents who cede the leadership of the plot to him. His big mistake was to assume that, while the bomb went off, Hitler was dead. He wasn't.

This means a great deal of suspense as post-assassination plans go into action, using an emergency plan for military, police and reserves, Operation Valkyrie. Within hours, after standby drills, desperate phone calls and cut lines, decisions made by Stauffenberg, the reality of Hitler's survival means disaster for the conspirators.

Interesting, especially in the second half and the collapse of the plot.

1. An interesting perspective on World War II, and Germany, on plots against Hitler, Hitler escaping the plots?

2. The Germans involved, the motivations, the plans, the networks, the decisions, the attempts? Failure? Their being demoted, executed?

3. The locations in North Africa, the bombings? Germany, hospitals, German headquarters, the countryside, the venues for the briefings? Berlin? The musical score?

4. The strong cast, Tom Cruise vehicle, the British support?

5. The title, the explanation, Wagner?

6. North Africa, the action sequences, the planes, the strafinf, the injuries?

7. von Stauffenberg, his disillusionment, his critique, writing the letter, action in North Africa, his plan, the injuries?

8. Smolensk, March 1943, the airfield, von Treskow? The plan? The meal, arranging the sabotage, the package of drinks? The failure of the bomb to go off? Von Treskow, his plan, going to the high command, retrieving the package? The hostility of Brandt?

9. The Berlin high command, the arrests, the roundup, the dissenters?

10. von Stauffenberg, the wound, in hospital, his artificial eye, dressing, von Stauffenberg and his relationship to his uncle, the general?

11. Prayer before the crucifix, the skulls and crucifix, traitor, talk with Olbricht?

12. The meeting, the arguments, the motivations, confronting Hitler as soon as possible? The interrogation of von Stauffenberg, concerning the future, his plan?

13. von Stauffenberg, the family, his wife and devotion, the children, their play, the explanation of the Valkyrie theory? The bombardments and they going to the shelter?

14. The plan for any uprising in Berlin, the squad for putting down civil unrest? To prevent the SS and their power? The need to kill Hitler and issue the order?

15. The writing war ministry, Fromm, his caution, protecting himself?

16. The cabaret, toilet, the meeting for the plan?

17. The promotion of von Stauffenberg to Berlin, the audience with Hitler, his making changes to the plan for civil unrest, Hitler and his admiration, signing
the document, von Stauffenberg and his new assistant?

18. June 1944, Berghoff, Hitler, Brandt and Fromm present? The entourage? Greeting von Stauffenberg, Hitler calling him an ideal? The dog, gatherings, support?

19. The theory of Valkyries as handmaidens of God, choosing to save people or not? Hitler’s praise of Wagner?

20. The detonator, the bombs, how the bombs worked?

21. July 1944, the pre-plan and its visualising, actual plan and its going ahead, alert, all assembling, von Stauffenberg’s wife and the kiss?

22. The meeting, the deadline midday, Wolf’s Lair, Himmler not present, Fromm and his anger, the raising of the troops in Berlin, the order not to go ahead and its being a drill?

23. The clashes about the decision, Carl Goerdeler, intended head of state and his having to leave Germany?

24. The next day, the permits, the bomb, the location change, the military briefing, Hitler pounding the table, the bag moving? von Stauffenberg on the phone, hurrying to the car, the explosion and von Stauffenberg assuming that Hitler was dead? The plan to sever communications? Olbricht and the decision whether to initiate the plan or not? The phone calls, Eric and his being in the plan, assisting Olbricht, his urging a decision to be made?

25. The failure, the phone calls, yet the group thinking it had succeeded, arresting Fromm?

26. Beck, in civil clothes, everybody with their cards? squads assembling, the commander, the contradictory information, his making his decision, for Hitler?

27. The attention to organisation, the group thinking the coup had succeeded, the SS arrests, Goebbels and his caution, even with the suicide tablet in his mouth? The pompous general, assuring everybody that Hitler was alive? The radio broadcasts and Hitler’s voice?

28. Fromm and his emerging, the roundup of the plotters?

29. The ending, von Treskow killing himself? The range of executions, firing squad, hangings? von Stauffenberg and his death?

30. An interesting re-creation of a significant event in World War II?

UNDERWORLD: THE RISE OF THE LYCANS

(US, 2009, d. Patrick Tatopoulos)

To what can we lycan this Underworld adventure? The previous two Underworlds, of course. However, for this reviewer, unskilled in keeping track of the history of the age-old conflict between vampires and werewolves, this was easily the best and the most intriguing. The first two films had very complicated plots which required quite some ingenuity (or Underworld loyalty) to work out, especially as they showed the past intervening in the present and the battles taking place both in history and the now.

The screenplay for this episode is quite straightforward. It is set in what looks like a medieval era. The Vampires rule – in a dark world, of course. The werewolves are outlawed, brute beasts who prey on stray vampires and besiege the castle. From the earlier films we know that there are Lycans, a mixed breed of humans and werewolves. These are the vampire's slaves, even Lucian (from the earlier films) who has been allowed to live and grow up in the palace of the ruler, Viktor.

As the film opens, we become aware that there is something of a Romeo and Juliet situation here – Lucian is in love with Viktor's daughter, Sonja, a haughty warrior if ever there was one. Viktor is jealous of authority and power and is not pleased at all. This gives rise to a Spartacus situation, where Lucian leads the slaves to revolt, is freely trapped into returning to rescue Sonja but who calls on the werewolves to come to the aid of the Lycans. He is helped by the ambitious lord, Tanis.

This means that one can sit back and follow the plot, marvel at the monsters and special effects (the specialty in all the films of the now director, Patrick Tatopoulos). The film is brief and tends to move at quite a pace.

However, one of the great advantages of the film is the cast, a literate group of British actors who give some gravitas to the proceedings and who speak articulately and with power. Michael Sheen was in the previous films but that was before his Tony Blair and David Frost performances. He is now the star of the show, Lucian, something of a beefed up comic-book hero (except when he transmogrifies into a raging werewolf) who makes dignified speeches. And Viktor is played, once again, by Bill Nighy, relishing every moment and every word. Steven Mackintosh is Tanis and Rhona Mitra, after her warrior prowess in Doomsday, is Sonja.

Never fear. The sequel looks probable as you can't keep a bad vampire down (despite appearances to the contrary).

TOKYO SONATA

Japan, 2008, 119 minutes, Colour.
Teruyuki Kagawa, Kyoko Koizumi.
Directed by Kiosha Kurosawa.

When this film premiered in early 2008, it was topical. When it received commercial release in early 2009, it was alarmingly more topical. The theme: unemployment and the consequences for damaging a family.

No, it is not a musical. Perhaps the use of 'sonata' in the title is a bit misleading – although there is a pleasing performance of Debussy's Clair de Lune at the end. But, it is the unemployment which is the key to the film.

In Japan, company loyalty is a major virtue, so it is a strong shock when the protagonist of the film is unceremoniously 'let go' because of outsourcing management to China. As with the men familiar from The Full Monty, the humiliation is profound and they cannot bring themselves to tell the truth to their wives and children. Off they go every day as if to work, lining up at employment offices, lining up for free charity meals, sitting in parks... It takes its toll in many ways, especially depression which could be suicidal, and anger in projecting their problems on to their children.

In this case, the portraits of the wife and children are important. The older son wants to enlist in the American forces even if it means fighting in Iraq. The younger son discovers a desire and talent for playing the piano (memories of Billy Elliot's situation). Their father is vehemently opposed to both boys. The mother has to acquiesce in her husband's authority but finally has to take a mediating and supportive role for her children.

This might seem familiar material but director, Kurosawa, who excelled in recent years in symbolic horror stories (The Cure, Pulse), takes his audience right into the heart of the family and its problems with seriousness, humour and some sympathy. Forty five minutes before the end, the film changes tone, becomes more surreal. The mother has dreams of her son returning from Iraq overwhelmed by the killings. The young son wants to run away from home. The mother endures a violent episode which has both traumatic and healing effects on her. The husband is literally bowled over and has to face his humiliation and the reality of his situation.

Since the style of photography and editing changes from the realism we had become used to, we share the disturbances, physical and emotional, for the family.

There will be more films about unemployment and family disintegration given the world financial crisis. This film has a role in alerting audiences to the human cost of economic downturns and uncertainties

1.A topical Japanese film? For universal audiences? The globalisation crises, outsourcing of work, downsizing of staff, growing unemployment, the hardships of unemployment, the consequences for the individual and for family?

2.The work of the director, his interest in horror film? Realism but the change in the final part – with the touch of his former styles? The significance of the time-jumps – leaping over significant events and letting the audience supply the response?

3.Tokyo, the city, modern, offices and glass? The contrast with homes? The streets, the quiet suburbs, the shops, the supermarket and mall, the soup kitchens? The contrasts? The musical score?

4.The title, sonata as a metaphor for the family life, the boy and his ability at music, the final performance – and the film pausing, taking a more positive tone?

5.Ryuhei and his personality, his work, at the office, his fellow workers, his being praised, the authorities, Japanese loyalty to the company? Thorough, the information about China and outsourcing, the meetings? His being fired – and the manner? The contrast with the employees’ loyalty?

6.The portrait of his family, his wife and her concerns at home, his older son and his offhand behaviour, away from home? The younger boy at school, in his room, music, an introverted boy?

7.Ryuhei and his inability to tell his family about his situation? Dressing and going to work each day? Going to the job centres? Not being able to have an equivalent job as the past? His accepting various jobs, as a cleaner? His need for food, hunger, spending his time away from home, going for handouts? The end of the day, irritable, money issues and his wife wanting to keep the accounts? His being a puzzle to his family?

8.The chance meeting with his friend, their talk, the friend and the mobile phone – revealed as a device to impress people? The meals, sharing discussions, their fate, memories of the past, both pretending to their wives? The husbands and wives meeting for a meal? The friend’s wife and her knowing what was happening? The effect on Ryuhei? The double suicide?

9.The older boy, away from home, his decision to join the army, the US forces in Iraq, the place of Japanese soldiers? His being transformed, physically, haircut, uniform? His father angry with him and refusing to sign the documents? His going nonetheless, the training? Not writing letters, his return, the shock impact of Iraq and of killing people?

10.Kenji, at school, his love for music, the encounter with the teacher, pretending to play in his room? The discussions about his lessons, the teacher and her offer, his abilities, his money and his father’s refusal for lessons? His taking the family money, paying the teacher? His father angry and confronting the teacher?

11.The teacher, her own life, her problems, relationships, Kenji listening?

12.Megumi, her seeing her husband at the mall, going home, the encounter with the intruder, her being abducted, hidden away, the sexual encounter?

13.The change in tone in the film before the end – use of time, the change of visual style, the touches of horror and terror?

14.Ryuhei as a cleaner, at the mall, fellow workers? Discovering the envelope with the money? His passing his wife and not acknowledging her? In the streets, the violence, the consequences of the money?

15.Kenji, his disappointment with his father, getting on the bus and running away, his being found by the police, the night in the cell?

16.Each of the characters arriving home, not saying anything to one another, the shared breakfast? As if everything was normal?

17.The parents going to the recital, Kenji and his performance, Debussy and the beauty of the music? A calming tone for the audience? A touch of optimism and hope at the end?