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?

TIMECRIMES (CRONOSCRIMINES)

(Spain, 2007, d. Nacho Vigalondo)

Time travel. What if there were the technology to go back in time only an hour or two? How would it affect the past? What if one encountered one's former self? Who would be the real person, the one from the future, the one in the present? And, what if the pattern were repeated?

Instead of Groundhog Day, over and over again, what if it were continued repetitions of the same person over and over again? Cronoscrimines does not exactly answer these questions but it exercises the minds and emotion as we look at a middle-aged man, Hector, who began a quiet Saturday afternoon at home and relived it over again (and over again) but decided to intervene to bring the process to a stop, only to so complicate matters that he was changing his history. There are also consequences for his wife and the girl he sees in the woods. There are more conscience questions and consequences for the young scientist who manages the time machine.

At only 90 minutes, this is quite an effective time travel thriller.

It begins tranquilly enough at the supermarket, then home with the wife working in the garden, the husband having a rest and then relaxing with his binoculars until he spies an unknown woman in the woods. Later, when we realise that he is seeing a situation set up by his second self, the film becomes very interesting as the writer-director cleverly shows us what the first Hector saw from the perspective of the second Hector. Plenty of deja vu all over again.

However, with the two Hectors, the one trying to destroy the other and then prevent him from entering the machine, the plot becomes more eerie with car crashes, stabbings in the woods, sieges of the home...

How can it all end? Can it all end?

This intriguing film not only asks, 'What the Hec?' but also, 'Which the Hec'!

THE SQUARE

Australia, 2008, 105 minutes, Colour.
David Roberts, Claire van der Boom, Joel Edgerton, Anthony Hayes, Lucy Bell, Kieran Darcy- Smith, Brendan Donoghue, Peter Phelps, Bill Hunter.
Directed by Nash Edgerton.

The Square of the title is the courtyard for a building on a construction site which is about to concreted over during the Christmas- New Year week with some urgency on the part of the owner of the site (Bill Hunter) and the fact of injuries, foreman pressure, worker protests – and the fact that a body has been deposited there.

This film was one of those which received many nominations at the Australian Film Institute awards for 2008, including Best Film.

Most audiences like a solid thriller. They should be satisfied with this one. It is a story of murder, robbery and arson – but in a very local Sydney suburban situation. As the film opens, we realise that the manager of the building site (David Roberts) is having an affair with a young woman (Claire van der Boom) and that they are at pains to conceal it. Not a particularly new development. We watch him and his estranged wife, his dealing with the workers and his illicit rendezvous.

Matters become a bit more complicated when the woman discovers that her brother has a large stash of money and she puts pressure on the lover to steal it. The best plans certainly can go alarmingly astray and that is what The Square is about. It involves an arson plan that is more destructive than intended, the couple trapped in the power of a thug that they employ, double dealing and ambiguous messages from sub-contractors, especially since the site manager misinterprets messages and people are killed.

How can a seemingly ordinary middle aged man get himself into such a moral mess?

The film was co-written by Joel Edgerton who appears as the thug. It was directed by his brother, Nash Edgerton, who has worked as a stuntman. In piling up the mishaps, the film gains momentum with several twists.

1. An action thriller and personal drama? The use of the conventions of the thriller? Australian style? Idiom?

2. The city, the suburbs of Sydney, the building sites, homes, the waters, the bush? The highways and bridges? Real feel? The musical score?

3. The title, the square of the building site, the hole, concrete, the body concealed? The rain, uncovering the secret?

4. Raymond and Carla, control of their situation, loss of control, the consequences, mistakes, the dire results, destruction? A moral fable?

5. Ray and Carla and the affair, under the bridge, leaving, the secrecy, their room, clandestine meetings? The dog swimming across the water, the closeness of the two homes? Ray at home, offhand with his wife, the lies? The ordinariness of suburban life, the episode of the dog at the door, the Yales’ dog?

6. Ray at work, the meeting with Gil Hubbard, tough, the irony of the revelation of the later scam? Barney and the kickbacks, the arrangements, cash, envelopes, deals? Jake as foreman? His suspicions, union rules, the break-in and Leonard Long stealing? The discovery of the truth, the car chase, the crash, Jake’s death, Ray rescuing the baby, taking it to hospital, and being seen as a hero?

7. Greg, at home with Carla, his hiding the money, Carla discovering it? Greg and Smithy’s mate? Leonard Long? The deal with the money, mutual suspicions?

8. Leonard Long at work, the repair of the part, Ray’s reaction, the appointment at the hairdresser’s with Carla, his stealing the part, spying on them? The threat, the fight, his being killed, Ray disposing of the body?

9. Greg and his search, the threats, to his mate, concerned about Leonard and trying to find out what happened, visiting his house? Suspicions on Carla, the confrontation, the wrong bag?

10. Carla and the money, her plan, Carla changing the bags? Persuading Ray to steal the money? The contact with the thief? The meeting in the restaurant, his girlfriend and her keeping tabs? The payment? Ray and his changing his mind, the phone call, the woman not being able to stop the thief? Her denying that Ray had rung? Ray’s return, threatening the woman, her confessing to the thief? The stealing, the fire in the house, watching it from the party on the hill? The death of the woman inside, the repercussions? The thief and his threats?

11. Ray and the cards, the blackmail, suspecting the thief, the woman? Barney and his scam, his relationship with his wife, the affair with the receptionist, his boasting, his being found out? The police, their questioning Ray about Leonard Long’s disappearance? The officer and his being with Gil Hubbard, the confrontation and the demands on Ray?

12. The theme of the dog, swimming across the water, the dog’s death?

13. The community, the celebration of Christmas, the carols, the firemen going to put out the fire, the search in the ruins of the house? The police and their interrogations?

14. Carla and Ray, his delay in leaving, the final decision to go, with the money, the thief’s arrival, his demands, Greg’s arrival, the shootout, Greg’s death, the wounding of the thief? Ray’s fight with the thief and the accidental shooting of Carla?

15. Ray walking away, completely destroyed? What does it profit to gain the whole world…?

THE SPIRIT

(US, 2008, d. Frank Miller)

Intriguing.

Poor reviews and weak box-office in the US seemed to indicate that there was something wrong with this version of a comic book hero and villain. Maybe there is. However, this review is very favourable.

Not being a fan of Sin City, written by Frank Miller who co-directed with Robert Rodriguez - it was ugly and brutal in themes and treatment, and thinking that Zac Snyder's version of Miller's 300 was absurdly camp, I expected this to be as bizarre as the other films. Not so. While it has big guns blazing in exaggerated cartoonish style, it has no rough language to speak of (only the 'kick ass' variety). To that extent, it is more general audience friendly.

But, where it may not be general audience friendly is precisely where it is so interesting. If you want to see a cinematic experience of pop art, then The Spirit could be it.

Firstly the style - because that is what makes the immediate impact. It looks like a comic strip come to life (as did Sin City and 300). However, The Spirit has a more consistent and consistently interesting style. It is generally filmed in black and white and red. There are some blues now and again and some tints of green and grey, but the black and red is visually striking. The cityscapes and locations are stylised. So are the characters and their costumes with inventive lighting. They look and sound as if they are in a comic strip. You can imagine the bubble in the frame with the dialogue. Stunt work and effects are designed to create an urban unreality into which we are invited. Art students will be fascinated by The Spirit.

Secondly, the content.

One of the difficulties for those not in the know or fans of Will Eisner's creation is that we are plunged right into the action as this strange masked man, The Spirit, goes into action to protect the city (often rhapsodising about the city as his mother and his love and life commitment) which, in its turn, provides opportunities (manhole lids to deflect bullets) to protect him. The commissioner calls on him to help (he is a bit like Spiderman at times in helping people) but is always exasperated with him. He has a way with women which frustrates the commissioner's doctor daughter who is in love with him. His nemesis is an arch criminal called The Octopus. Neither seems to be affected by weapons and fighting which makes the proceedings more mysterious.

It is at about an hour into the film that we get a complete explanation of who The Spirit is, how he died and was resuscitated and how he has committed himself to serve the city. We also get an explanation of the megalomania of The Octopus and his plan to blend his DNA with that of Heracles(!) so that he can become both human and divine. Well! But intriguingly interesting.

Gabriel Macht is The Spirit, an ambiguous blend of the good, the heroic and the womanising charm. Samuel L. Jackson lets himself go as The Octopus while a rather straight-laced and bespectacled Scarlet Johansson is his assistant. Eva Mendes is on the side of good, generally. Sarah Paulson is the doctor. Paz Vega comes in to do an exotic Latin dance. Jaime King hovers as the spirit of death.

No, not essential viewing – unless you want to see a state of the art pop art movie.