THE PHOTOGRAPHER OF MAUTHAUSEN

Spain, 2018, 110 minutes, Colour.

Mario Casas, Richard Van Weyden.

Directed by Mar Targarona.

There are also many World War II, concentration camp dramas coming from Spain. However, this is a reconstruction of life in the camp of Mauthausen.

The film is based on an actual character, Francisco Boix, who fought in the Spanish Civil War, was exiled along with many other Spaniards after Franco’s victory, moving to France, many in the Foreign Legion, but, with the German occupation of France, their being relegated to the concentration camp, 7000 of them.

Audiences will be interested in a Spanish perspective on the war and the concentration camps. The film reconstructs the sets, the daily life of the prisoners. It shows the oppression of the authorities.

However, the focus is on Francisco, his skill as a photographer, Paul Ricken, his commander, also being interested in photography, the range of photographs taken, for IDs of prisoners, for events in the camp. The film shows the up-and-down relationship between Francisco and the commander, bonding, suspicions. There are others who participate in the photography and the development of the photos?

Ultimately, 2000 negatives were preserved by Francisco and the others, handed over to the allies and used in evidence against the authorities in Mauthausen and in their trials.

There was a documentary on Francisco Boix in 2001 – and a graphic novel on his life story in 2017.

1. A true story? From the Civil War to France to the concentration camps?
2. Creating the atmosphere of World War II, the concentration camps, the detail of the camp at Mauthausen? Musical score?
3. Audience response to World War II films, to the camps, the plight of the prisoners, the Nazis and the guards? The authorities?
4. Creating the atmosphere of the camps, living conditions, work, food, employment? Day by day detail? Moods, the dangers?
5. The story of Francisco Boix, his background in the Civil War, Franco and the defeat, the Civil War fighters going to France, Foreign Legion, the defeat of friends, the imprisonment of the Spaniards, 7000 in Mauthausen? Franco depriving them of citizenship?
6. Francisco, age, experience, personality, serious and joking, his skills as a photographer, the relationship with the commander, Paul Ricken, the bonding, yet Francisco’s wariness? The range of photographs, the IDs of the prisoners, photographing events? Collaborating with other prisoners with the photography, development, the negatives?
7. Ricken, his role in the camp, authority, oppressive? Yet favouring Francisco? Suspicions or not? His own interest in photography, having a record of the events in the camp?
8. The years passing, life in the camp, the effect on Francisco? His friends, fellow-collaborators?
9. The end of the war, the negatives, as evidence of the atrocities, saving the negatives? Having the most of the authorities? Using evidence against the authorities at Mauthausen?

THE LAST WORD

US, 2017, 108 minutes, Colour.

Shirley MacLaine, Amanda Seyfried, AnnJewel Lee Julie Dixon, Thomas Sadoski, Philip Baker Hall, Getty Watanabe, Tom Everett Scott, Joel Murray, Anne Heche, Steven Culp, Marshall Bell, Millicent Martin.

Directed by Mark Pellington.

The Last Word in this case consists of the words in obituaries.

This is an unusual story directed by Mark Pellington, Arlington Road and a range of music videos.

It is also a star vehicle for Shirley MacLaine in her early 80s, playing her age. She is complemented by the younger actress, Amanda Seyfried. There are quite a number of American character actors in support including Philip Baker Hall as her husband, Anne Heche as her daughter, Joel Murray as a friend from the advertising firm, Tom Everett Scott as the editor of a paper. There is a cameo by veteran actress Millicent Martin.

But, the focus is on Harriet, a wealthy, very independent woman, dominating in the past, separating from her husband, alienated from her daughter. She is world-weary, taking pills and drink and hospitalised. However, she notices obituaries of people she knows, goes to the paper and demands to see the writer of the obituaries, then hires her to write her own while she is alive.

The bulk of the action is the young journalist’s attempt to find the truth about Harriet who gives her a list of contacts. Her husband is still regretful. Most of her friends and associates have nothing good to say about her – or nothing to say. Harriet then says four questions have to be answered, her relationship with family, friends, concern for somebody in need, and a wildcard.

The action shows the answers to these stories, Harriet eventually meeting with her husband, also meeting with her daughter and learning what her life has become, successful and so Harriet praising herself as a good mother. She does find some friends. She does befriend an underprivileged little girl who has quite a mouth on her, much like Harriet when she was young, and they bond. The wildcard consists of discussion with the journalist about records, giving her LPs to a radio station, and serving as a morning disc jockey.

It might seem all improbable but the strength of the cast and Shirley MacLaine’s screen presence ensure that it is always interesting and entertaining.

1. Obituaries? Written after deaths? Written while subjects are alive? Live obituaries and the possibility for change?
2. The Los Angeles settings, the mansions and interiors, newspaper offices, radio studios, institutes for the underprivileged, travelling the countryside, the funeral service? The musical score? The range of songs, from the past, contemporary?
3. Harriet’s story, played by Shirley MacLaine in her early 80s, her iconic screen presence, age, appearance, style, wardrobe? Introduction, bored, controlling, ticking off the gardener, the hairdresser? Taking the tablets and drinking? In hospital, the reprimand of the doctor, her spurning him? At home, noticing the obituaries, reading them? Giving her a mission in life?
4. And, writing the obituaries, writing her personal essays, her relationship with the editor, is licking her up with Harriet? The interview/interrogation with Harriet? The commission? The list of contacts? A conversation with Harriet’s husband, his memories, his love for her? The collage of associates, their not having anything good to say, or not saying anything, the same with the priest? Her problems in deciding what to write? Visit to her father, memories of the past, her mother’s leaving, her writing and expressing home herself?
5. The discussions with Harriet, Harriet stances, criticisms? Joe coming with the video of her attacking the board of her company, their ousting her? Jo going to Harriet, giving her the original? The repercussions of the end, removing the L from the sign? The staff applauding her?
6. Harriet’s list of what should be in a good obituary? Family, associates, doing good for some underprivileged person, the wildcard?
7. Going to the Institute, the haughty manner, issue of checks, her giving a class to the children, Brenda asking her the question? Later talks with Brenda, the discussion about language, being articulate? Continuing her work with Brenda, Brenda bonding with Harriet? Bringing the records to the radio station? Always present? Going on the visit to Elizabeth? The bonding with Harriet and with an?
8. And, her personal life, Harry comes in to visit her in her apartment, the challenge? Going to the mansion, seeing the records, giving her the information about the radio station and the disc jockey? Harriet marching in, with the records, the morning DJ given the sack, Robin and the discussion, giving her the job, her performance on radio, and’s amazement, the records, her comments, urging people to have a meaningful day? Her pleasure at Robin and and connecting, watching, turning up at the pub and the challenge of the discussion? Being the disc jockey the wildcard for her obituary?
9. And then the challenge to visit family, her going to visit her husband, their talk, her wanting him to talk freely about their married life? Her agreeing to visit Elizabeth, with Anne and Brenda, the restaurant, Elizabeth not talking to her mother for decades, her life, neurologist, marriage, the two children? Her mother’s reaction, laughing, thinking herself a good mother because of her daughter’s success?
10. The visit to the doctor, her heart, not long to live? Discussing this with an? At the house, the dancing, her quietly dying?
11. The funeral, and speaking, all those present? The tribute? Some reparation for her domination, harsh control, hurting people? A second chance?

AMBULANCE

US, 2022, 137 minutes, Colour.

Jake Gyllenhaal, Yaya Abdul-Marteen II, Eliza Gonzalez, Garrett  Dillahunt, Keir O'Donnell, Jackson White, Olivia Stambouliah, Moses Ingram, Colin Wardell, A Martinez.

Directed by Michael Bay.

For almost 30 years, the name of director, Michael Bay, has been associated with big films, loud films, brash films, hyper-action films. This goes back to the 1990s with films like Bad Boys and The Rock (joking references to both in the screenplay), then the to thousands and Pearl Harbour, the Transformers series. Critics are not prone to praise the films of Michael Bay – far from it. On the other hand, he has many fans, audiences who like adrenaline-pumping action. And there is plenty of this in Ambulance. 2 ¼ hours of it.

With such a brief, direct title, there is no guessing as to what the main plot line will be. In fact, the action will give new and different meaning to “ambulance chasers”.

But, first the central characters have to be introduced. First is Will (Yaya Abdul-Marteen II), an Afghan veteran, finding life at home difficult, finding jobs, wife and child, illness and insurance. Second is his brother, adopted, Will African-American, Danny (Jack Gyllenhall) white. Will hoped for a job from Danny – and he gets one, far more than he bargained for. It emerges that Danny has a reputation as a bank robber for years, on the FBI list. And a big one is about to go down, a big crew, daring because it is in the centre of LA, allegedly foolproof, $16 million or more.

Bay immerses us in the world of LA, an ever-moving camera, swirling camera up the sides of skyscrapers, hovering and then descending down into the city (quite a number of times). The robbery goes to plan at first, but an on guard policeman wants to flirt with the teller and gets himself trapped. But his partner is ultimately suspicious of his absence. Then the truck breaks down outside the bank and the policeman gets it started again!

And then the mayhem begins. (Jake Gyllenhaal had referred to it as Bayhem)

However, our initial attention has been drawn to a paramedic team, attending a car accident, rescuing a young girl, helping her survive, getting her to hospital. The leader of the team, Camille (Eliza Gonzalez), adopts a detached stance, and is irritated by the incessant talking of her new partner. They have the ambulance.

The policeman is shot, there is a call for the ambulance, Camille arrives, her partner knocked out, the ambulance commandeered. And so begins the long chase, the multiple crashes, some explosions, shootouts, deceptions, involvement of local drug criminals… And, all the while, we are more in sympathy with Will, even though he has fired at the policeman, concerned for Camille trying to do her paramedic work while being a hostage. And we like Danny and his bravado less and less.

The chief of police, with his large pet dog, is confident but outwitted. There is also an FBI agent who went to university with Danny and knows him well, trying to do some bargaining. The screenplay is very strong on communications, not only by radio, but phones and images, especially when Camille tries to do some surgery with the advice of experts speaking through their phones.

How can this end with hope? You will just have to see.

1. The straightforward title? The role of the ambulance, the hijacking, the chase, the paramedic, the wounded policeman, Will injured, treatment?
2. Adaptation of an 80 minute 2005 Danish film (actually filmed in an ambulance)?
3. The work of Michael Bay, loud, fast, pace and editing, action? Human stories, the touch of sentiment?
4. The Los Angeles settings, the vistas of the city, buildings, streets, the bank, the channels? The background of homes, warehouses, drug dealing? The musical score?
5. Will, the return from Afghanistan, love for his wife and child, her health, insurance needs, need for a job? The treatment of veterans? His relationship with Danny? The later explanations of Danny’s father, Will being adopted, growing up together, the father as a notorious bank robber, harsh? The two boys playing together, friends? Danny and his becoming a robber like his father? Will and his decision to serve the country, Afghanistan? Going for the job, his being caught up in the robbery plans, going along, participation, shooting the policeman, his regrets? Driving, driving the ambulance, his being shot by Camille, his giving blood for the policeman, Camille treating him?
6. Danny, his background, his father, the user robbing banks, his studies and the friendship with the FBI chief? Years is a criminal, the FBI list? The plan for the bank, his confidence, tensions, his crew, persuading Will to join? Seeming foolproof? Going to the bank, the hold-up, the threats? The vast amount of money? The various members of the team, with the money, the young man taking the jewellery? The policeman coming in, suspicious, wanting to flirt with the teller? Noticing the wrong name, his being overpowered?
7. The policeman outside, the alert, the robbery going wrong, the escapes, the shootouts, the number of police cars and police, the young robber it by the truck? The truck driver, talking with the policeman, restarting the car? The attack, his death?
8. The introduction to the ambulance, Camille and Scott, the work was a little girl injured, taking her to hospital, Camille and her detachment, Scott and his talking? Hearing the alert, going to the bank, Scott knocked unconscious, Camille taken, the wounded policeman, taking him to the ambulance? Danny taking over the ambulance, Will driving?
9. The extensive chase, the dramatics of the chase, twists, turns, plans? The police? The confident chief, his pet dog, background, control, deceived, his being shot? The FBI agent, relationship with his husband, his knowing Danny, the Chief looking down on him, but then involved in the negotiations? The chief, the local officer and her smart and snappy style?
10. Communications, phones, images, police and Danny, the surgery for the policeman, Camille, nervous, Will helping, the phones and the images, the detail for the surgery, removal of the bullet, blood transplant?
11. Danny, the confidence, memories of the past, Will and his memories of them as boys? Danny’s connection with the drug Lord, getting the cars, diversion vehicles, getting his friend with the spray, spraying the ambulance green? Hiding under the bridge? Going to the headquarters? Change of vehicles? And shootouts? The drug chief, the news of his son’s death? The $8 million? Danny confronting, the guns, Danny and his performance criticising Will, urging him to turn left, the queue for the shootout? Going to the ambulance, Camille shooting, Will injured?
12. Will’s wife, phone call assuring her, the television, coming to the scene of the arrest? Camille and her help?
13. At the hospital, the policeman, Will injured on the ground, Danny holding Camille, his being shot? His death?
14. The hospital, Will and his being attended to, the policeman not identifying him but saying that Will have saved his life?
15. Camille, her previous harsh attitudes, not following through simply doing duty, going to visit the little girl who had been injured that morning?
16. An action-day, the robbery, the police, the chase, the human stories?

OPERATION MINCEMEAT

UK, 2021, 126 minutes, Colour.

Colin Firth, Matthew McFadyen, Kelly MacDonald, Penelope Wilton, Jason Isaacs, Johnny Flynn, Simon Russell Beale, Alex Jennings, Mark Gattis, Hattie Morahan.

Directed by John Madden.

The title sounds like one of those comedy satires from the 1950s or 1960s starring Peter Sellers and Terry Thomas. In fact, it was the code name for one of the most significant deception operations perpetrated by the British on the Nazis during World War II. It was a plan to deceive Germany into thinking that the Allied invasion would be through Greece rather than Sicily. 1943. If you remember the story or if this intrigues you, then you will want to see this 21^st-century interpretation, Operation Mincemeat. (The original title of the operation was Operation Trojan Horse, quickly dismissed as too obvious, a dead giveaway, so to speak.)

Back in the day (more precisely, 1956), there was a film version of this story with the intriguing title, The Man Who Never Was. This reviewer still remembers it with great warmth, an exciting story, well told, stirring, and of all people, Clifton Webb as Ewen Montague, the organiser of the operation and the author of a book on which this film was based. It was filled with a whole range of British character supporting actors, an intriguing entertainment.

65 years later, based on a book by Ben McIntyre, with a lot more information available about the operation and the identity of “the man who never was”, this is a tribute to the ingenuity of the team and the details of the operation.

This time it is Colin Firth who is Ewen Montague. It is a typical Britishly Firth-ish performance. Legal counsel, seconded to the war effort, working undercover, his Jewish wife and children sent for safety to the US. His brother, Ivor, was under official suspicion for Soviet contacts – but who later was an eminent filmmaker and film critic (played here by Mark Gattis). Also in the team is Charles Cholmondeley (Matthew McFadyen), the epitome of stitched up British emotions, stiff upper lip, devoted to his task, awkward in relationships. Also in the team is Penelope Wilton as a veteran secretary and assistant and Kelly MacDonald, who works in the office but becomes integral in creating the story of the man who never was.

The plan was to create a fictional narrative, find a body of a man who had drowned, do detailed research which would enable him to be placed in a container, eventually on a submarine, put into the sea off the coast of Spain, and carrying all kinds of documents which would mislead Nazi readers. The plan does not always go according to plan after the body is washed up in Spain, involving the local police commander, the British ambassador, a Spanish associate, hopes that a prominent but easily-taken-in German spy or get the material to Berlin. And, even then, there is a twist as the deceit is finally successful.

There are some subplots involving relationships in the team, some jealousies, spying and reporting to the wary and sceptical Admiral Godfrey (Jason Isaacs). And Simon Russell Beale does a cameo as Winston Churchill.

This is one of those World War II occasions when, secretly, Britannia did rule the waves.

1. The title? The tone? Initially Operation Trojan Horse? The story of The Man who never was?
2. Audience knowledge of the story, Ewen Montague’s popular book in the 1950s, the film version? Further research, new information, the identity of the man and the acknowledgement of him in the headstone in Huelva?
3. The very British tone of the film? The British cast? Few Americans seen? Jean’s boyfriend, his leaving for action, and the Americans during the invasion of Sicily?
4. The introduction to Ewen Montague, Colin Firth’s screen presence and performance, very British, his legal work, seeming retirement, undercover work for the war effort, being part of The 20, his relationship with his wife, tense, reading John Buchan to his son (and the references to the Buchan -type authors, especially military, writing novels? His wife and children going to the US? Her writing to Hester and not to him? His brother, seeming dilettante, the Soviet connections, under official suspicion is an observation? The two brothers living in the same house, further suspicions?
5. The introduction to Charles Cholmondeley, stiff upper lip, restrained emotions, living with his mother, her devotion to her dead son, pleading for Charles to get him home, his spying on Montague and reporting to Godfrey and the brother’s body being returned? His skill at his work? Relationship with Montague? The attraction towards Jean, going out, at the dance, her not responding? His observing her relationship with Montague? And jealousy and resentment, consequences in his judgement?
6. The meeting, Godfrey, in command, scepticism about the plan, the meetings with Churchill, his manner, observations? Operation Trojan Horse? The later change of the name for deception? The various meetings, the proposals, the details? The presence of Ian Fleming, his voice-over, the incidence of the watch gadget intimating James Bond?
7. The details of the plan, getting a body, a drowned man, no connections? Montague and Cholmondeley going to various morgues, the whole rather the doctor, Montague helping in him in court cases? The finding of a body, vagrant, from Scotland, rat poison, his death? His being prepared to be the body of William Martin? The search for someone resembling him, for a photo? and the American boyfriend? Jean, becoming more involved in the story, the details, becoming Pam, writing the letters, refining the details of the relationship, his career, their meeting?
8. Hester, friendship with Montague and his wife, the correspondence with the wife? Working in the office, collaborating with the plane, writing the letters?
9. The screenplay’s attention to the detail of the planning and the research? The body in a submarine rather than drop from a plane? The Spanish coast, space neutrality, politicians and spies? The meeting with the British ambassador, the Spanish associate? The British ambassador, his double life and agents, listening in to conversations and the sexual encounter, the spy and the different sexual encounter?
10. Time, the deadline, the submarine, the commander, driving the body to the submarine? Cholmondeley and his decision to go on the voyage? Mixed motivations?
11. The group, the waiting? The information from Spain, the scenes of the body coming ashore, the fishermen, the local authorities, the police chief, spies and corruption, the local interventions to get the documents, the being prepared for return to England, persuasion to let the spy find them, his getting to Berlin, the authorities in Berlin checking them?
12. The spy arriving at Jean’s flat, his threats, the group of Germans planning to overthrow Hitler? His knowing all the details of the plot? Montague, suspicions, trying to identify him? And the final twist hypothesis that Hitler’s adviser was giving him the wrong information to prepare for his overthrow?
13. The plan, Churchill wanting the attack by the allies in Sicily, the false information about Greece, the transferring of trips to Greece?
14. Montague and Jean, the bond, decisions, the breaking of the relationship? Hester and her advice to Jean?
15. The final achievement, the significance of Operation Mincemeat in the changing of World War II and the saving of allied lives?

WHEEL OF FORTUNE AND FANTASY

Japan, 2021, 121 minutes, Colour.

Directed by Ryûsuke Hamaguchi.

Ryûsuke Hamaguchi, the Japanese writer-director, may not be a name on every filmgoer’s lips. However, his Oscar-winning Drive My Car has been seen and acclaimed all around the world. Wheel of Fortune and Fantasy is the film he made before Drive My Car. And it won the Silver Bear at the Berlin Film Festival in 2021. Many audiences will be eager to see this film.

And it runs for 121 minutes, an hour shorter than Drive My Car! And, it contains three episodes, three short stories, not linked by characters but rather by themes of relationships.

In many ways, the director’s style of filmmaking is straightforward, unfussy, direct, a great deal of dialogue, talking heads, the drama communicated by the performances, the strength and content of the dialogue, judicious editing so that audience interest is maintained in each of the characters.

But, audiences may be wondering during the first story, Magic (or Something Less Assuring), as it opens with a young model and a photo shoot but then spends 10 minutes with the model and her friend sitting in a taxi talking, close-up. They are discussing relationships, attraction, sharing and communication. The next part of the film is also conversation, this time the young woman going to visit her ex-boyfriend who is the man who has charmed her friend from the taxi. The model is wilful, petulant, not afraid to hurt people. He, on the other hand, is enigmatic, hostile, yet still in love. And then the woman turns up at the apartment, having left her laptop behind! Discussions and explanations.

There is an unexpected twist at the end of this story as the two women sit in a restaurant talking about the experience – and the man walks past and sees them. The director uses the device to test just where our sympathies lie and what might happen.

The second story is called The Open Door, the University Professor very cautious about propriety in his office, first encountering a young man who is literally on his knees begging for some help for his career and being refused. Later, the young married woman who is in relationship with the young man, but admires the professor and his new novel, arrives to get his autograph, read some of his text, rather laboriously explicit at times, and to trap him. Once again, there is quite a dismaying twist and the characters seen five years later. Deviousness in relationships.

The third story is somewhat plainer, Once Again, two women passing on escalators, realising that they recognise each other, then catching up, one accompanying the other to her home, talking. We learn something of the life of each of them, the occasion of a 20 year high school reunion. But, complications and the conversation arise – leading to some role-plays, highlighting how illuminating a role-play can be for both participants. The experience has been significant for the two women and the final scene makes us wonder where it will go.

Audiences will respond differently to each of the stories but each has its own merit, the quality of the dialogue, the interest in relationships, twists of fate.

Three short stories written by the director– who then went on to enlarge several short stories into a three hour-long story in Drive My Car.

1. The work of the director? Feature films? A five-hour other feature film? Several documentaries? His Oscar winning for Drive My Car?
2. Three short stories in one film? Not connected between the characters? Connected by themes of relationships, love, and touches of vengeance? The cumulative effect of watching the stories?
3. The first story, talk of magic, and something less assuring? The opening, the photo shoot, the model, the team, agreeing on success? The model and her travelling in the taxi with her friend, a 10 minute close-up sequence, conversation, discussions about Love, relationships, the model seeming young and naive, the older woman fascinated by the man, happy and his company?
4. The model, taking the taxi back, going to see her former boyfriend, his life, personality, the ups and downs of their conversation, antagonism, love, hurtful language, reconciliation? The model and her changing attitudes? The passing of two years? The tension, declarations of love? The woman returning to get her laptop and the model fleeing?
5. The third act, the two women in the restaurant, the man passing, his coming in, pretending that they did not know each other? Then the model, the revelation, the demand on the man, the woman fleeing? And then the alternate ending, the model going away and leaving the two?
6. The second story, university life, the students and the post-its on the wall, the noise from the Professor’s office, the young man on bended knee, pleading, the impervious response and denial by the professor? The transition to the young man, the woman, the sexual encounter, intense, the woman married with a child? The discussion about the professor, the young man’s resentment? The television, the professor receiving an award? The woman saying she liked the novel?
7. Her going to the professor, his insistence on keeping the door open, asking for an autograph, talking, reading his text, the explicit nature of the sexual behaviour, the professor keeping his distance? The discussion, the revelation that the woman had been recording the talk? His comments on her, her attitudes, her needs? Her changing her mind, promising to send him the record?
8. Five years later, the chance encounter in the train, the young man and his new job? The woman, divorced, proof-reader, and the revelation of her sending the tape to the university authorities and his losing his job? Her card, whether the two would meet again?
9. The third story, the premiss of the collapse of all IT and communication by radio and post? The story making little of this somewhat apocalyptic situation?
10. The class reunion, 20 years, the young woman alone, the kind woman coming to talk with her? Leaving? At the railway, the escalators, the two women seeing each other, going back, meeting, assumptions that they knew each other? The talk about the reunion? The married woman inviting the other back to her home, 15 minutes-walk?
11. Back at home, the hospitality, the woman talking about her husband and her children, getting the computer games, her surly son?
12. The realisation that each was mistaken? Different schools, different ages, awkwardness?
13. The hostess, the suggestion of role-plays, the visitor, lesbian, talking about her early relationship, her partner, leaving, marrying, some communication but then breaking it off, disappointment? Her decision to leave?
14. The walk to the railway station, the suggestion that the hostess should also do a role-play, her memories of the past, the friend with the music, the emotional repercussions?
15. The effectiveness of role-plays for those speaking, those listening, servicing of memories, surfacing of feelings?
16. And the cumulative effect of watching the three stories within the space of two hours?

KIRK FRANKLIN'S A GOSPEL CHRISTMAS

US, 2019, 85 minutes, Colour.

Demetria McKinney, Chaz Lamar Shepherd, Angela Birchett, Kendra C.Johnson, Deandra C. West.

Directed by Erica Sutherlin.

Kirk Franklin is well known in the United States, a composer, singer and, especially, a choirmaster. He supplies the songs for this story of a young woman, brought up by pastors in Chicago, feeling somewhat inferior in her attitude towards herself, her mother organising her to take up the role of pastor in a small Texas town. She is Olivia, played by Demetria McKinney – who, eventually, proves herself a strong singer and, after many gaffes, especially in organisation, is accepted by the community as their pastor.

The film is made for an African-American audience. Most of the characters are African-American – although in the Texas town there is a collaboration between all races, especially for an annual pre-Christmas celebration. And, eventually, for the celebration, the African-American choir combines with a white American rock group to present the opening music.

In many ways, and as expected, the story is rather predictable. But audiences will enjoy it nonetheless. And, it is full of sentiment, at times very sentimental.

There is an engaging musician in the church, frustrated by his jobs, who is immediately attracted to Olivia. The film spends a lot of time with their company, their romance. There are eager supporters for the new pastor. However, the sister of the revered former pastor is very critical, not accepting Olivia, cantankerous and critical, but, with the final performance, eventually won over.

This is a Lifetime production.

RARE BEASTS

UK, 2019, 87 minutes, Colour.

Billie Piper, Leo Bill, Kerry Fox, Toby Woolf, David Thewlis, Lily James.

Directed by Billie Piper.

Small-budget British film written and directed by singer-actress, Billie Piper. She also stars as the central character. It might be seen as a slice of British life, dysfunctional family life, strange and skewed relationships, critical of contemporary media. And it moves often into the surreal, voices and people’s heads, imagine sequences, artificially staged sequences.

Many audiences will wonder what to make of it – but, for those puzzled, it is worth checking the IMDb bloggers who declared that they loved the film.

How to describe it? Here is the tagline: An anti rom-com about Mandy, a career-driven single mother, who falls in love with the charming, traditionalist Pete. Perhaps it is helpful to see it as an anti-rom-com and speculate on what that might mean. However, with the focus on the character Pete, in the film he exhibits practically no charm.

Then there is a synopsis outline: Mandy is a mother, a writer, a nihilist. Mandy is a modern woman in a crisis. Raising a son in the midst of a female revolution, mining the pain of her parents separation and professionally writing about a love that no longer exists, she falls upon a troubled man, Pete, who is searching for a sense of worth and belonging. —Canon y mus

and, counterbalancing this, an IMDb blogger comment: I couldn’t keep up. I think I understood the concept, that it was meant to show her interpretation of the unfiltered versions of what was inside peoples heads rather than the external versions of what they actually say. But with that in mind, I still don’t know what this film was trying to portray.  (Too clever for its own good, kevinmorice25 May 2021)

This reviewer had difficulty with the character of Mandy, puzzling, sometimes sympathetic, sometimes wilful, sometimes cruel. And there is a young son, antagonising his mother, prone to screaming fits in public places. And, Pete, despite declarations of being religious, having God-doubts, wanting to marry Mandy (which requires a lot of puzzling about this by the audience).

But, this reviewer was far more interested in the portrayal of Mandy’s parents, their personalities, living in the same house yet antagonistic, the reasons for their breakup, the mother with terminal cancer, the father having to come to terms with this as well as their trying to understand their daughter and care for their grandson. They are played by Kerry Fox and David Thewlis and, again perhaps for older audiences, make watching the film is somewhat worthwhile. (And there is a cameo by Lily James, always attractive, in a wedding sequence.)

HERE TODAY

US, 2021, 117 minutes, Colour.

Billy Crystal, Tiffany Haddish, Penn Badgley, Matthew Broussard, Andrew Duran. Laura Benanti, Audrey Hsieh.

Directed by Billy Crystal.

As soon as we register the title, we realise its implications: gone tomorrow.

In recent times there have been quite a number of films about dementia, from the US, Queen Bees, from Australia, Ruby’s Choice, both focusing on older women, mothers, the issue of going into care.

Audiences have always liked Billy Crystal, welcoming him on the big screen, on the television screen. He has a great sense of humour, comic timing, and communicates a genial affability (and six Emmys amongst many other awards). This is very much his film, adapting a short story, The Prize, by Alan Zweibel. Billy Crystal was 72 while he made this film, playing older, playing a man who is realising oncoming dementia.

He is Charlie Burnz, prolific comedy writer (and an entertaining cameo sequence acclaiming him with guest stars, Director Barry Levinson, Sharon Stone and Kevin Kline). He keeps going to work, is admired by his colleagues, has an eye and ear for successful jokes and their staging for television. He plays tennis with his architect son. Has fallen out with his daughter but her daughter is devoted to him, wanting him to come to her Bat Mitzvah.

From the outset, as Charlie walks to work, checking stop signs and lights and knowing that he has to turn left to get to the office, we realise that he is having memory lapses. Sometimes he can’t remember people’s names. And at home, he has the names of his family under their photos. He goes to a strong and sympathetic doctor played by Anna Deveare Smith.

But, the unexpected aspect of the story is that he goes to a lunch with someone who has made a bid for this lunch at a celebrity auction. But, it is not the winner of the ticket but his former girlfriend, Emma played by Tiffany Haddish.

And, so, we have a meeting of the older generation of comics and the new generation, a meeting between Jewish and African-American humour (and music and culture). As might be expected from those who have seen Tiffany Haddish’s films and television, she comes on heavily (perhaps an understatement). But, at the lunch she suffers from an allergy, Charlie having to take her to hospital, pay her bills which she insists she repay. Which means then that she turns up sometimes unexpectedly to pay her debts! She sings with a band, especially in the subway stations but is offered a bus tour around America.

What follows is a wonderful friendship, step-by-step, understandings and misunderstandings, Charlie appreciating Emma – and the important dramatic aspect that Tiffany Haddish gradually tones down her performance, her dominating presence, becoming a strong friend, a supporting friend, an understanding friend. Although, she does take over the Bat Mitzvah, singing exuberantly but able then to gather all the guests around her, joyfully singing and dancing.

We learn about Charlie’s background, a great number of pleasing flashbacks, emotional, to his meeting his wife Carrie, there really courtship, her giving birth at a Museum near the dinosaurs (and their calling their son Rex!), the bonding over the years, her sad death.

We see Charley mentoring an ambitious young writer who is hesitant. We see Charley bonding with his granddaughter. We see him having a very personal conversations with Emma, her encouraging him to write about his life and his family. And she goes with him to visit the doctor and understand his prospects.

There is some drama, especially the fears of his children – but, a fine scene where Emma is able to communicate to them what is happening.

Some bloggers have complained that this is too sentimental! One wonders whether they want Charlie to die alone and abandoned for their dramatic satisfaction. But, no, the screenplay offers a possibility of understanding reconciliation, forgiveness, bonding and love, and the support of true friendship. Who can complain about this! And thanks to Billy Crystal for bringing this to the screen.

1. The total, the implication of “gone tomorrow” and dementia?
2. The appeal of Billy Crystal, his television career, his film career, comic writer, comic performer? His writing the screenplay, directing, performing the central role?
3. Audience response to the onset of dementia, audiences experience of themselves, family with dementia? An empathy for Charlie’s character? Observing, the signs, the symptoms, denial, grief, acceptance?
4. The introduction to Charlie, at home, his age, going to work, the street signs, turning left, arriving at his office? And the later sequence with the road blocked and his being urged to take a different route, his desperation, the traffic, bewilderment?
5. Charlie’s life, comic writer, talent, the years, the sequence of the tribute with Barry Levinson, Sharon Stone and Kevin Kline? His continuing at work, the comedy team, the television show, the jokes, his comments? As upset with Roger and his wrong emphases – and the later showdown, his spontaneous angry reaction, and the ratings going sky high! His encouragement Darrell, the weak jokes, working with him, Darrell’s final success – and his writing the social media comment on the outburst?
6. Charlie’s life, the flashbacks to Carrie, inserted throughout the film, the meeting, the courtship, the bonds between them, pregnancy, giving birth in the Museum, calling their son Rex? The years passing, his being busy, the children, the final interchange and the news of her death in the accident? His continually blaming himself?
7. Playing tennis with Rex, the alienation from Francine, the invitation to the Gibson Bat Mitzvah, his granddaughter, love for her, encouraging her, and the joke for the Bat Mitzvah? His not telling his children about his condition?
8. The lunch, the encounter with Emma, her not knowing anything about him, her ex-boyfriend’s auction win? The talk, her chatter, the large meal, the waiter’s reaction, the allergy, her collapse, the hospital, the treatment? Charlie waiting, paying the bills? Her getting out, promised to pay the bills? And her turning up with payments?
9. Emma, a character, Tiffany Haddish and her stand-up and comic reputation, coming on full blast, gradually moderating, the development of the friendship with Charlie? Her singing with her band, Charley coming to hear her? The prospect of going on tour? The bonding with Charlie, their talking, her learning more about him? Listening to the flashbacks? Trying to convince him to write, ultimately persuading him? His decision to invite her to the Bat Mitzvah? Dressing up, Francine’s reaction, Louise and her delight? The ceremony, Charley proud, the rituals, the dancing – and Emma on the floor, taking over, singing, everybody joining in, including Francene?
10. The visits to the doctor, her concern, prospects, medication, Emma accompanying Charlie to visit the doctor?
11. Charlie and his going down, Emma staying the night, the bond between the two, friendship?
12. Louise contacting Charlie, skipping school, the drive, out to the country house and the scenery, the scene in the picture which he had taken down, which Emma had found? Rex and Francine upset, travelling with Emma?
13. The scene with Emma explaining Charley situation to his children, emotion, pathos, their response?
14. The ending reconciliation, the scenery and the sunset, Charlie and Louise contemplating, his seeing Carrie in his memories? Everybody reunited and watching the sunset?
15. A film of emotion, of care, of hope?

NOBODY HAS TO KNOW

Belgium/UK, 2021, 99 minutes, Colour.

Michelle Fairley, Bouli Lanners, Andrew Still, Julian Glover, Cal McAninch, Clovis Cornillac, Paul Amed.

Directed by Bouli Lanners,

Here is a film about middle age characters, a film for a middle-aged audience, for an older audience. It is something of a quiet human drama.

And, it has an unusual production background, a coproduction between Belgium and Scotland. The central character, Phil, is Belgian but has left his homeland and migrated to the island of Lewis in the Outer Hebrides. He is employed by a local farmer, hard manual work out in the fields, mending fences, digging trenches. And then he suffers a stroke.

The film was written and directed by its star, the Belgian veteran actor, Bouli Lanners. He has written a sensitive screenplay and portrays Phil as quiet and introverted, running away from his former life, having to deal with the strokes and, particularly, for the most part of the film, amnesia.

The island setting is rather bleak, generally overcast – though some sunshine towards the end of the film. The locations are ordinary homes, the fields, church – the churchgoing scenes are made with the collaboration of the Free Church of Scotland, quite explicit in the sermons about the role of Jesus and his suffering. Interesting to see churchgoing accepted by the community and the community participating, listening attentively to the preacher, vigorously singing the hymns.

When Phil has his stroke (not his first), Millie, daughter of the local landowner, Angus (played by veteran Julian Glover in his mid 80s), offers to look after Phil. He doesn’t remember her from the past. And, she begins to devote herself to him, continuing, she says, her love for him before the stroke.

While this is the emotional centre of this story, the effect on Millie, and the transforming effect on Phil, there are family complications, and is rather disapproving of Phil, but especially Milly’s young nephew, Brian, a decent enough young man, churchgoing like his family, out in the fields with Phil, his biggest tangle being his love for a dog and caring for it while its owners are away, and his becoming too attached to it.

There are many happy moments, many sad moments, especially with Millie having to come to terms with Phil and his recovery of his memory, a beautiful scene when they are at a funeral, as a distance, coming to sit together, Frank talk and declarations.

This is certainly not an adrenaline-pumping drama. Rather, it is something of a quiet slice of life, anchored in the Scottish island atmosphere, relationships, emotional and tangled.

1. A Scottish story with Belgian background? The writer, director, actor, Belgian?
2. The Scottish setting, the islands of Lewis and Harris, bleak, often overcast, the fields and work with fences, digging? The homes? Offices? The church? The beach and cliffs? Atmosphere? The musical score?
3. Phil’s story, enigmatic, his age, work with Brian, dislike by Angus, Millie and her intentions? Belgian background, the later revelation about his brother and his brother’s visit to persuade him to come home, his strokes, hospital? Amnesia? His wanting to stay in Scotland, continuing to work?
4. Millie, age, severe, at home, going to church, at church? Approaching Phil? Telling him that they were in a relationship, his accepting this, the continued attentions, the issue of the couple with the dog and Brian’s devotion to the dog, Phil looking after it, given back to the owners? The time together, talking, on the beach, holding hands, his going into the sea? Her staying with Phil, the night together? Her own work, selling houses? Her family, with her brother, Brian, Angus? Her confiding in Brian and his keeping it a secret?
5. Angus, the patriarch, co-workers, the dour Scotsman? Everybody going to church, the sermons, Paul to the Phillipians, the focus on Jesus, emptying himself, crucifixion and resurrection? The singing of the hymns? Angus in church, the other members of the family?
6. Phil, continuing to work with Brian? Brian’s problems, life with the family?
7. Phil regaining his memory, continuing on, that is of his brother and the discussions?
8. Angus’s friend, dying, the funeral, Phil coming, Millie and her sitting with the friend, her embarrassment? Phil going to talk with her, the issue of her embarrassment and shame, his response to her, the declaration of love, his wanting to stay in Scotland, to stay with her?
9. An atmospheric Scottish story? A different kind of love story? A story for the middle-aged audience?
10. The final song, title, and the themes of the film?

HEMINGWAY

US, 2020, 3X 120 minutes, Colour.

Narrated by Peter Coyote, voices of: Jeff Daniels, Keri Russell, Patricia Clarkson.

Directed by Ken Burns.

Ken Burns, expert documentary maker, along with his partner, Lynn Novick, has compiled many long documentaries including a survey of the American Civil War. This time they have three episodes of two hours length to cover the life and career of Ernest Hemingway. They have found an extraordinary amount of contemporary film footage to illustrate the first 30 years of Hemingway’s life, a great number of photos, documents. They also have a number of talking heads, some novelists like Tobias Wolff and Edna O’Brien and a lot of biographers as well as writers on literature.

By the beginning of part two, audiences will have very mixed feelings about Ernest Hemingway himself. And, as the documentary progresses, he becomes more and more unlikable, to his wives, to his sons, to many friends, and, definitely, to the audience. There is continued admiration for his work, despite’s the ups and downs of its quality, but, he does not ingratiate himself to the audience – who will be somewhat mystified by the four women he married, their attraction to him, the conflicts, physical and psychological, and his passionate attraction to other women.

As the film continues, and we realise that Hemingway experienced injuries in World War I, at several accidents, many falls, many due to his excessive drinking, two plane crashes in Africa, which affected his health, injuries to his brain, psychological depression – coupled with his propensity for contemplating suicide.

Which means then that the audience gets some detail of the succeeding years in Hemingway’s life, family background in Chicago, parents and relationships, education, his journalistic work and writing, his participation in World War I, Italy, wounded, recovery, return. The information is given about his writing of short stories, examples of his articles for papers, especially in Kansas City. There are also visualisations of a number of his short stories from his collection In Our Time, the motivation for writing The Sun Also Rises, friends and advice, Sherwood Anderson, F Scott Fitzgerald, his publisher and his writing a satire on Sherwood Anderson to get out of his publishing contract and move to Charles Scribner and the advice of editor Max Perkins. Which worked very well for his writing and publication of his World War I drama, A Farewell to Arms, large amounts of money paid for civilisation as well as by Paramount for the film version with Gary Cooper and Helen Hayes.

The second part of the series focuses on 1929 to 1944. Hemingway has moved from Paris to the United States but here we see him travelling especially to Spain, the opening up of his passion for bullfighting. He also visits Africa and goes hunting. And, this time, he falls in love with Pauline, separating from Hadley, marrying Pauline, a Catholic, who had set her eyes on Hemingway and accompanies him in his travels. She shares his passion for hunting. And they have two children, especially Patrick, who is interviewed throughout the film, interesting comment on his parents, bonding with his father, clashes with his father. Hemming also publishes books on Africa.

Then comes the Spanish Civil War, his encounter with Martha Gellhorn, his infatuation with her, alienation from Pauline, fights and clashes, accompanying Gellhorn to Spain, both of them reporting on the war. For Hemingway, the result will be For Whom the Bell Tolls (filmed in 1943). But there is a tension between himself and Martha Gellhorn. This is aggravated by the outbreak of World War II, her being commissioned to report on the war from London. Rivalry and jealousy have risen between them and Hemingway organises himself to cover the war and to reach England before Gellhorn. (There is a film, Hemingway and Gellhorn starring Clive Owen and Nicole Kidman.)

And, this is the time, that Hemingway moved between Miami and Cuba, setting himself up in house there outside Havana.

The third part of the film extends from 1944 to Hemingway’s death in 1961. By this time he was alienated from Martha Gellhorn and acrimonious towards her. But, he encountered Mary in Paris, she wanting to marry him – and her becoming his fourth wife. They had strong ups and downs over the years of their marriage, Mary often threatening to leave, the film quoting a strong letter commenting on his personality and her motivations – but she stayed, supporting him until the end.

His other sons were growing older and there was problem with Gregory, cross-dressing, sexual issues, Pauline involved and Gregory coming to hate his father and work against him.

There is also the problem of Hemingway’s mental health, the number of falls and concussions he experienced, the two crashes in Africa, falling out of vehicles, and the effect on his brain, the background to his mental depression and suicidal tendencies. The film emphasises his excessive drinking.

One of the benefits of this experience in Cuba at the beginning of the 1950s is his writing The Old Man and the Sea. Generally acclaimed, and Hemingway winning the Nobel Prize in 1954, unable to go to Stockholm but making a speech, reminding audiences about his hesitation in making speeches, often stilted in delivery.

This is also the period of the Cuban revolution, Fidel Castro, Hemingway moving from Cuba to the United States – eventually leaving everything behind.

There were criticisms about his writing, there are articles, short stories, some praise, some denunciations. But, it was during this period that he wrote his reminiscences about his early years, A Movable Feast, edited by Mary and welcomed after his death.

Hemingway continued to travel, to Spain, two Africa, relishing the hunting, accompanied by Mary.

But, there were times when he was committed to the Mayo Clinic for treatment, serious, eventually released. However, in July 1961, depressed, he killed himself.

Some commentators have praised the film for providing such an awareness of Hemingway, his literary achievement as well as insight into his personality. Some have said that it skips the surface, is superficial. However, over six hours, with so much commentary and so much illustration of the books themselves, the writing, death themes, Hemingway’s involvement, there is more than ample indication from the film and the talking heads for the audiences to do depth responses. Any superficiality might be on the part of a viewer who does not respond to the information given.

A lot of attention is given to Hemingway’s writing style, clear, direct, succinct.

But a lot of attention is also given to his attitude towards life, towards depression, a preoccupation with suicide, his father and siblings killing themselves, various quotes about his disdain for cowardice and suicide – which we always listen to in the light of Hemingway ultimately killing himself.