LAND

US, 2021, 90 minutes, Colour.

Robin Wright, Demian Bechir, Kim Dickens, Sarah Dawn Pledge, Warren Christie, Finlay Wijtok Hissong.

Directed by Robin Wright.

It is not good for anybody to be alone, the words from the book of Genesis. This is one of the main messages of this portrait of a middle-aged woman, her retiring from the world, coping in the mountain wildernesses of Wyoming. While the title does emphasise the land, it might have been more appropriate to call the film Solitude. While there is wonderful scenery, the story is nevertheless introspective.

It can be noted that there is beautiful scenery photography – some drone shots over mountains and valleys. However, the film uses the strange device of minimal drone shots compared with a considerable number of photos of the scenery, like stills, like photos for a coffee table travel book, interpolated throughout the action.

The film is something of a labour of love for actress Robin Wright, striking performances and screening presence over the decades, now making her directorial debut. And, she takes on the central role of Edee, a middle-aged woman, seen initially at a counselling session, urged to express her feelings, but lost in her interior anxieties, feeling that she should separate herself from everyone and so going into the Wyoming mountains.

As might be gauged from these comments, this is not a film for audiences who demand action. Initially, out in the mountains, in the primitive hut with its outhouse, the narrative is very quiet, rather introverted, even somewhat claustrophobic.

Robin Wright’s Edee experiences a number of flashbacks, puzzling the audience, someone who seems to be her sister, possibly a husband and child, but no explanations. -Until later.

The winters are particularly severe, the cold, Edee unwell, probably ready to die.

The drama of the film changes halfway through, the sick Edee discovered by a hunter, Miguel, a sympathetic performance from Demian Bechir, not exactly changing Edee’s decisions for solitude but reminding her, as well as us, that we do depend on others. At one point she asks why Miguel has helped her and he replies that she was in his path and therefore he would help. He himself has his own background story which has quite some elements of pathos at the end.

This is the kind of film that puzzles, the central character who can alienate the audience at times, but a film which which grows on its audience, eliciting feelings of compassion.

And, we realise again at the end, it is not good for anybody to be alone, that we are dependent on one another, that we need to surrender to the goodness and kindness of strangers, otherwise we live in solitude, an isolation that can lead to death.

1. The title? The focus on the land? The exteriors? But the film as one of introspection, the interior landscapes, solitary and solitude?
2. The Wyoming scenery, isolation, the hut and the outhouse, the mountains and valleys, the seasons and snow, the animals, the bear, the interiors of the hut? The contrast with the town, the streets and shops, the diner, the hospital? The visit to Miguel’s house? The musical score? The use of the drone photography for some sequences for the scenery, the majority as stills format, insertions of beauty?
3. The commitment of Robin Wright, performance, direction?
4. The focus on the solitude, Edee and the interview with the therapist, her feelings, not wanting to be with people? Inheriting the land in Wyoming? Going to the town, the advice, the hauling her possessions, the hut? No phone, no car? The decision to stay away, throwing the phone away, no news from the outside?
5. Edee, her age, the mystery, the flashbacks, husband and son, play? Memories of her sister, their discussions, grief? Keeping the explanation until the end, her grief, her telling Miguel the story?
6. Solitary, the interiors, unpacking, the outhouse, survival by herself, food, fishing, the river and getting the water? Chopping the wood? The physical demands? Psychological demands? Gradually building up her way of life?
7. The seasons, the hardships of winter, the outhouse and the attack of the bear, going into the house and the chaos? The cold, the wood on the fire, tearing the pages for the fire? Health?
8. The arrival of Miguel, Alala, their treating Edee, the gradual recovery? Her refusal to go to the hospital?
9. Miguel, staying, his background as a hunter, seeing the smoke from the hut, not seeing it, his finding Edee? Her not being able to kill the deer? His taking her hunting, the shooting, the meet? The bond between them? His coming and going?

• Edee, her recovery, getting strength, the months passing? Yet haunted by her memories?
• Miguel and his dog, leaving the dog with Edee, the story of the crash and the death of his wife and daughter? His not returning?
• Edee and her concern, going into the town with the dog, the hospital, meeting a Alala, going to see Miguel, his throat cancer, in bed, the Native Americans around him, their respect, the rituals? His confession that he was a drinker and that he had crashed the car?
• Edee, her gratitude towards Miguel, trying to pay him, his refusal, saying that he found her in his path and that he had to help?
• Edee, facing the truth? The possibilities for her future?

VOYAGERS  

US, 2021, 108 minutes, Colour.

Tye Sheridan, Lily-Rose Depp, Fionn Whitehead, Colin Farrell, Archie Madekwe.

Directed by Neal Burger.

Throughout the action of this space adventure, set in 2063, all the characters are adolescents. Which may account for some of the hostile reviews on blogging comments, dissatisfied adult audiences who think that the adolescents should be behaving better. But, this also might indicate how it is the Young Adult story and treatment, appealing to the experiences and aspirations, especially of teenagers, a variation on their world and experiences.

There have been quite a number of journeys into space, characters lost in space, odysseys, as well as science fiction/fantasies of travel beyond familiar galaxies, searches for inhabitable planets, Jennifer Lawrence in Passengers, the scenario for the Young Adult fantasy, Chaos Walking, planets well beyond ours, decades of travel to reach them, the search for possibilities of living beyond a decaying Earth.

This time the voyagers are young children, first seen being created in laboratories, artificial children who will grow up in isolated protection, destined for a mission to a planet where humans can survive, but taking 86 years of travel. The children are to be trained in handling the complexities of space voyaging, travelling by themselves, reproducing, a next-generation, and then grandchildren generation who will inherit this “earth”. They are dressed in black. They live in community. They have their lessons, trained with expertise.

There is an adult, Richard, played by Colin Farrell, who has devoted his life to training, who wants to be allowed to go with the children. He does go on board – and then the action advances 10 years. The children are now adolescents, still with communal living, dressed in black, with high expertise in the management of the spacecraft, the craft programmed with answers for all their problems over the 86 years.

Richard dies.

Those familiar with William Golding’s Lord of the Flies will soon make the connections between this scenario and that of the novel of young boys isolated from adults, on an island, becoming ever more primitive in their behaviour, passions and instincts unleashed, especially violence and dominance.

In the 21^st-century, the group on board is of carefully chosen mixed races, boys and girls, a boy who is obviously destined to be leader, Christopher (Tye Sheridan), a girl who is in charge of medical issues (Lily-Rose Depp), and a boy who has been centrally cast, so to speak, to look like the potential rival and villain (Fionn Whitehead).

And so, as we expect, there are jealousies, factions, revelations of violence and, instead of the dead skeleton, the Lord of the Flies, there is the Phantom bogey of an alien in the craft. There is also the element of sexual awakening – but, presented generally, as with some of the violence, more restrained than we might have expected.

Can there be order? Can good conquer evil? What is human nature? And, using religious language, what is the impact of “original sin”?

So, some pessimism about human nature – and, a final optimistic view about the human soul and spirit, and possibilities of life beyond Earth.

1. The title? Voyagers in space? Space exploration, inhabiting space?
2. The 2063 setting, the discovery of a habitable planet, 86 years travel, the children, the next generation, and the grandchildren, the settling of the planet? Plausible scenario?
3. The basis of the film on William Golding’s Lord of the Flies? The adaptation to the 21^st century? To space? The focus on the group of children, the absence of adults, human nature (and questions of original sin), adult control, breaking free, the move to anarchy, licensing sex and violence, anarchy? Leadership? Control? Decisions?
4. The introduction to Richard, his discussions with the authorities, the explanation of the plan, the children going by themselves, technically trained and equipped? Richard wanting to go with them?
5. The artificial conception of the children, the numbers, the range? The babies? The growing, the passing of the years? All in black? The education, the training, technical? Separation from others, from the outside world? Confinement to prepare them for the space travel?
6. On the space ship, Richard and his care? With particular children, the focus on Christopher, on Sela, on Zac?
7. 10 years passing? The adolescent children? Physical growth, psychological? The blue liquid and keeping them under control? The importance of the rules? Everything planned, solutions for every situation? Richard and the bonds with the particular children?
8. Richard, his death, the burns, the discussions of an alien? The revelation that Zac had engineered Richard’s death, with the connivance of Kai?
9. The discovery of the drugs within the blue drink? The decision not to take it? The effect?

• Christopher, personality, sympathetic, leadership, the bond with Sela? His responsibilities? Her responsibilities, medical? The contrast with Zac, assertive, conniving, ambitious, jealous?
• The activities on the space ship, the attempts to discover the truth about Richard’s death? The discs, the visuals of the truth?
• Zac, the vote for the leader, the vote for Christopher? Zac and his jealousy? Undermining?
• The changing behaviour of the adolescents, sexual urges and behaviour, careless and undisciplined behaviour, the dining room, the corridors? The violence, the victimisation of the young man, his being killed? The girl demanding the rules? Her being shot?
• The division of the children into the two groups, different leadership? Christopher and the few, and their thinking they should join Zac?
• Zac and Kai as his support? On the fiction of having the alien on board, and possibly inhabiting different children?
• The issue of weapons, Sela and the knife? The hidden stash of weapons, the and his cohort finding them?
• The violent confrontation, the weapons, the sack and his shooting? The pursuits throughout the craft? Christopher and Sela, the sexual encounter, hiding, the dining room, Zac and his shooting the doors to the spaces?
• Christopher and Sela in the spaceport, donning the spacesuits? Zac and his attack, the fights, Christopher out of the pod, Sela and her kicking Zac and his going into space? Christopher and is returned?
• Order restored, the vote, Sela becoming the leader?
• The passing of the years, the 86 years, the sighting of the new planet, the elderly, the next generation, the children and hope?

THIS LITTLE LOVE OF MINE

Australia, 2020, 90 minutes, Colour.

Saskia Hampele, Liam McIntyre, Lynn Gilmartin, Craig Horner, Monette Lee, Tiriel Mora, Lawrence Ola, Martin Portus, Rajan Velu.

Directed by Christine Luby.

A light and easy romantic comedy.

In fact, a very nice comedy, a touch of rivalry between the sexes, more than a dip into the world of big business and finance, and the promise that despite difficulties, there can be happy resolutions.

The film was made in far North Queensland at Palm Cove, the sea, the beach, boats, scuba diving, fishing, resort hotels, banquets… Which means then that the film could serve as promotion of those Queensland reef islands, reminding audiences watching the film of happy times there and the possibility of going back, or an enticement to the audiences that this is somewhere they should certainly visit!

While the film has an appeal for Australian audiences, it is made with a wider appeal, especially to the Americans. The central character, Laura (Saskia Hampele) grew up on Sapphire Cove but went to America, law degree, workaholic, promise of a partnership in an important firm. By contrast, the other central character, Chip (Liam McIntyre), talented and a builder of contemporary homes, lives the easy life where he grew up, a captain in a boat, tours, no ambitions to move beyond.

But, the central tension is that he could inherit a vast empire from his grandfather if he signed the contract. Laura comes out to persuade him to sign. Actually, both are fairly straightforward in their approaches, even a deal that she will accompany Chip on some relaxing activities and he will read a page of the contract per time!

In fact, we know where it is all going so it is practically predictable (which some condemn but, as with so many popular entertainments, we want the outcome to be what has been predictable!).

There is a touch of the American about the dialogue and trainings in the accents. The director, Christine Luby, was born in the United States, worked in London, migrated to Australia where she has worked in the film industry. So, Laura is bit of a parallel with Christine. And the writer, Georgia Harrison, has delved into this plot device before in Rip Tide, Americans coming to Queensland and finding fulfilment.

The central characters, including friend Gem (Lynn Gilmartin), all have the kind of familiar face we see on television, especially in television series, Liam McIntyre having an Aaron Eckhart resemblance, Gem a variation on Amy Adams…

And, it could play very well date movie or, pleasantly, at morning matinees in suburbia or country towns, audiences enjoying the light entertainment and refreshments, an engaging outing – and nothing at all in dialogue or situations the least unseemly.

1. The title? Australian romantic comedy?
2. The San Francisco business settings, offices, apartments? The contrast with location photography in Palm Cove, North Queensland? The coast, the beaches, the the forests, the town, restaurant…? The musical score?
3. The world of business and its pressures? Ambitions? Workaholics? The contrast with the easy life in Queensland, the boat, the restaurant, the atmosphere?
4. Laura, growing up in Sapphire Cove, leaving, the past friendship with Chip? Law degree, business ambitions, partnership, the discussions with Fiona? Graham, his visit, wanting Chip to sign the contract? Her aims, return to Sapphire Cove, the meeting with Jim, renewed friendships? Direct, discovering Chip is the captain of the boat, his recognising her? Trying to persuade him to sign, the deal with relaxation, the shared experiences of scuba diving, fishing, hiking? The buried box, the lucky charm, her retrieving it and wearing it? Chip and his reading a page per time? The pressure from San Francisco, phone calls from Fiona? The engagement, the phone calls, his arriving, the proposal, the frank discussion, breaking off?
5. Chip, easy-going, his charity work and buildings, refusal to sign the contract, re-discovering Laura, the friendship with Gem, the discussions, the deal for relaxation and his reading a page, tearing the page, repairing it? Laura encouraging his work, the headquarters to be on the island? His grandfather, the visit, the discussions, his change of heart, signing? His reaction to Owen’s visit, the plant marriage? Digging up the box,?
6. Laura, the partnership, the pressures from Fiona, the hoops, the taxi, returning to Chip, her lucky charm, the future?
7. The picture of the business world, pressures, Fiona and her support, demands? Owen, preoccupied, business? His visit, the breakup?
8. On the island, Gem, preoccupation with promotion, her boss, demands, preparation for the birthday party, timing, success, promotion? Karavi, friendship, the music, support?
9. A pleasant film from wide audience – and nothing unseemly?

CAPTIVE STATE

US, 2019, 109 minutes, Colour.

John Goodman, Ashton Sanders, Jonathan Majors, Vera Farmiga, Kevin Dunn, James Ransone, Alan Ruck, Kevin J O' Connor, Ben Daniels.

Directed by Rupert Wyatt.

Captive State has some popular ideas from science fiction and fantasy. It presupposes the possibility of alien invasions – and, at the beginning, visualises monstrous aliens with their destructive powers.

However, a lot of news headlines are given at the beginning of the film, indicating what has happened, the aliens taken over, assuming government, finding closed areas to live, human life carrying on as usual under the domination – but, as always, a rebel group.

The focus is on two brothers who survive an initial attack by the alien. One becomes a leader of the uprising, working with the networks and a range of characters who share the ideology of the uprising. The other works scientifically.

One of the main focus characters of the film is Mulligan, the police inspector, played in his burly way by John Goodman. He is head of the police, trying to put down the uprising. He makes contact with the young man who works in the laboratory, revealing his brother is alive and head of the uprising.

However, Mulligan is a dominating character, puts down the uprising, works in collaboration with his police staff, has a raid on the home of a prostitute, former teacher (Vera Farmiga), who is in contact with the rebels. There is a revelation that she was getting information from various officials and transmitting it to the rebels.

The ending is rather ambiguous, Mulligan not being what he seems.

The film was directed by British Rupert Wyatt, who made Rise of the Planet of the Apes, The Gambler, and the miniseries of The Mosquito Coast.

1. Science-fiction fantasy? Alien invasion? Political and social domination of earth? The credibility of the plot?
2. The Chicago settings, the initial panic, the roads, the tunnel? The vistas of Chicago, familiar, changed? offices? Homes? The underground? The musical score?
3. The title, the opening, the family driving, the monster, the two boys surviving? The detailed information, the aliens, controlling, their closed areas for habitation? Humans subjugated?
4. The two sons, Gabriel, his work, the contact with Mulligan, with Jane Doe? The contacts, finding his brother, the cigarette, the uprising? The continued contact with Mulligan? The special chip, the video, the explanations? His future? The contrast with Rafe, survival, going underground, leadership, the network, the uprising, the activities?
5. Mulligan, official, his staff, the uprising, his police status, ambitions? His visit to Jane Doe, the clash with her? The meetings with Gabriel? Helping him? The various officials, working with them, clashes, collaboration? His attitude towards the uprising? The visit with Gabriel, the chip, the information about the past, his presence with Gabriel’s father, police work? With Jane Doe when she was a teacher? The raid, her room, her death, covering her body? The microphone, the information given to Jane Doe by the various officials and her transmitting them?
6. The various officials, their role as police, activities, interactions with Mulligan?
7. The range of the network of the uprising, their jobs, personalities, connections, messages?
8. The uprising, the failure? Mulligan and his attitude? His promotion?
9. The finale, his going into the tunnel, his purpose, the uprising as a failure – and he setting himself up as the conqueror?

LOVE AND MONSTERS

US, 2020, 109 minutes, Colour.

Dylan O'Brien, Jessica Fenwick, Michael Rooker, Dan Ewing, Ariana Greenblatt, Bruce Spence.

Directed by Michael Matthews.

Love and Monsters is a smaller budget fantasy, a popular kind of story with Young Adult films, perhaps more geared to the Younger Adult audience, teenagers, and family audiences. It struck a mark, was very popular, streamed by Netflix, and an eagerness for a sequel.

Dylan O’ Brien had proven himself a successful hero-warrior three times in the Maze Runner series. This time there is a variation on his character, something of a nerd in his way (which means then that the Young Adult audience of young men who don’t see themselves as heroic or not considered as heroic, sports stars et cetera may well identify with Dylan O’ Brien’s character, Joel).

The film is rather derivative, happily so – touches of the pursuits by creatures in the Jurassic Park films, silence around the creatures as in A Quiet Place, and the touch of the Percy Jackson’s amongst other influences. All elements which the audience will enjoy.

The opening is in California, an invasion of giant deadly creatures, people trying to escape, trapped and destroyed, including Joel losing his parents but rescued by a group in a truck who form an underground community. And this is the status for human beings for the next seven years.

Joel can make minestrone but is hopeless as a warrior, tentative and fearful. But, he was in love with a young girl, Aimee, Jessica Renwick, back at home and is able to keep in some kind of radio contact with her. After his failure in a vicious creature attack, he decides to go on a quest, to visit Aimee.

The bulk of the action of the film is his journey, pursued by creatures, dangers and risks, escapes, getting the companionship of a friendly and intelligent dog, Boy (who could be a cousin of Red Dog), finding an old warrior and a young girl who accompany him, who give him the rules of survival, encourage him in archery target practice. He also encounters an android who is winding down, shows him images of his family, sets the radio, gives him encouragement.

One might have expected the film to end as Joel arrives, rescued from his experience of deadly leeches, meeting Aimee who is in charge of her community who live on the beach. Enter an Australian yacht, the captain and his associates, friendliness all round.

But… Which means that there is more to the plot, some more action and adventure at the end, and not only a happy ending but all the ingredients for a welcome sequel.

1. The title? True love? Aggressive monsters? The quest? Alternate titles, Monsters’ Problems, Monsters’ Apocalypse?
2. The initial contemporary setting, ordinary life in an American town, California, the invasion of the creatures, the panic, Joel and his parents, the car, the flashbacks, in the car with Aimee, the farewell, the creatures taking the parents, Joel rescued by the community?
3. Seven years on, the underground communities, survival, the danger on the surface? Even the creatures attacking the underground? Communal spirit? The defence against the creatures?
4. Joel, his age, his making the minestrone, not considered a warrior, his self-image, getting the weapon, his fears, not shooting the creature?
5. The radio calls to Aimee, her community? 85 miles away? His decision to go, the reaction of the community, the Farewell?
6. The quest, above ground, the ordinariness of the countryside, the appearance of various creatures, aggressive, Joel and his having to hide? The house, finding Boy, companionship on the journey? Boy, the audience liking this dog, attentiveness, the touch of human intuition?
7. The encounter with Clyde and Minnow? The older man, the death of his son, on the road, warrior, weapons, the rules of survival aboveground? Minnow, loss of her parents? Her age, shrewdness, warrior? Befriending Joel, his accompanying them, the fires, two hours sleep, the meals, not two on the one night? The creatures following? Joel and his shirt and the scent? Avoiding the attack?
8. Joel, his ability to draw, his keeping a record of the creatures, the severe and aggressive creatures, the less aggressive, the floating jellyfish, testing the creature with its eyes?
9. The continued quest? Clyde and Minnow going to the mountains? Joel and his encounter with the android, Mavis? The conversation, the images of his parents, the radio and the contact with Aimee? Mavis and her wanting to sit and watch outside? Dying?
10. Joel, Boy and his going into the water to get the dress, Joel and the leeches, his illness? Collapse, being found?
11. Waking at the commune, Aimee and the rescue? The plans for the commune, to be saved by the Australian captain and his boat? The captain friendly, the celebration, his making the beer, everybody collapsing, tied up? His being a food stealer? His associates, Dana, Rocco?
12. Joel and Aimee tied, getting free, the creatures, the chain and the captain with the electric shock?
13. Aimee and Dana fighting, the creature approaching, Joel and his weapons, not killing the creature because of its eyes, shooting the chain, the ship adrift, sinking, the pursuit by the creature, swallowing everything and everyone?
14. Survival, Joel urging Aimee to take the community to the mountains? His return home, surviving two trips, the welcome? The radio broadcast? Urging everyone to take to the mountains? And the glimpse of Clyde and Minnow in the mountains?
15. Entertaining in itself, the target audience of young adults, younger adults, family? And a welcome sequel?

THE MAN IN THE HAT

UK, 2020, 95 minutes, Colour.

Ciaran Hinds, Stephen Dillane, Sasha Hails, Maiwenn, Muna Otaru.

Directed by John Paul Davidson, Stephen Warbeck.

Jacques Tati. His name came up frequently while watching The Man in the Hat. And then the rush to include his name in a review so that this response would be original rather than suggested by other reviewers! (And, then checking the bloggers on the IMDb, there were, in fact, four who named Tati.) Two other names came to mind while watching, Elia Sulieman and the adventures of the eccentric characters in his film, and a touch of Wes Anderson. (Other bloggers did not name these two but came up with Chaplin, Keaton, Bunuel.) So, the aim of this paragraph is to indicate to lovers of arthouse movies, small-budget independent films, why they might enjoy this one!

And the question arises: have you have dreamt of getting in a car, leaving from Marseille, driving through the French countryside, back roads across rivers and bridges, up into the hills, out into the fields, up into the mountains and the small villages? Well, this film offers something of an opportunity as we sit in our chairs and live the trip vicariously. We are in the company of a central character who has not been given a name except The Man in the Hat. His played by veteran Irish actor Ciaran Hinds, versatile in so many films over the decades. We really know nothing about him though there are various suggestions, touches of flashback, imagination.

Actually, there is a bit of a panic about his trip into the mountains, having witnessed a group of rather sinister -looking men throwing what looks like a wrapped body into the water, he being a witness. And, they keep turning up on the roads, in cafes, in garages, which keeps the Man in the Hat busily moving on.

As with Tatithe storytelling is in mime and performance, body language, rather than words (the Man in the Hat utters two or three throughout the whole film), the main words coming from our and his overhearing some conversations and stories. Tati always was a touch awkward in his manner and bearing, the Man in the Hat is less stiff but nonetheless often awkward.

And entertainment is also in the range of people he meets in the mountains, an attractive woman on a bike, a character named in the credits as The Damp Man who seemed to this reviewer The Forlorn Man, and he looked a bit like Stephen Dillane (and, in the credits, so he was). He has quite a story, sitting under a bridge, getting wet, on a park bench, in a restaurant and feeling suicidal, encounter with a jolly chef… And a number of incidental characters including some traffic wardens who spend the time measuring roads, heights, gaps, with a tape measure (and gradually getting closer to each other).

The opposite of a blockbuster, cowritten and directed by John Paul Davidson (who has a long career behind him with television) and Oscar-winning composer, Stephen Warbeck, who also contributes a frequently jaunty score for this entertainment.

1. The title? The central character? His adventures? Anonymous? Age, journey, body language, few words?
2. The style of the film, echoes of Jacques Tati, character and body language, situations, the light comic touch, minimal dialogue? The musical score (composed by the co-director)?
3. The French settings, Marseille, the waterfront, out into the hills, southern France, the mountains, the villages, the roads, rivers, bridges? The feel of the countryside?
4. The Man, the sardines, the restaurant, the men with the wrapped package, into the water? The Man escaping, his car, driving out the countryside? The continued encountering with the group in the car? The humour of their being musicians, wrapping the instruments? Their performance?
5. The Man on the bridge, the Damp Man under the bridge, his feet wet, catching the Hat, offering it, no words? his recurring throughout this story, getting the lift, at the hotel, at the meal, his being ignored, the attempts to shoot himself, the shot in the roof and the landlady reacting to the damage? The encounter with the jolly chef, sharing with her, the wagon and food, his coming alive, dancing, music, performance?
6. The woman on the bike, on the barge, the encounters with the Man, becoming more friendly, the dancing?
7. The couple on the road, the eccentric measuring, continually coming together, finally the tent, diving back into the tent?
8. The Man, the effect of all these adventures, the encounters, escaping the danger, his car breaking down, the two old men and no words, towing the car, the meal and the drink, fixing the car?
9. The emphasis on meals, celebrations, hotels, dining rooms, festivities, the out of doors, the stalls?

• The effect of sharing the adventures of The Man in the Hat?

THE UNHOLY

US, 2021, 99 minutes, Colour.

Jeffrey Dean Morgan, Cricket Brown, Cary Elwes, William Sadler, Katie Aselton, Diogo Morga.

Directed by Elio Spiliotopoulis.

The Unholy is a screen adaptation, written and directed by Elio Spiliotopoulis (writer of a wide range of films from Beauty and the Beast to Charlie’s Angels), from the novel by reputable British author, James Herbert, The Shrine, transferring its location from England to Massachusetts (with its memories of the witches of Salem and the burnings).

(There were some pre-release cautions by religious groups, apprehensive about themes, Marian apparitions, the devil, cautions which are not always reliable.)

The film works at several levels for review and reflection.

First of all, there is the popular movie level, of religious horror film, in the vein of The Exorcist and the intrusion of the devil. There are some shocks and scares, a couple of jumps out of the seat. There are the elements of witchcraft in the prologue, set in 1845, the burning, the denunciations of a priest, then ghosts and hauntings. This is a world of superstition. There are references to Satanism and pacts with the devil. There are also superstitions and apparitions of the Blessed Virgin Mary, healings, in the context of the contemporary American Catholic Church. The impact of the horror film does not depend on an audience understanding Marian apparitions, which most audiences would not be familiar with. There is plenty of plot, a solid cast, quite some drama (and no worries to a careful audience concerning sex, language, but with some expected violence). But, the intentions of the filmmakers are somewhat deeper.

Secondly, the film and its plot, the religious focus, can be viewed by with hostile response by an audience which is anti-religion, anti-church. The portrayal of the visionary, the apparitions, Marian devotion and piety will probably confirm scepticism, such piety and activities appearing somewhat ludicrous to the sceptic. There is also the role of the clergy, the authority of the Bishop, the role of the hierarchy including an exorcist. But, there can also be some scepticism about the diabolical and satanic interventions in the world. The behaviour can be dismissed as religious mania, a world of the irrational which can be citicised and/or mocked. But these are not the intentions of the filmmakers.

At a third level, The Unholy can be considered from an informed Catholic perspective. The author, James Herbert, had a British Catholic upbringing and draws on his understanding of the church. So, there is much to be considered in this context of the horror/exorcism genre and its conventions.

The screenwriter has done his homework, there are quite explicit references and vivid and visual images of the apparition at Lourdes, at Fatima, at Medjugorje. There is also reference to the work of Pope Benedict XIV in the 18^th century Enlightenment era and his regulations for the requirements and acknowledgement of miracles: something incurable, instantaneous cure, lasting. So, the film has quite a Catholic atmosphere and a Catholic advisor is mentioned in the final credits (though, the scenes of the ritual of the Mass are not too accurate).

So, this is a drama of the conflict between good and evil, using religious language, and some graphic imagery of Satan, deriving from the art of the Middle Ages. One of the characters remarks that when God builds a church, Satan builds a chapel next door (attributed to Martin Luther).

The film goes back to the burning of witches in the 19^th century, the use of dolls as retainers of superstition, the finding of such a doll at the site where the audience knows a witch was burnt. However, the attention is given to the young 18-year-old deaf-mute girl, Alice (Cricket Brown), living in the priest’s house with her uncle, the parish priest. She is devoted to Mary and surprises those who see her hasten to the tree, able to speak, say that Mary, The Lady, has appeared to her, giving her messages, encouraging people to faith. And, what happens, of course, is that crowds come, that Alice is able to heal, that she enthuses the crowd with her devotion.

In fact, the central character of the film is a sceptical journalist, played by Jeffery Dean Morgan, who has fabricated stories in the past and lost his reputation. He is a witness to what is going on, gets an agreement that he alone will be the mediator between Alice and the media. In the 21^st-century, the apparitions certainly get media and social media attention.

The parish priest is supportive of his niece. The Bishop is consulted and brings in an exorcist Monsignor whose task is to disprove the reality of the miracles. However, the Bishop, more than a touch smarmy, gets caught up in the atmosphere, building a shrine and encouraging people to come.

A religious and Catholic sensibility will soon realise that the whole focus is on Mary, with plenty of images and statues of Mary and other saints, but minimally of Jesus, minimal reference to God. It is all Mary-focused, that the faithful should have faith in Mary, with many scenes of dedication to her, including the Bishop. The screenplay is very critical of an obsessive piety and devotion to Mary which does not lead, as the dictum says, to Jesus through Mary. There is no focus on faith in God as God.

So, the film is actually a film about faith, misguided faith in sincerely devoted people, emotional faith that is not God-centred. And, there is a dramatic conclusion, some fiery purging, but also the possibility of the truth and peace.

The Unholy is probably not going to get this kind of attention from audiences or reviewers – but, as indicated, it has themes and treatment which are pervasively Catholic.

1. The title? Audience response to holiness? To the unholy? To the satanic?
2. The novel and its original title? The focus on Shrine? The transition from England to Massachusetts? The echoes of the witches the burnings, Salem?
3. The Catholic background of the novelist, for the research for the screenplay, information about Marian shrines, the visuals, the descriptions? Pope Benedict the 14^th and his regulations for authentic miracles? The visuals of the church, statuary, icons? The Bishop and vestments, monsignor is? The Catholic flavour?
4. The prologue, 1845, the witch being burnt, the denunciations by the priest? The tree? In the 21^st-century? The dolls found in the fields, the dollar in chains, Gerry breaking it? Alice and her religious experiences at the tree? The finale and going back to the tree?
5. Gerry Fenn, his career, ambitions, applications, his situation, search for stories, contact with editors, their scepticism? Finding the doll? His presence at Alice’s vision, talking? His testimony, contacting the media, is filming? Monica and the past disagreement, her becoming interested? His having the rights to be the sole media representation for Alice? Supplying the information, always filming? His own Catholic background and loss of faith?
6. The parish, Father Hagan, severe, his administration, Alice is his niece, is bringing her up? The impact of the experiences? Delight on the one hand, conducting Alice singing Ave Maria? His health, collapse, Alice healing him? The effect of the experience? Hanging himself? His being hanged? The aftermath of the parish tribute to him?
7. Alice, her age, charm, def-mute? Her role in the parish? Devotion, and the church, statues of Mary? The impulse to go to the tree, the film is visualising of the face of The Lady? Alice speaking, articulate, the message? The transforming experience?
8. The media, people in the church, the crowds gathering, the interviews with people, the girl on social media and her faith? The crowd gathered, Alice speaking, the apparitions? The power of healing? The boy and his parents, his hesitation, standing and walking? Reaction of the crowds?
9. Alice and her mission? The specific focus on Mary, that people have devotion to Mary, but also faith in Mary – with no reference to Jesus and Mary’s wrong with him, no reference to faith in God? Marian piety, the touch of the fanatic? The crowds and their prayers, devotions?
10. The role of the Bishop, official, going through the processes, monsignor Del guard, his background, thesis, experience, Devil’s Advocate, disproving the miracles? Gerry and his discussions with the Bishop and the monsignor? The Bishop, getting caught up, the idea of the shrine, the crowds in the church, building the tent, his plan to dedicate the shrine, his vestments, his dedication of himself to Mary? The contrast with the monsignor, his criticisms, the discussions with Gerry, in the sacristy, the fire and his being burnt?
11. The role of the doctor, her place in the parish, protection of Alice, the diagnoses, criticisms of Gerry? Becoming more friendly with Gerry, siding with him?
12. Alice, becoming more intense, more demanding, the crowds? The gathering at the shrine?
13. Gerry, further investigations, with the doctor, the nature of the doll, found in the fields, receptacles of superstition? The name of the witch, her descendants, the satanic curse, Alice is a direct descendent?
14. The satanic aspects, the visualisation of the diabolical presence, traditional art forms of Satan?
15. Gerry, the confrontation, the crowds, Alice, that the tree, the denunciations?
16. The Bishop, smarmy, ambitious, his death?
17. The resolution, Gerry and the confrontation with Alice, the Satan, defiance, the doctor, the truth, her returning to her death-mute state?
18. The role of Marian apparitions throughout the centuries, the range of visionaries, the piety and devotion, miracles, faith, superstitions? The exclusive focus on Mary, the broader Catholic aspects of faith in Jesus, in God? The film is a critique of this kind of Mariane extremism?

I CARE A LOT

UK/US, 2020, 118 minutes, Colour.

Rosamund Pike, Peter Dinklage, Eiza Gonzalez, Dianne Wiest, Chris Messina, Isaih Whitlock Jr, Macon Blair, Alicia Witt, Damian Young, Nicholas Logan.

Directed by J Blakeson.

I Care a Lot/ Not.

While the film is about fraud, taken from today’s headlines, fraud in exploitation of the elderly, cheating them of their savings, virtually imprisoning them in harsh institutional conditions, a company taking over administration rights, power of eternity, it makes for an interesting screenplay, but can it be entertaining?

On the level of interest, we are introduced to the supremely confident business executive, Marla, played with ruthless style and manner, by Rosamund Pike (winning a Golden Globe for this performance). We might be momentarily dazzled by her manner in court, her ability to turn on compassion, but the more we get to know her, the more repellent she is. And, she has a network of doctors, complicit in the fraud, making recommendations for likely targets, legally and inhumanely keeping them in literal lockdown. And, over the years, she has charmed a judge who listens to her rather than any appeal by any angry and disgruntled relative.

On the level of entertainment, the screenwriters have decided to bring in the Russian Mafia!

One of the recommended victims for the fraud is a not-so-little-old lady, despite initial indications she is a touch doddery. She is played by Dianne Wiest, a sudden intrusion into our home, Marla blending charm and decisiveness, getting her out of the house and into the nursing home before the old lady and we have had time to absorb what was going on.

The information was wrong – and what follows is a mixture of serious and satiric comic ups and downs as the son of the old lady, Russian Mafia as mentioned, tries his utmost (including crooked lawyers, violent thugs) to extricate his mother. For tantalising entertainment, he is played by Peter Dinklage.

Which means then that the conflict will build up to a confrontation (actually, many confrontations) between Marla and the sun – and a moral solution (“moral solution”?) is found in our capitalist slickly-greed-motivated world, fraud.

This solution is rather breathtaking – although, audiences who dislike Marla will be cheering, perhaps, at her breath-taking finale!

1. The title? The irony? The world of caregiving for the elderly? Service? Exploitation? Fraud?
2. The American setting, the city, apartments, homes for the elderly, interiors, grounds? The courts? The exteriors, the roads, the woods, the lake? Business offices? The musical score?
3. The moral perspective? The exploitation of the elderly, court orders, legal guardians, control of persons, their health and lives, their money and possessions? The business organisers, the connivance of nurses and doctors and home managers?
4. Rosamund Pike as Marla, age, experience, poise, control? Her business empire? The chart in her room, the photos of all the elderly, removing the dead, adding others? Her relationship with Fran, the relationship, the sexual relationship, Fran, her shrewdness, Marla relying on her?
5. The tone of the film, the desperate son and Marla’s control of his mother, the confrontation, going to court, his desperation, Marla and her being calm, the judge believing her, the aftermath, the man hurling abuse at Marla, the death rate, his being taken away? The irony of the audience forgetting about him and his case, his reappearance at the end, the death of his mother, the gun, killing Marla?
6. The doctor, her contacting Marla, prospective cases, the decision about Jennifer? The manager of the home, in on the deal? The financial payoffs? Marla and her control, sure of herself?
7. Visiting Jennifer, the background information, no connections? In her home, the confrontation, the documents, the police outside, taking her away, the bewilderment? The welcome of the home, the cheery staff? The artificiality? The luxury room, the taking of the mobile phone? Jennifer locked away, wanting to go out into the air, confined, sitting in the games room?
8. The visit of the young man, wanting to get Jennifer out, his manoeuvres, the gun, the staff? Fr in the bag over his head? Jennifer taken back?
9. The revelation about Roman and the Russian Mafia? His rebuking the young man, getting him to find out what it happened, his going to the house, being redecorated? The information to Roman, that Jennifer was his mother? The effect on him?
10. Roman, played by Peter Dinklage, his whims and tantrums, food, his office, treatment of his underlings?
11. The visit of the lawyer, clothes, smooth talk, confronting Mahler, her staunch responses, the offering the money? Seeing her in court, his not revealing Jennifer’s connections? Losing the case?
12. Marla, going through Jennifer’s possessions, the key, to the bank, the discovery of the diamonds? Later going to the dealer, making the connections for selling them?
13. The buildup to the war with Roman, the murder of the doctor? Fran her fears? Wanting to pack? Marla deciding to stand firm? Sending Jennifer to the mental institution?
14. The assassin, the dart in Marla’s leg, her being abducted, the confrontation with Roman? His wanting the diamonds? Her not revealing anything? Her being taken, in the car, crashed into the lake, her being able to escape? Walking the Road, buying the clothes, getting the taxi? Discovering Fran, the attack?
15. The confrontation between Roman and Marla, the attack on him, his being in the hospital? His proposal about partnership, money, greed, ambitions?
16. The success of the enterprise, the huge corporation, the different companies? Marla being interviewed on television?
17. The man from the opening of the film, the death of his mother, the gun, his killing Marla?
18. What does it profit…? An amoral moralising story?

GUNDA

Norway/US, 2020, 93 minutes, Black-and-white.

Directed by Viktor Kosakovskiy.

Gunda is the name of a sow who is at the centre of this documentary. There is striking black-and-white photography, close-ups of Gunda and her piglets, chickens and cows on the farm, with a vivid sense of detail.

The film has been acclaimed by film critics and cineastes. However, with its specialised focus, minute detailed attention and its more contemplative approach to observing farm life, it may well prove very difficult for mainstream audiences to sit through. It has made some viewers rather angry, their labelling the film pretentious.

The director has a Russian background, has been decorated by the state for his work, and, from 1992 to 2020 has directed 15 documentaries. For Gunda, he has concentrated on one farm but has travelled internationally for other farm sequences.

Audience attention is immediately on Gunda, lying at the opening of a shed, the camera remaining minutes contemplating her, something of a feature of the documentary style throughout. Piglets emerge. They suck on their mother’s teats. They vie for positions. Gradually, we see the piglets growing, a dozen or more, still vying for position, with a touch of bullying (or whatever is the appropriate word for pig rivalry).

There are interludes with the chickens, including one with one leg. There are interludes with the cows. There are quiet moments as Gunda and the piglets show what it is like to be contented like a pig in mud. The piglets have their moments of content but they tend to be on the move and that jostling with one another.

There is a narrative in the film, dramatised towards the end when a huge tractor appears, carrying a huge container – for removing the piglets. In filming Gunda after they leave, the camera work in the close-ups suggest to the audience the emotions of the sow, indications of grief, bewilderment, wandering – then finally lying down. Further insemination? Further birth of piglets? The cycle over again?

PATERNO

US, 2018, 105 minutes, Colour.

Al Pacino, Riley Keogh, Kathy Baker, Greg Grunberg.

Directed by Barry Levinson.

Joe Paterno is a name that would be familiar to American football fans. He was a successful coach at Penn State for six decades, a statue of him and directed in his honour on the campus, later removed. His name is not familiar to those outside the United States, which means that this film will have a different impact on Americans and non-Americans. And not just because of the football background.

This is a film about the sexual abuse of minors, especially in the context of sport and in the context of youth organisations. This is a true story of Jerry Sandusky, a philanthropist who built up a charity for young people, was hailed by society, was supportive of football and sport. Eventually, the revelations about his sexual abuse.

Joe Paterno was caught up in the eventual revelations. It emerged that he had witnessed or been told of some abuse in the late 1990s, mentioned it to the local authorities, though not immediately. Through the work of a tenacious journalist, Sara Ganim, played by Riley Keogh, Sandusky‘s abuse was revealed in the media. The scandal then touched some of the university authorities who were aware of complaints but had not acted on them. This also touched Joe Paterno, criticism of what he should have done at the time.

Al Pacino plays Joe Paterno with another very vigorous performance though with its subdued moments as some of the impact of the situation came home to him, the film showing various meetings with his children, one son a lawyer, with lawyers, discussing the wording of statements, the meeting of the media. He is supported by his wife, played by Kathy Baker.

The exposure comes almost a decade after some of the events, media exposure, the movement to the courts, indictments of the authorities and criticism of cover-up, Paterno giving testimony to a grand jury. And this touches Joe Paterno, his being rather bewildered by it all, not fully realising the seriousness of the abuse and the need for information being given to the appropriate authorities. He does go out to meet the press. There are huge student rallies in support of him. However, he is fired in November 2011 – and succumbs to lung cancer 74 days later. His hospitalisation with some flashbacks and challenges to his memory and imagination forms the background to the telling of this story.

1. The title? The story of Joe Paterno? His significant career? The crisis at the end of his career? Moral issues and decisions?
2. An American story, American football, competitions? Colleges and teams? The American audience response? Those outside the US?
3. An American story, sexual abuse? Audience familiarity with the case? Those outside the US? The revelations about sexual abuse of minors emerging from the 1990s on? The handling of the situations? Openness? Cover-up? Authorities? Reputations?
4. The portrait of Joe Paterno, Al Pacino and his screen presence, forceful performance? The background of his 60 year career, Penn State, his victories, popularity, the statue? The focus on the later games, his observing, comments, with the players? With the managers? But his going into MRI, his illness, the flashbacks, the fantasies, the opening up of the abuse theme?
5. Paterno and his family, the devotion of his wife, his children, his son the lawyer, his daughter and her support, the story of the offender at the pool with her children, her challenge to her father? The family meetings, the discussions, the lawyer, planning what to say, meeting the media, careful about word choice and admissions?
6. The case of Jerry Sandusky, his reputation, charity work and his empire, the outreach to youngsters, boys? Support of the teams? His continued presence in his organisation and around the sports meetings? The factual information about him, his abuse, the authorities, the challenge, the cover-ups, his social standing, the eventual expose?
7. The authorities and Penn State, sports authorities, the 1990s, information given, acting on it or not, motivations, the consequences?
8. Joe Paterno, his knowledge of the abuse, his reporting it to internal authorities, the delays, the realisation that he was focused on other matters, his delays? His sympathy? But judgement in retrospect?
9. The young man, his mother, reporting to the authorities, his being bullied at school? The opening up of the case?
10. The authorities, the discussions, their being indicted, the consequences?
11. Joe, the difficulties of the situation? The past and his action and inaction? The times and people trapped in the limitations of their awareness? The meetings, the advice, his meeting the press, his sympathy, the reactions? The students in support? His being fired? The impact? His illness, death?
12. The role of the media, Sarah Ganim, her work at the paper, the authorities, her pursuing the case, research, interviews, her personal reaction to the stories? The young survivor and his mother? Her response to Joe? The possibilities of interview? The success of her mission?
13. A cautionary story? And its relationship to so many similar stories of sexual abuse of minors?