SWEET GIRL

US, 2021, 110 minutes, Colour.

Jason Momoa, Isabela Merced, Justin Bartha, Amy Brenneman, Raz Jaffrey, Lex Scott Davis, Michael Raymond-James.

Directed by Brian Andrew Mendoza.

This is the kind of action drama, father and daughter on the run, expose of corporate and political corruption, that might have been a star vehicle for Arnold Schwarzenegger in the past (or Sylvester Stallone, or Jason Statham…). Now it is a star vehicle for Aquaman himself, Jason Momoa, who, in the opening sequence, plunges from a Pittsburgh bridge into the river, reminding us of his water film career.

Most of the film, then, is flashback. What was he doing on the bridge? Why did he plunge?

It is revealed that he had a loving wife, a sweet little girl, Rachel (Isabella Merced), Rachel. And there is great sadness, wife and mother suffering from cancer, possibilities for a drug which could relieve the pain, its withdrawal from the market, disputes about the corporation developing the drug and its distribution, political interventions and challenges (as father and daughter watched television programs with Justin Bartha are representing the corporation and Amy Brenneman the politics).

The screenplay emphasises the absolute grief of the father, Ray, his at times being beyond distraught. There is a moment also when the sweet little girl goes to a gym, pounding the punching bag, in a bout with a young man in which she holds his throat, almost choking him. There is an episode on the Pittsburgh subway, Ray meeting with a journalist to open up the corporation case but his becoming victim of an assassin on the train and father and daughter having to escape. The father gatecrashes a social, confronts the rather callous corporation head, fights, kills him.

Which means then that the rest of the film has father and daughter as fugitives, escaping by car, assassins attacking them in a motel and their fleeing, hiding in the countryside, Rachel, without her father’s knowledge, keeps phoning one of the detectives pursuing the case, informing her of what is happening, the detective feeling compassion for the young girl.

And then, there is a jaw-dropping, beyond-belief twist in the plot. The narrative is changed. The perspective is changed. There is still the pursuit of vengeance, Ray on the bridge and plunging. There is also the revelation of corporate bribing, of the politician campaigning for a Senate seat, critique of business and political corruption and a final, cleverly prepared, fight to the death.

While a lot of the film works on the level of fugitives on the run, corruption exposes, there is the question whether audiences will be able to accept the completely unforeseen plot twist.

1. The title, the focus on Rachel, age, experience? Her sweetness? Her experience of deaths? The scene in the boxing ring? And the twist? The irony?
2. The city of Pittsburgh, the vistas, the streets, homes, police, executive officers, police precincts, political offices? The surroundings, the roads, the woods? The musical score?
3. The opening, Ray on the bridge, Detective Meeker urging him down, his plunging into the river? The rest of the film as flashback? Resuming with Ray on the bridge, the twist with Rachel?
4. The attack on business corporations, manipulation of drug prices, withdrawing them from circulation, bribes, political connections, public campaigns, the exposure of corruption?
5. Ray and Rachel, the happy sequences with his wife, her illness, hospital, the drugs, their being withdrawn? Her death?
6. The impact on Ray, a big man, upset, the information about the drugs, the threat with the doctor? At home with Rachel? Sadness, feelings of vengeance? Rachel, her age, the effect of the death, at home, her room, a doll? The sequence in the boxing ring and her almost killing her opponent?
7. Ray, his reaction to the interviews with Simon Keely, Diana Morgan, the companies, politics? Television interviews? The phone call from the journalist, Rachel following Ray, the complex phone instructions and the difficult finding him, the subway, the information, the journalist death? Ray fighting with the assassin?
8. The assassin, later encounters, his killing the head of the company? The tunnel and the sabotage? In the diner, the discussions with Ray and Rachel? And the later confrontation? The fight and his death?
9. Ray, on the road, protecting his daughter, driving, the police tracking them? The motel, the shooters and their deaths? Escaping, hiding in the woods and the snow? Ray’s activity? Driving the car, crash, taking the ute, the tunnel? The attack, the fight? Ray not always victorious, his defeats? In the diner, with the assassin?
10. The police, the investigations, information, tracking and surveillance, helicopter? Rachel and her phone calls, explaining what her father was doing, reaching out? The response of the detective, her associate, wanting to save Rachel?
11. On the bridge, the extraordinary twist, its credibility? Rachel as the opposite of the sweet girl, doing all the action herself, her motivation, being her father, the dive from the bridge, survival, disguise, planning and strategy, the confrontations with the assassin, the confrontation with Diana Morgan?
12. Simon Keely, subordinate, callous, speeches, mixing India with Africa, his drinks, Ray infiltrating the social, as a waiter, spilling the drinks, the confrontation with Keely? Killing him? The irony of the other executive, in the car, the tunnel, the assassin killing him?
13. Diana Morgan, her associates, the deal with the drug company, the bribe, her running for the Senate, the speeches, campaign? Callous? The confrontation with Rachel?
14. An exciting thriller to watch – but the jaw-dropping twist and its dramatic and credibility affect?

HOW TO TALK TO GIRLS AT PARTIES

UK, 2017, 102 minutes, Colour.

Elle Fanning, Alex Sharp, Ruth Wilson, Abraham Lewis, Ethan Lawrence, Edward Petherbridge, Joanna Scanlan, Tom Brooke, Martin Tomlinson, Nicole Kidman, Matt Lucas.

Directed by John Cameron Mitchell.

Here is a film to divide opinions. Some have considered it weird and bonkers! Others have considered charming and a masterpiece. It has interesting credentials. It is based on a short story by popular writer, Neal Gaiman. It has been directed by John Cameron Mitchell, who made his mark with Hedwig and the Angry Inch and Shortbus, directing television programs as well as the feature film, Rabbit Hole.

Perhaps it will be the musical score that divides opinions. The action is set in the 1970s to the 1980s and a culmination in the early 1990s. It is the era of punk. And, there is a pervasive score of punk beat music and shout/scream lyrics. Definitely for fans. Others will beware.

And it is set in England, in the North, in the world of teenagers, glimpses of home, but action outside the home, in the clubs, the sense of breaking out and wanting freedoms.

But, there is the fantasy element – a group of aliens visiting Earth. One of them, in the form of an attractive girl, is befriended by a young man who is creating graphic novels. She is played by American, Elle Fanning, an actress who even at this age of her life, still in her teens, has shown extraordinary versatility and performance, serious roles, historic roles, comic roles, and, as here, a capacity for breaking out, even savagely. The young man is played by Alex Sharp.

There is a lot of activity at a club, the young man helping the alien to adapt, encourage her, even enabling her to do quite an extravagant punk performance, getting the applause of all those at the club.

And, there is a lot of odd and provocative behaviour, especially on the part of the aliens who seem to settle at the club, have their own agenda, want to return to their planet, relying on the interventions of an oddball alien, played by Matt Lucas.

However, one of the main reasons for non--punk fans seeing the film is the presence of Nicole Kidman. She is Boadicea, the punk manager of the club, the punk look, language and accent, behaviour, illustrating that Nicole Kidman is capable of performing all kinds of roles. She had worked with John Cameron Mitchell in Rabbit Hole and received an Oscar nomination.

This will be enough for fans to know whether they will want to see it. This was also be enough for non-fans to know that they might not want to see it (except for Nicole).

WALKOUT

US, 2006, 110 minutes, Colour.

Alexa Vega, Michael Peña, Yancey Arias, Laura Harring, David Warshowsky, Holmes Osborne.

Directed by Edward James Olmos.

Walkout is one of the many find feature films made by HBO during the 1990s and into the to thousands. Many of them and strong social themes like Boycott, about the Montgomery bus boycott which is referenced in this film.

The film was directed by Hispanic actor, Edward James Olmos, who appears in a small but central role in the film as the mediator between protesting students and education boards.

The setting is 1968, East Los Angeles, social oppression of the Latinos, called Chicanos. They are victimised in schools, even to physical punishment, close toilets during recess, forbidding of the use of Spanish language… Several teachers and principals are seen but are not particularly sympathetic despite their protests.

At the centre of the film is a young student in her final year at school, played by Alexa Vega (the Spy Kids series). She has a Filipino father who is quite strict and narrow in his perspectives on his place in society. Her mother is more open. She becomes involved with a group at school, discussions about the situation, moving into action, the planning and carrying out of the survey to get student opinion, presentation to education boards. Inspired by Montgomery, the students designed on the tactic of protest by walkout from classes. Some hesitant. Others eager. Eventually, the police arrive and exercise the kind of police brutality familiar from the putting down of protests at university campuses or in Chicago at the Democratic convention that year.

Also at the centre is a young teacher, previously in difficulty and fired, played by Michael Peña. He supports the students but urges them to prudence and good judgement.

The teacher and some of the ring leaders are arrested, further demonstrations, mediation, legal appeals, even to the Supreme Court.

The walkouts did achieve good effects, especially by 1969 and legislation and support of Chicano children, in schools and with University entrances.

1. Based on actual events? East Los Angeles? Schools? 1968?
2. The atmosphere in 1968, the Vietnam war, conscription, deaths and injuries? Protest? The status of Hispanic families in California? The forbidding of Spanish in schools? School conditions – locked toilets…?
3. East Los Angeles, streets, homes, schools, churches? The feel of the times? The musical score?
4. The motivations for protest, the reaction of authorities, security, police, anti-Communist fears? Subversion? The action of the police, severe, violence, beatings? The role of the media, the interpretation of the events? Stigmatising the students?
5. The focus on Sal? His age, background, demonstrations and protests, being fired, coming to Los Angeles, his role as a teacher, his classes, the writing out of Hispanics in American history, the fact that the California Constitution was written in both Spanish and English? The article in Time magazine and its description, derogatory, of Hispanics and East Los Angeles? His support of the students, going to the meetings, wisdom, offering strategies? His relationship with the other teachers? His going to the meetings, involved in the walkouts? In the reviews of the walkouts? The discussions with Paula, being a sounding board, urging her to think out the consequences?
6. Paula, age, experience, scholastic ambitions, college, the severe father, his Filipino background, her mother and the story of her pregnancy, supporting her daughter? The other children? Her father, not wanting her to go to the camp, her mother signing? Her friendships at the school, boys and girls? Going to the camp, the activities, the exhilaration, the speeches, inspiration? Her becoming involved with the students, the protests? The experience of the locked toilets during recess? The severity of the Anglo teachers? Her reliance on Sal? Having to make decisions, her future, at the camp and the discussions about careers in enrolments? Making further friends, going to the meetings, her father’s reaction, slipping in late at night? The father catching her?
7. The meetings, the other members of the group, at school, classes, discussions, the boy forced to sweep the yard and his walking out, leadership, the students in military gear? The idea of the walkout, memories of Montgomery Boycott? Decisions, votes, the representatives of the schools? Sal and his cautions? The day, 9 o’clock, the call, hesitations, the walkout, banging on the doors, the students leaving, going outside, the media, protests? On television?
8. The meetings, decision to continue, hesitations, agreements, the day itself, the walkouts, Paula trapped in the class, the teacher locking the door? The police presence, the police brutality, the media? The extended sequences of the police bashings? The background of the surveillance, photographing the students, black-and-white images?
9. Through the teachers, Anglo attitudes, treatment of the students, the principal, Paula and her parents and the discussions with the principal, her possible suspension? The students attending the board meeting, the postponement of their petition? The idea of the survey, Paula and her writing, the distribution, the students filling in the details? After the first walkout, the promise that the matters would be considered by the board?
10. The impact of the arrests and imprisonment? The effect on the group? The meetings, discussions? The decision for further walkouts?
11. The next walkout, the reaction of the teachers, the police standing by, the students with the placards, munching to the police centre, the release of Sal, his leaving the crowd? The release of the students?
12. Paula and her role, going to see her father at his workplace, his having seen her at the demonstration, allowing her to continue with her campaign? Her mother participating in the marches?
13. Paula and her liking for the young man, the issue of the prom, the kiss? Discovering that he was in the police, that it is undercover, giving the information to the police, his pleading with her?
14. Mr Nava, his support of the students at the first meeting? His arriving, the negotiations? The various students and their speeches, the demands, education for all, Spanish-language, no corporal punishment, students not doing janitor work as punishment, the opening of the toilets…?
15. The achievement of the demonstrations of 1968 – coming to fruition in 1969?
16. The importance of the final credits, the actual characters, Sal, Paula, their being interviewed, their comments on what happened in the past, their achievement? The range of other students, the later careers, their perspectives on 1968?

RADIOACTIVE

UK/France, 2019, 109 minutes, Colour.

Rosamund Pike, Sam Riley, Simon Russell Beale, Aneurin Barnard,  Anya Taylor-Joy, Sian Brooke.

Directed by Marjane Satrapi.

It can be noted that the film is not solely a biography/portrait of Marie Curie. It is, sometimes, a visual portrait, fantasy sequences and dreams, suggestions of Madame Curie’s subconscious, the contrast between her very stern manner and underlying deep emotions. This style may reflect the strong Iranian background and sensibilities of the director, Marjane Satrapi.

Rather, the film’s title indicates that it is in fact, something of a biography/portrait of radioactivity itself. Throughout the film (rather interrupting the dramatic impact of Madame Curie’s life, love for her husband and their working together, his untimely death in a street accident), there are sequences which illustrate the consequences of radioactivity – flash-forwards, interrupting the drama, including the dropping of the atomic bomb, visually vivid and shocking, on Hiroshima 1945, the observing of nuclear tests in the Nevada desert in 1961, the meltdown at Chernobyl in 1986 – but also anticipation of practical applications of radiotherapy in the 1950s.

The film is also a portrait inviting speculation about the workings of the scientific mind. Perhaps it is the inner Intuition, theories, hypotheses, lateral thinking, offering definition, clarity. There is always the reliance on laboratory verification, applications of reasoning and logic. Which, of course, is not to say that scientists are not emotional. It is that their judgements and decisions are objective, that their personal investment in science is objective.

And that is how Rosamund Pike’s interpretation of Marie Curie comes across. Her mind is working all the time. She wants to investigate but also to get things done. Which, in her case, led to the pioneering work in discoveries of radium and polonium (named after her native Poland, dear to her), that the radium did not react as anticipated, leading to important applications, the discovery of x-rays and processes of radiotherapy, especially for cancer.

In the film, she comes across as quite impersonal, arrogant, to say the least – which academics and authorities declared her to be. She has no patience in interviews, demands to be accepted, for instance as first female professor in a university in France, on her own merits. She was prevented in accompanying her husband, Pierre, to Stockholm for the awarding of the Nobel Prize in 1903 because she had just given birth. This reinforced her self-assertion, scenes of dismissive attitude by male academics and government officials.

Her relationship with Pierre Curie started off rather frostily, he a much more warm personality than she. The film shows a mellowing in her relationship with her husband – but, on the whole, not as much as one might expect or hope for. It is the same in her relationship with her daughters. An amusing sequence illustrates this – her daughter, Irene, later to be a Nobel prizewinner herself, brings her fiance for her mother’s approval. Mother is interested solely in the young man’s PhD studies, quickly remarking that they can take the relationship for granted and then moving on to the scientific interrogation.

It is interesting to note that the first film about Madame Curie was made within 10 years of her death in 1934. It starred the popular screen pair of the time, Greer Garson and Walton Pidgeon as the couple. It focused on her work, the publicly edifying aspects of her character. This version does not shun the scandal of her relationship, after her husband’s tragic death, with one of her associates, he prepared to leave his wife. The media made ugly play of the scandal. The public were rabble-roused in demonstrations against her. She handles the situation in Thinking fashion, breaking it off.

But, her daughter, Irene (Anya Taylor-Joy) offers her an opportunity to move towards some kind of personal integration. Marie Curie resisted entering hospitals because, as in flashbacks, it was in the hospital when as a young girl that she had to say goodbye to her loving mother. In the context of World War I, Irene shows her mother some amputee soldiers – indicating that the use of x-rays would have diagnosed injuries more accurately and avoided the drastic surgery. Marie Curie challenges the authorities for funding – threatening to go to the media to highlight the government meanness. But, being on the battlefield focuses her attention on the real, the here and now, challenging her Feeling decisions about how to treat the wounded.

The range of flashforwards to Hiroshima, the Nevada desert, Chernobyl, are a significant part of the screenplay even if, at times, they seem dramatic intrusions into the portrait of Marie Curie. The Curies’ discoveries, and she was awarded two Nobel prizes, had world-changing consequences. But, they were for good and for ill.

In his speech at the Nobel prize awards in 2003, Pierre Curie reminded his audience that Alfred Nobel invented dynamite and produced weapons and armaments (consequently persuading Nobel to establish the awards with his fortune). There were significant positive consequences but, he warned, there were dangerous consequences to their work in radioactivity.

And so, Radioactive highlights both, Marie Curie herself, a claim for her work but suffering the effects of radiation until her death in 1934. The film offers a strong portrait of a pioneer woman scientist.

1. The title the focus? Biography/portrait of Marie Curie? The history of radioactivity, a sketch portrait?
2. Audience knowledge of Madame Curie, her Polish origins, studying in Paris, her research, demanding personality, collaborating with Pierre Curie, their discoveries, radium, polonium, radioactivity? The Nobel Prize? Her further research, professorship at the University, Nobel Prize for chemistry? Her personal life, the relationship with Paul and the scandal of the time? World War I, x-rays, radio therapy? Her daughter (and her winning the Nobel prize)?
3. Recreation of Paris, the 1890s, costumes and decor, the streets, homes, laboratories, equipment? The world of academia and board meetings? Stockholm, the Nobel Prize? Paris and the transition from the 1890s into the 20^th century, transport, cars, typewriters, laboratories and equipment? The World War I sequences, the battlefields, bleak, the snow? The musical score?
4. The structure of the screenplay: biographical details, the sudden interruptions of the flash-forwards? The contexts? In the work of the Curies? Healing therapy in the 1950s? Radioactivity, the dropping of the bomb on Hiroshima, the tests in the Nevada desert in 1961, Chernobyl, 1986? The visualising of these episodes? The placement within the structure of the film? The dramatic effect – or lessening it?
5. Rosamund Pike as Marie Curie? Age and ageing? The Polish background, the flashbacks to her childhood, joy with her sister, with her mother, her mother’s illness, the hospital, her dying and the farewell? The repercussions for Marie over the years? Unwilling to face hospitals or go into them? Her single-mindedness, continued working, her experiments, her applications to the boards and her rejection, the academic men looking down on her as a woman, scientist? The chance encounter with Pierre Curie, the second meeting, their reading each other’s work, discussions, collaboration, love, marriage, the children? His taking her to the club, the dancer, the material, the patterns of movement – scientific patterns? In this image recurring in Marie’s imagination and dreams?
6. The Curies working together, the experiments, the testing, verification, radium, not acting predictably, its qualities, the further elements, polonium? The presentation of their work? The Nobel Prize, Pierre insisting on his wife’s name being included? His going to Stockholm for the award, and Marie not being able to go, giving birth, remaining at home? The consequences, her reactions, as a woman excluded, her demands on her husband? His continued love and support?
7. Pierre, on the street, shop, walking into the carriage, his death? Her grief? His later appearing to her? The moment when she wanted a seance to see him again? The surreal sequences in the latter part of the film, her imagination, dreams?
8. Marie and her continued work, the Nobel Prize? The issue of the position at the University, her being interviewed, wanting the position on her own merits, not the connection with her husband? Her being given the position, seeing her in class, the students, her expositions?
9. Paul and his wife, friends and collaborators, Paul and the attraction to Marie, the relationship, the children seeing them in the room? The media, scandal? Public outcries outside the house? Her reputation? The strong stances, the emotional toll, breaking off the relationship?
10. World War I, Irene and her working as a nurse, bringing her fiance for the interview, Marie taking Love Is accepted and more interested in the interview about his PhD work?
11. Irene showing her mother the amputees, her mother’s reluctance to go near the hospital? Irene explaining that x-rays would have given the truth about injuries and prevented amputation surgery? Marie going to the board, the authorities turning out the grants for x-rays on the battlefield? The threat to go to the media?
12. The impact of the work in World War I, the healing power of her work, more emotional demands on her?
13. The subsequent history, international meetings, her reputation, her being infected by the radioactivity, her death in 1934? Her continued reputation?

THE SIMONE BILES STORY: COURAGE TO SOAR

US, 2018, 86 minutes, Colour.

Jeante Godlock, Julius Tennon, Tish Campbell, Jade Falcon,

Directed by Vanessa Parise.

This is a popular portrait/biography of Olympic gymnast, Simone Biles. It is based on the biography cowritten by Simone Biles herself, Courage to Soar: A Body in Motion, A Life in Balance, with Michelle Burford and she acts as one of the executive producers of this film.

This is a brief film, for the popular audience, a glimpse at a life, difficulties, achievements, the gymnastic gifts and self-doubts. Nakai Takawira makes quite an impact as the young Simone, the difficulties for herself and her siblings with her drug-addicted mother, the intervention of her grandfather, Simonee and her younger brother opting to stay with the grandparents who then formally adopt them.

The film indicates the discovery of her gymnastics skills very early, being seen by a coach, beginning training at which she excelled but which took its toll. The film shows the psychological difficulties for the gifted athlete, comparisons, self-doubt, the need for affirmation. It also indicates the narrow horizons which limit the development of the athlete as a person, homeschooling instead of normal high school classes and social activities…

Jeante Godlock is convincing as the older Simone. And, both actresses portraying her show some extraordinary gymnastics skills. The grandfather, becoming the lawful father, is a genial and support presence. The grandmother, his second wife, is much more businesslike in dealings with. However, all the way through they are supportive. Then there is the coach who works with Simone over many years. And there is the international expert, severe in her way, running camps and training, failing Simonee at times, indicating that she was unfocused and often unwilling to listen.

Ultimately, Simone wins competitions, focuses, is the first in the group of Olympic gymnasts for Rio, 2016. And, at Rio, she achieves great success, one of the Americans who has won the highest number of Olympic medals.

The film can be seen in the aftermath of Simone’s presence at the delayed Tokyo Olympics, 2021. She faced some of the psychological pressure on her, made this public to the press and was admired for it, withdrew from some of the competitions – but, with some determination, entered the fourth and won a bronze medal.

A popular biography and portrait introducing Simonee Biles, but, in connection with her real life and career, offering background and understanding to her success and her 2021 crisis.

EL INFIERNO

Mexico, 2010, 149 minutes, Colour.

Damian Alcazar, Joaquin Cosio, Ernesto Gomez, Maria Rojo, Elizabeth Cervantes.

Directed by Luis Estrada.

This film, multi-award-winning, was released for the 200^th anniversary of Mexican independence. While there is much to celebrate, the stance of the film is that, while there might be national independence, there is huge dependence in the country on the cartels, drug running and deals, the employment of thugs, political and police corruption.

While, basically, there is a straightforward plot, the tone in the screenplay is often satiric and humorous.

The central character is Benny, who went to the United States to make his fortune, has not communicated with his family, returns after 20 years, finds that his brother was caught up in the cartels. As he investigates further, he comes across his brother’s wife and son, gradually gets caught up in the world of the cartels, becomes a thug himself.

The supporting characters are all involved in the cartels, drugs and corruption, a rivalry between cartel bosses and their families, a range of murders and betrayals, the centre is Benny’s nephew, emulating his father, but endangering his mother and Benny. Benny has to make a stance, especially when his friend, one of the henchman of the bosses with great bravado, is also killed.

There are some climaxes at the celebrations of the 200^th anniversary, fireworks – and violent fireworks and some apocalyptic resolutions of the plot.

1. The title? As described by the characters? The town and the drug situation as hell on earth? No need for the afterlife?
2. The 2010 setting, the bicentenary of Mexican independence? The celebrations? The state of Mexico at the time? Drug dealing and the cartels? The effect on ordinary citizens? The police? Officials? Corruption? The campaign for clean up by the president? 2010 and Mexico’s drug situation in retrospect?
3. Benny’s story, his going to the US, leaving his mother and brother, 20 years, his being deported? Not knowing what happened to him in the 20 years? No contact with family? On the bus, being robbed, the police holding up the passengers, losing his money? Going back home, his mother, greeting, attacking him for no contact? News of the death of his brother, his brother’s reputation? Going to see his godfather, the hard times, the repair shop? The mother of his friend and her attack on him because Benny’s brother had killed him?
4. His reaction to the situation in Mexico, to the drug situation? His getting a job with his godfather? The information about Lupita? Going to the bar, the encounter with her? Going to the house, meeting his nephew, his nephew and his admiration for his father and his reputation? The nephew and his age, devotion to his mother? Her working as a prostitute in the bar, with clients? Benny and his attraction towards her, the beginning of the relationship? His wanting to support her? Her debt to the bar owner?
5. Benny meeting his friend Cochi, memories of the past, Cochi and his role, the dealings, his associates? The invitation for Benny to join him? Benny’s reluctance, the example to his nephew?
6. The drug situation in the town, the domination of the chief, his hard wife, his son and his rebuking him, yet encouraging him? The deals, the vengeance, the executions, the brutality? The police in his pocket, the town official? His clash with his brother and family? The rivalry, clashes, ambushes and killings? Vengeance? Leading up to the killing of the son? The blame on Cochi, the execution of his eldest boy? Cochi and his death?
7. The Mexican Catholic context, images, signs of the cross, blessings? The presence of the priest, funerals, blessings, pocketing the money? At the final funerals and again the money? The bicentenary celebration, the Bishop present, endorsing the drug lord? Benny and his machine gun, shooting everyone, including the Bishop? A nominal Catholicism?
8. Benny, the need to pay debts, getting the extra money, with Cochi, becoming part of the gang, the ambush, his having to execute the desperate man, the man putting the gun, Benny killing him? Yet later his reluctance to actually shoot and kill? But the further involvement, the missions of vengeance, the Sergeant and his tough attitude, immediate killings?
9. An extravaganza of vengeance, the number of people killed? The consequences of the murder of the air? The drug lord and the alienation from his brother, the setup to kill his brother’s sons, their heads delivered, machine-gunning down the brother?
10. The federal official, the interviews, the cards, the promise of witness protection? Benny, in fear for his nephew, finding him, in league with the opposition, his betraying the group, wanting to kill his father’s murderers? Benny, getting on the bus, sending him to Arizona? Benny going to see the official, the information, the filming, the betrayal, torture?
11. Benny, taking the police escort to the grave, the money and the drugs? His being shot, in the grave, surviving? Discovering Lupita dead? His vengeance?
12. The portrait of the drug lord, local, self-important, no scruple, urged on by his Lady Macbeth -like wife?
13. The bicentenary celebrations, all the officials understand, the flags, the national anthem, Benny making his way through the crowd, machine-gunning everyone? The fireworks? The signs and the collapse of the board?
14. The nephew, driving from Arizona, the grave for his father, his mother, for Benny?
15. And the irony of the final sequence, the nephew and the drug dealers, the killings? His future?
16. Serious themes – but the ironic, even comic aspects of the treatment?

THE GIRL IN THE BATHTUB

Canada, 2018, 86 minutes, Colour.

Caitlin Stasey, Adrian Holmes, Jason Patric, Paul Campbell.

Directed by Karen Moncrieff.

Rather an ungainly title for what is a psychological study rather than a thriller. It makes it sound more like pulp fiction! It’s that word “bathtub”.

This is the story of a young woman in her 20s. She has left home. She has a good job. She moves in an affluent world, especially of lawyers. And, she is very attractive to everyone she meets – including the film’s audience.

However, the film opens with her dead in the forenamed bathtub. And she does the narration, taking the audience back to some months earlier, giving information about her life, her relationships, promiscuous as it turns out, and becoming more and more alcohol and drug -dependent. She also has eating, lack of eating, disorders. She is played by the Australian actress, Caitlin Stasey,

The film is brief, seemingly at first indicating that she has been murdered, elaborating a number of suspects. They include the former boyfriend with whom she had a relationship, who is still attached to her, her turning to him at times in need. There is also the wealthy businessman with whom she has conducted an affair for quite some time. He is married with children, can’t leave his wife, meets his mistress once a week. Then there is the boss of the company who is attracted to her, treated by her quite erratically. It is in his apartment bathtub where she is found.

Other suspects could well include the wife of the businessman with whom she has having an affair, the wife of her boss.

So, while there are portraits of the men and the wives, the film is really the portrait of a lost young woman, attempts at AA meetings to change, making resolutions, but failing, ultimately drinking, taking the drugs, getting into the bath, her death – not a murder.

THE NEIGHBOR IN THE WINDOW

US, 2020, 87 minutes, Colour.

Jamie- Lynn Sigler, Jeff Gustafson, Jen Lyon Alistair Abell, David Lewis.

Directed by Menhaj Huda.

This is the kind of drama/melodrama that is geared to an afternoon at home audience, especially for wives and mothers at home who could identify with the characters and the situations. It is a Lifetime production, the company specialising in this kind of television film.

There is an attractive Seattle setting, affluent homes, friendly neighbours, the good school. At the centre is Karen, Jamie- Lynn Sigler, has suffered the death of a child, has a young son, a devoted husband, making a new start in Seattle. Everything goes well, meetings, socials, school.

However, one of the neighbours imitates Karen with dresses, jewellery, even buying a car. She makes up various stories, about illness, about her condition, seemingly plausible but Karen suspicious. When there is a confrontation, the neighbour, Lisa, who can stand in the window looking into the neighbour’s house, starts a vindictive campaign, reporting Karen as a neglectful mother to child care, getting a restraining order, ultimately pretending to be hit by Karen’s car and taking her to court.

The film highlights the pressures on Karen and her family, situations becoming more desperate. Ultimately, there is a court case, Lisa’s daughter, who was the babysitter for Karen’s son, telling the truth about her mother’s plan. However, it seems that the situation will continue and so Karen and family move away, leaving Lisa standing in the window.

1. An arresting title? Lifetime drama?
2. The Seattle setting, the affluent suburbs, homes and interiors, workplaces, offices, court? Schools, kindergartens? The musical score?
3. Karen’s story, 17 years of marriage, the death of the child, grief, the bond with Scott, the young son, Scott and job opportunity, Karen and the house, decorating? Her going for the job, study, her boss, sales? The welcome from the neighbours, gifts, meetings, school mothers? Everything wonderful?
4. The friends and neighbours, Lisa and her friendliness, her husband and daughter, the daughter as babysitter, Lisa and her charm, the shopping, wearing the same dress to school, the same jewellery, buying the car, the conversations about Parkinson’s, her medical condition? Karen and her suspicions, discussions with Scott? The friendship between the two boys?
5. The complaints about child neglect, Karen and her job at the school with the children, the discussions, the possibilities for childcare intervention? Lisa and her reactions, Karen calling out at the car, the restriction order? Things becoming worse, Scott and his conversation with Dan and Dan’s defence? Going to see the lawyer?
6. Karen, the car, Lisa and her daughter, claiming to be hit, falling, calling the police? Karen arrested, the charge? The discussions with the lawyer?
7. Lisa, discussing the situation with Dan, the audience knowing she was lying? Karen finding the description of her pathological state and lies?
8. In court, the She said – she said situation? The questions in the court? Karen, Lisa and her sad story, Dan and his response?
9. The questioning of the daughter, her telling the truth?
10. The continued pressure, Karen and family deciding to leave? Memories of the previous owners of the house and the disappearance? Lisa standing in the window?

COLOR OF LOVE

US, 2021, 88 minutes, Colour.

Deborah Joy Winans, Michael Brown, Sarah Abbott, Rachel Wilson, Duane Murray, Leo Orgil, Shechinah Mpumlwana.

Directed by Don McBrearty.

This film is introduced as being based on a true story. It has a Pennsylvania setting, the city of Pittsburgh which features quite attractively throughout the film.

The issue is foster care, and possibilities for adoption. While there are many difficulties with finding appropriate foster care for orphaned children, there are many successes. And the possibilities for relationships to develop and lead to adoption. And this is the case here.

However, the title of the film indicates a difficulty which some see as insurmountable: mixed race adoption.

The central character is an exuberant woman, Monica (Deborah Joy Winans), five years widowed when her police officer husband was shot in action, mother of two children, a teacher, now deputy principal of the school. She has participated with the adoption agency by taking in foster children temporarily. She has taken in a brother and sister twice before, Rachel and Peter, and, when they run away from foster care, the carer asks Monica to take them in again.

Monica is a happy, loving and life-giving woman. There is also the possibility of marrying again, Theo (Michael Brown). But, with Rachel and Peter returning, and her children bonding with them so well, she decides on adoption.

The head of the adoption agency is particularly severe, against the adoption, ready to find any fault that will prevent it. On the other hand, the carer is supportive and suggests a lawyer. Theo, who has had a hard experience and his own childhood, does not warm to the situation and is also conscious of the mixed race difficulties. Both sets of children are in favour of the adoption.

With some difficulties at school for Rachel, the head of the agency orders the children withdrawn from Monica’s care. She is religious, churchgoing, the local pastor advises her and put you in contact with a parishioner who is a television compere. Monica appears, states her case with force and emotion, many people watching, including Theo who is moved by it.

The end of the film has the court case, please stated by Monica as well as the children, hostility from the aged care authority.

This is a film which makes its appeal through attractive characters, through sentiment, sentimental perhaps, but with an important cause.

1. Based on a true story? Adoption issues? Race issues? A Pennsylvania case?
2. The city of Pittsburgh, the vistas, the family home, school and interiors, child-welfare offices, the courts? The musical score?
3. The situation with orphans, institutions, bureaucracies? Foster parenting? Successes and failures? Children running away? Caseworkers, concern, prejudices? The courts and judges’ decisions?
4. Monica, a genial character, the audience liking her, her exuberance, her life, the strong bond with her mother, her husband and his being killed in police action, her two children, bonding with them, educator, Deputy principal of the school? Her relationship with Theo, the possibility of their being together? The children’s attitude?
5. The story of Rachel and Peter, cared for by their grandmother, her death, taken into care, foster care, their running away, harsh treatment by foster parents? Staying with Monica and her family, three visits, the feeling more at home? Stephanie, working on their case, rescuing them, the promises, taking them to Monica? Stephanie and her continued concern? Bill, in charge, racial prejudice, severity, orders to Stephanie, for the children to be removed from Monica? His appearance in the court and testimony?
6. Monica, caring for Rachel and Peter, compassion? Welcoming them into the home, Rachel sharing with fear, Peter sharing with the young son, their bonding? The meals? Peter coming out of himself? Rachel, reserved, yet bonding with Leah, situations at school, her being attacked, charity case, the second time, pushing the girl, the principal and accused of fighting? This being used against her by Bill? The issue of her studies, failing, not asking help from Monica, the great improvement with Monica helping?
7. The issues with Theo, bonding with the family, the revelation about his own upbringing, orphan, foster, the difficulty of black boys being adopted, adopted last? His professional career, coming to terms with his life? The adoption issue challenging his beliefs, race issues? Monica loving him, yet his keeping a distance?
8. Monica, the decision for adoption, raising it at the table, the children agreeing? Discussions with Stephanie, Stephanie warning about difficulties? Suggesting the lawyer?
9. The religious background, grace before meals, God talk in the house, going to church, the Reverend, his sermons, the emphasis on love, everybody welcome, Monica going to the church, the conversation with the Reverend? His putting her in touch with the television interviewer? The interview, her talk, being watched by everyone, the effect on Theo?
10. Going to the court, the lawyer, Stephanie, Theo present, the judge, hearing the testimonies, Monica, Peter, Rachel, their pleas?
11. The judge, his decision, in favour, happiness, the photo of the whole family, the shared meal?
12. Serious issues, the emotional impact?

THE OUTPOST

US, 2019, 123 minutes, Colour.

Scott Eastwood, Caleb Landry Jones, Orlando Bloom.

Directed by Rod Lurie.

The outpost is in Afghanistan. This film is based on a book about the battle of Kamdesh, an attack on outpost in remote areas, at the foot of mountains. The Dir, Rodney Lori, graduated from in the 1980s and served for four years in a combat unit before moving onto journalism, film reviewing, film direction including the political drama, The Contender.

While the film is a drama, it also has many aspects of the on the spot documentary. It uses the device of putting the names of each character on screen as the screenplay focuses on them. This sometimes makes it difficult for audiences to identify and identify with the characters but serves as immersing the audience in the day by day living in the outpost. Initially, there is a commander played by Orlando Bloom but he moves back to headquarters. The two characters that audiences can identify with a played by Scott Eastwood (more than resembling his father) and Caleb Landry Jones (playing Tight Carter who served as one of the advisors for the film).

There is a great amount of detail of the routines of the day, camaraderie between the men, difficulties and conflicts, the range of personalities of the commanders. There are the technical communications. There are the guns and generators to Ward off attack. There are the translators, the meetings with the local men and the promise of finance for schools. And there is an attack and some men wounded. There is also an expedition across a bridge and the death of a commander.

The film builds up to a climax when a considerable number of Taleban appear on the mountain above the outpost, an attack, hardships in defence, men wounded, medics working, deaths. The situation is saved by the arrival of helicopters and the bombing of the attackers.

With all of this, this is possibly one of the most effective films about American presence in Afghanistan. There have been dramas, satires, explorations. The film takes on quite some significance with the 2021 withdrawal of American troops and the unexpectedly rapid success of the Taliban taking over the country.

1. American involvement if in Afghanistan? From 2001? This film set in 2009? The complete withdrawal in 2021? The consequences?
2. The range of films about American involvement in Afghanistan? Serious, the search for Bin Laden? The conflict with the Taliban? Particular provinces? Kandahar and Kabul? The outposts?
3. American troops, training, camaraderie, technical skills? Relationship with local people?
4. The film based on a report of the Battle of Kamdesh? Comments praising the accuracy and feel of this film? The emotion of the audience in the life of the outpost, the physical centre, the buildings, quarters? The men, their interactions, their lives? The technical equipment? The protection, generators, guns? The surrounding mountains?
5. The style of the film in naming the particular characters, the portraits of each character, the performances, communicating the experiences? Seeing the men at work, interacting, tensions and discipline, dangers and attack from the hills, courage under attack? Communications, phone calls, the background stories of the men?
6. Those in command, decisions, information, on the spot? Successes? Mistakes? The different personalities? Each coming, taking command, reaction of the men, loyalties, criticisms? The patrol, the death of the commander? The African- American commander, experience in Iraq, not going out, the issue of the urine? Criticisms, the defence? The final commander, closing down the outpost?
7. The film’s focus on the two characters, Romesha, played by Scott Eastwood (and the overtones of his father and screen presence and style), his role in the outpost, influence, leadership, decisions, heroism? Carter (in the actual Carter being a technical adviser to the film), appearance, interactions, conflicts, heroism?
8. The Taliban in the mountains, shooting, the men shooting back?
9. The final attack, the hundreds of men in the mountains, the bombardment, the response, the attack coming close, the helicopters, gunfire, halting the attack?
10. The purpose of the outpost, so remote, the difficult roads, the mission of transporting the machine, accompanying vehicle, the attack, destruction of the vehicle? Technical communications, with headquarters, decisions, experience and lack of experience? The relationship with the locals, promise of money for schools, the old men, their gatherings, the touch of blackmail in their demands? The translators and their fears? A glimpse of American activity in the middle of the 20 years’ war?
11. The importance of the final credits: tributes to those who died, naming the war honours, interviews with some of the veterans, including Ty Carter?