THE MYSTERIOUS AFFAIR AT STYLES

UK, 1990, 103 minutes, Colour.
David Suchet, Hugh Fraser, Philip Jackson, Beattie Edney, David Rintoul, Gillian Barge, Michael Cronin, Joanna Mc Callum, Anthony Calf.
Directed by Ross Devenish.


The Mysterious Affair Styles was the first book with Poirot at the centre written by Agatha Christie, written in 1916, published in 1920 and 21 in the UK and the US. It is alleged that she wrote the book as a bet with her sister that she could write a story when no one could pick the culprit. 30 years before her death she wrote Curtain, the final Poirot story, kept secret until her final illness. And the setting was a return to Styles.

The film is interesting with its setting, 1917, the war continuing, Hastings returning from the war, a number of flashbacks sequences of war action. Poirot is amongst the refugees from Belgium living in the British village. Hastings had met him in Belgium. The setting for the murder is an affluent family, a new husband 20 years younger, looking sinister with black beard and cape, several suspects – but, of course, the least likely person becoming involved at the end.

The first things that Hastings says in the film is Good Lord, repeating it several times, as he did in the subsequent films. He is also rather obtuse in understanding women and some ironic remarks from Poirot that he is not altogether savvy with what is going on. And the film also introduces Inspector Japp, Philip Jackson playing the roll over many films.

Not the best of her murder mysteries, but important in introducing her and her Poirot mysteries.

1. The popularity of Agatha Christie mysteries? Television series with David Suchet as Poirot?

2. This title as the first of Christie’s Poirot novels, written in 1916, 1917 setting, the war continuing, refugees from Belgium, British hospitality? The introduction to Poirot, Hastings talking about his detective work in Belgium? His presence in England, adjusting to the situation, to the language, to the customs like pubs? And Hastings doing the narration?

3. The 1917 settings, the flashbacks and the war sequences? Hastings returning from the war, his nightmares? In uniform? His rank? His going to the Cavendish house? His friendship with John? Mrs Inglethorpe and her welcome? The attraction to Cynthia, the proposal and her rejection? His comment about not understanding women?

4. The situation in the house? John, inheriting the houses, his financial difficulties, the loan for Mrs Raikes? The comment about the relationship? Her being a war widow? His relationship with Mary, her suspicions? Laurence, his presence in the house, serious, attraction to Cynthia? Evie, her role as companion, her upset about the death, her leaving, her open hostility to Inglethorpe?

5. Inglethorpe, younger than his wife, sinister -looking, black, bearded, cape? The antagonism from the rest of the family?

6. Mrs Inglethorpe, upset, the documents, her changing her will frequently, Evie as companion, Dorcas has maid, overhearing the arguments, her misinterpretation? Mrs Inglethorpe not feeling well, Cynthia taking her coffee, the struggles, the locked door, the death? The doctor, suspicions? Strychnine?

7. The police investigation, the superintendent, suspicions of John?

8. The arrival of Inspector Japp, his handling of the case, his fixing on one accused, suspicious of John? The arrest?

9. Hastings, the encounter with Poirot, Poirot in the village, Hastings going to see him, coming to investigate the case? Questioning? The locked room, the mantelpiece and its being tidy? Poirot and the house of cards, Hastings talking, his realising something had happened with the mantelpiece? His return, search, the discovery of the papers?

10. John, in court, the witnesses, his professing his innocence?

11. Poirot, assembling everybody, people arriving late? The story of Mary Cavendish and her going into the room, her mother-in-law’s gasping, the letter? Laurence and his trying to protect Cynthia, saying the door was locked and locking it? Dorcas and her loyalties? John, the truth about the loan for Mrs Raikes?

12. Inglethorpe, his alibi, the discovery of the green dress, the beard and make up? Turning the tide on Evie? Her confession, her love for Inglethorpe? His hostility towards his wife, arranging the murder, setting clues, being tried and found reticent and not being able to tried again? Evie and her venom against Mrs Inglethorpe

13. Everything rectified, Hastings puzzling about Cynthia and Laurence, their getting married?

14. And the beginning of the collaboration between Hastings and Poirot and the work with Inspector Japp?

WILLOW CREEK

US, 2013, 80 minutes, Colour.
Alexie Gilmore, Bryce Johnson, Bucky Sinister, Peter Jason, Timmy Red.
Directed by Bobcat Goldthwait.

This is another example of “found footage� filmmaking, more than a decade after it was inaugurated with the Blair Witch Project. Audiences know what to expect. Fixed camera for many sequences, hand-held for action sequences.

The premise of this story is a couple going in search of a 1966-7 journey search for discovering the Bigfoot. Bryce Johnson plays Jim, the force behind the search. Alexie Gilmore plays Kelly his girlfriend who does a lot of the filming.

For those wanting some action, the film goes into immediate delay, more than 30 minutes of Jim explaining what he is doing, Kelly rehearsing him, their driving into the National Park, their wanting to get all kinds of testimonies about the Bigfoot, the lady at the store, a singer with his song, a Ranger, some believing, some not. There are also some warnings about the dangers.

When the couple finally get going, they are accosted by a sinister man warning them off. However, they continue, set up camp, are frightened by a raccoon fearing Bigfoot. A lot of the film, possibly too much, is spent with a fixed camera on the couple, in the dark in their tent, becoming more frightened, sinister sounds, movements. Most of the action takes place in the last 10 minutes, their packing up, getting lost, fearful of sounds, running in terror, a glimpse of a Bigfoot – and, of course, the disappearance and the camera footage left so that somebody can find it, edited it, and make the film Willow Creek.

PROMISE AT DAWN/ LA PROMESSE DE L'AUBE

France, 2017, 130 minutes, Colour.
Charlotte Gainsbourg, Pierre Niney, Didier Bourdon, Jean- Pierre Darroussin, Catherine Mc Cormack, Finnegan Oldfield.
Directed by Eric Barbier.

French writer and novelist, Romain Gary, had an extraordinary life and career.

This dramatisation of his novel about his relationship with his mother begins with an episode in Mexico, Gary fearing he was dying, trying to complete his work, Promise at Dawn, his wife, Leslie Blanch, reading it. This framework providing an opportunity for flashbacks to dramatise his life with his mother.

The film offers a tour de force performance by Charlotte Gainsbourg as his mother, Nina, a would-be actress in Moscow, Jewish background, from Vilnius, exiled, returning in the 1920s, living with her young son whom she idolises, earning a living by dressmaking, denounced by neighbours, getting revenge on them by inviting a down and out actor to pretend to be a Parisien couturier, the ladies of the town responding and her being a success.

The film traces the relationship between mother and son, an extraordinarily dominating possessive mother, dream and with the best and success for her son, imbuing him with a vision for his life, and goals to be achieved (which he did).

Bankrupt in Vilnius, Nina and her son migrate to Nice where she is a strong success at selling antiques, managing a hotel. Romain grows up, goes to Paris to study law, has a short story published to his mother’s delight, is exhorted by his mother to go to Berlin to kill Hitler and then she changes her mind.

The latter part of the film shows Romain in the French air force, training, not given promotion because of his Jewish background, the invitation to go to join General de Gaulle in London, his many successful bombing raids, including guiding the pilot blinded back to England for a safe landing.

He also writes his first novel, often by night, is published in England and then in France and he becomes something of a national celebrity. The pathos is that his mother has died three years earlier, had written many letters to be sent from Switzerland week by week to her son after her death.

This is a powerful presentation of a strong minded and dominating mother, the effect on her son, and the aftermath of his achievement in many areas of literature, politics, film, and his suicide at the age of 66. Jules Dassin directed his wife, Melina Mercouri, in a previous version of this story.

1. The autobiography of French writer, Romain Gary? Th joining to call e story of the first half of the 20th century? Subsequent information about Gary, his writing career, films, French consul in Los Angeles, marriages, his death?

2. The atmosphere of Vilnius in the 1920s and 30s, the winter and cold, the streets, premises, fashion shop? The transition to Nice, the son, the fine weather, the hotel? Then transition to the war, Paris, training, London, flights and heroism? Nice after the war? The musical score?

3. A film about mother and son, mother love, all-consuming, the effect on the son? An exploration of love? Dependence? Breaking free?

4. Life in Vilnius, 1924, Nina and her dressmaking, her relationship with her son, stories about Russia, acting in Moscow, the leading star, seeing him in the films in Vilnius? Her being denounced, Jewish, the rough treatment? Her determination, revenge, the actor, his pretending to be the Paris stylist, his drinking, his performance, the response of the audience? His singing the bawdy song, Nina getting him out, Romain singing, her success with her fashions? Her customers, non-payment, bankrupt, the decision to leave for Nice, the final confrontation with the arrogant woman in debt?

5. Romain, his age, at home, with the boys, the bullying, the infatuation with the little girl? His being supported by his mother, wanting him to play the violin, failing, his wanting to be a painter, her for bidding it, her wanting him to write? Her confidence that he could do anything? Encouraging his fighting and standing up for her? Her vision of him winning prizes, consul, a champion?

6. Life in Nice, the taxi, trying to pawn goods, being employed to travel France, successful saleswoman, managing the hotel, visiting the markets, the staff? Romain and his life in Nice, growing up, the beauty of the city and the coast, his continued dependence on his mother? The Jewish background, the Catholic influence?

7. Going to study law, the Swedish girl in the train, his many affairs, studies, writing the story, its being accepted, his delight, his mother’s delight, further stories but considered too intellectual, his rationalisation about the non-acceptance?

8. The 1930s, the episode of his mother wanting him to travel to Berlin and kill Hitler? Buying a ticket? The change of mind?

9. His enlistment, training, his mother’s pride, graduating, the anti-Semitism, his having to continue to train, his return, the celebratory party, his mother twisting what had happened?

10. His mother, her letters, faith in her son, his injuries, in hospital, the typhoid fever and his naked run in the hospital, her presence? The letters all during his time in England, three years? His return, the dismay at the news of her death, her device of having written all the letters and sent them to Switzerland, his receiving them?

11. Service in France, the possibility of joining De Gaulle in London, the clash with the officer, taking his place in the plane? Accepted in England, his war service, the many raids? The pilot blinded, Romain guiding him, the safe landing? His medals and acknowledgements?

12. His beginning to write, during the night, by hand, the plan for the book, completion, the news that would be published in London, writing to his mother, her letters not acknowledging it?

13. The end of the war, a hero’s War record, the publication of his novel, a significant character for France? The impact of his mother’s death?

14. The framework for the film, Mexico, his illness, writing, his wife, the taxi to Mexico City, the doctor, the ear infection? His fear and death?

15. The writing of Promise at Dawn, his wife reading it, the tribute to his mother?

MY OCTOPUS TEACHER

South Africa, 2020, 85 minutes, Colour.
Craig Foster, Tom Foster.
Directed by Pippa Erlich, James Reed.


Within weeks of its being released on Netflix, this striking documentary was receiving high praise. For those audiences who watch the Discovery Channel and other outlets which feature nature documentaries, this one will be greatly prized. And for those who follow, and have followed for many decades, David Attenborough, this is a must.

It is a South African production. The focus is on cinematographer, Craig Foster, who, along with his brother Damon Foster, directed and photographed eight documentaries starting in 2000. Such is the attention to meticulous detail, some of the films torque several years to photograph. Foster then said he tired from the pressures of so much energy for film-making and moved away to recuperate.

However, after some years, living on the Western Cape of South Africa, he began to explore under the waters of the sometimes turbulent coastline. He took his camera and discovered a most unusual subject for his film.

Very few of us will have thought immediately of an octopus as the star of a nature film. It is not the most attractive-looking of creatures, quite primaeval in its way, eyes, body, tentacles – though it does look more streamlined as it takes off, darting and swimming through the water. Over a period of almost a year, Craig Foster went into the water, discovering a particular octopus, following the details of its life and activity, underwater close-ups. He certainly got to know the octopus and understand it – and this he shares with his audience. The film uses the interesting device of interviewing Craig Foster as a “talking head� and his narrative of his year’s activities. However, as he speaks, we watch him underwater, and not only him, the vast range of fish and sea creatures, including sharks, who inhabit this rarely seen underwater kelp forest.

The visit with the octopus become very personal, personalised, and this is true as we see how the octopus feeds on the sea depths, but it is also threatened by the shark and is ingenious in its way of defending itself (it is female and Foster continually refers to it as she and her). There is also some pathos at the end of the journey, the mating, the laying of the eggs, the end of her time.

There can be various responses to this film. First of all, of course, there is just the delight of the photography, the beauty and colour, the variety of undersea life. Then, it follows that we develop our sense of wonder, what we often call the beauty of creation, and appreciate that for the last 10 years, 100 years, 1000 years, 10,000 years and more, there has been this life, this vitality, nature evolving, all unseen by human eyes. We can be overwhelmed as we realise the range of nature on earth, under the water, and the intelligence of its evolution.

Because Craig Foster speaks very personally about his own life and career, for younger audiences watching the film, it is a challenge as they watch his achievement as to what they want to do with their lives, the call to participate in this, an enjoyable play of words on the photographer’s name, to “foster� the development of nature and, in the era of climate change, to prevent its destruction. And for those for whom this is not a career, it can be a creative hobby, a significant cause, but always the perennial hope that nature will not only survive but flourish.

L’ECOLE BUISSONNIERE/ SCHOOL OF LIFE

François Cluzet, Jean Scandel, Eric Elmosnino, François Berleand, Valerie Karsenti, Thomas Durand, Ilona Cabrera.
Directed by Nicolas Vanier.

The French title is a particular idiom, indicating an experience of truancy, avoiding school, learning from the school of life.

This is a very entertaining period film, 1927, a time of class distinctions, of lords of the manor, of grounds, game and poachers, dressing for the hunt…

However, the focus is on a 10-year-old boy, Paul (Jean Scandel in his only film), a very sympathetic screen presence. Rescued from an orphanage, he goes to live with Celestine, who works in the manor house, and her husband, Borel, the gamekeeper.

However, there is an eccentric loner outing the woods, played by François Cluzet, always a strong presence in his films). He encounters the boy, they form a friendship, sharing in fishing and poaching in the grounds, the boy a quick learner.

While there are many pleasing sequences in the woods, there is also the story of the Count, very traditional, disapproving of his son with his city-like style, refusing to finance his automobile company. While the audience suspects, early enough, who Paul really is, the truth gradually emerges, the Count accepting Paul as his grandson, Celestine telling Paul the truth, and the Count leaving his property to Paul – thwarting the harsh measures the son was about to introduce, everybody in the town being very happy with Paul and his management.

The film was directed by Nicolas Vanier (Little Nicholas, Belle and Sebastien). He has a capacity for bringing forests and nature alive.


1. The original title? The emphasis on not going to school, truancy?

2. 1927, France, social classes, the manor, the countryside, hunting, poachers? The strict orphanage? The landscapes, the animals? The musical score?

3. Costumes and decor, local customs, the lord of the manor, the inhabitants of the town, staff?

4. Celestine, her marriage to Borel, her work at the manor, his supervision of the grounds, searching for poachers? Her visit the city, to the orphanage, the conversation with the manager, the interview with Paul, slapping his face? Her reaction? The issue of adoption? She and her husband fostering children? Her decision to take Paul home? Her knowing his identity? Changing his name? Borel and his reaction?

5. Paul, not knowing anything about his parents, in the orphanage, his age, personality? Returning with Celestine? In the house, settling in? The lifestyle? Interactions with boreal? The stories about Totoche?

6. The character of Totoche, age, background, military, hunting, poaching, his knowledge of the woods, of the animals? The initial encounters with Paul? Paul and his intelligence, asking questions, helping with the fishing? Totoche and his selling fish and vegetables in the town? The loner? Interactions with Borel, taunting him? The growing friendship with the boy, sharing his knowledge?

7. Celestine taking the boy to the house, the Count? His interest in the boy, their discussions, admiring his knowledge? Sharing his company, allowing him house?

8. The Count and Bertrand, social life, the women, the parties, his father’s disapproval, his father not financing his automobile company? The Count preferring Paul’s company?

9. The Gypsies, allowed to settle on the property, their way of life, Paul and his encounter with Bella, the time together, sharing, adventures? Bertrand and his disapproval?

10. Paul, going to school, his work, the teacher? Bonding?

11. The issue of the stags, the trophies in the Count’s house, the rumours about the 18 point stag, Paul seeing him, Paul and Bella?

12. The hunt, boreal and his costume, leading the hunt? The stag, shrewd, in the river, the hounds losing the scent? But the trail and Bertrand knowing where the stag was?

13. The Count, riding, his fall, bedridden, the discussions with Celestine, his telling the story of his severe father forbidding his marriage, his repeating the harshness with his daughter, her leaving, encountering the soldier, his being killed in war, the Count’s attitude, not knowing about her son, acknowledging Paul? Paul and his learning his mother’s name
was Mathilde, going to the cemetery to search?

14. Celestine telling him the truth, his response, the mausoleum for his mother? His acceptance of his status?

15. The reading of the will, Bertrand and his inheritance, the house and property going to Paul? Bertrand and his plans for putting up a wall, preventing the movement of animals, the search for the stag and Borel confronting him? To expel the Gypsies?

16. Paul, the change of policy, the move to progress on every front?

17. Paul, his future, Borel and Totoche reconciling, Celestine as a mother figure?

18. An entertaining period story – of a past era?

 

 

 

 

ALONE

US, 2020, 98 minutes, Colour.
Jules Willcox, Marc Menchaca, Anthony Heald.
Directed by John Hyams.

 

Alone is a thriller but a male audience and a female audience will respond quite differently. The central character, who is alone, is female, recently widowed, leaving the city and driving north in the forests of the north-western Pacific states, where the action was filmed. She is chosen as a victim but a victim who will gain strength, assert herself and survive. Women in the audience will identify with her, so will the male audience, empathetically as it is hoped, in their own way.

There are a number of criticisms of the film, that it had been done before and that is truer than some of the commentators know because it was a remake of a Swedish film, Gone, and Mattias Olsson, the writer and co-director of the original film has written the screenplay here. But, to say that it has been done before is not necessarily strong grounds for criticism.

This review takes the stand that the experience of watching Alone has a strong effect on us.

The audience is introduced to the central character, Jessica (strongly played by Jules Willcox) moving home. We later learn some of her situation, her husband dead, alienation from her mother. The film has several chapter titles charting Jessica's experience. The first is The Road, the scenery beautiful, then a car driving slowly in front, preventing Jessica from overtaking, reminding audiences who know Steven Spielberg's 1970s film, Duel, of how frightening cat and mouse tactics on the highway can be.

We are then introduced to the man, Marc Menchaca (only in the final moments do we learn his name is Sam), who has plausible explanations about his road behaviour but then he reappears, an ordinary -looking person that you might not give a second glance to, but insinuatingly sinister and threatening to Jessica.

So, we know that this is going to be an abduction story. There are some eventual revelations about the man's misogynistic persecution of Jessica, suggestions rather than any explanations.

Which means that the latter part of the film is internment in a basement, an unexpected escape, Pursued through the forest, the river, an encounter with a friendly hunter who might have been a help, but all building up to the expected final confrontation, the man losing his cool, making a taunting speech to the hidden Jessica, speaking of his despising of cowards and challenging her to confront him.

Well, the confrontation does take place, not quite in the way expected but Jessica's vindication nonetheless.

Yes, this is a genre film, an abduction by an aggressive male, with the various conventions of intimidation, imprisonment, escape, a final battle.. Of course, it is contrived, that is the nature of this kind of psychological thriller entertainment.

 

1. The title? Jessica and her experiences, the duel on the road, the abduction, the escape, the pursuit, the confrontation?

2. The opening in the city, packing, the U-Haul?, driving through the city, the countryside, travelling north to the forests, the beauty, the highway, cliffs, rivers, the towns, service stations?

3. The chapter headings on screen, audience anticipation?

4. The transition to the basement, the house? Into the forest, the trees, the river? The night, the morning, the clearing, the range of settings? The musical score?

5. Jessica, her packing, decision to leave, the gradual revealing of her story, the photos of herself and her husband, his suicide, the phone calls with her father, avoiding her mother, difficulties with her mother? Her wanting a new life?

6. On the road, her sense of freedom, the old black car, going slowly, the attempted overtaking, the car not allowing her, at the motel, the encounter with the man, the plausibility of his explanations about texting, his arm in a sling? The next encounter on the road, the breakdown, her fear, her driving away? Her stopping, the man appearing again, attempted explanation? Her apprehension, the vehicle blocking the road, his accusation that she almost hit him, her driving away, the crash, the trailer and the slashed tyre, her being abducted?

7. Audience empathy with Jessica, sharing her experiences, the tension, a woman alone, the mysterious male, his eventual misogyny?

8. In the basement, his entry confrontation, the iPad and the scenes of Jessica with her husband, the man taunting her about his cowardice, lying down beside her? Her using her ingenuity, pulling out the nail, her jacket under the door, poking out the key, getting free, upstairs, the man's arrival, hiding, his eating his breakfast, the phone call to his wife and children?

9. Her escape through the woods, the wound to her foot, his pursuit, to the river, diving in, the rapids, her being able to get out of the river? The bewilderment, in the woods, the hunter, her hitting him, her explanations, his accepting them, helping her, his car, giving her the boots, the tree trunk across the road? The man arriving, his spinning his story about her mental condition, the hunter bewildered, Jessica suggesting he ask for the phone, to check with the police, the struggle, the man bashing Robert, shooting him, taking the body?

10. Jessica, the rain, the night, hiding in the tree trunk? The man's return, her hiding in the water, listening to his challenge, the bravado, putting the gun down, taunting Jessica, about cowards, about her husband? Her resisting?

11. The next day, Jessica still in the forest, the man arriving with his car, the grave, carrying the body?

12. Jessica, her ingenuity, no key, getting the tool, going to the back of the car? The man suspicious? Jessica attacking him, the erratic driving, the crash, her getting out? In the mud? Getting to the clearing? The helicopter flying over? The man getting out, the final confrontation, Jessica having his phone, the call to his wife, Jessica telling her the truth, the man dissembling, the wife getting more and more upset? The fight with the tool, the knife, Jessica eventually vanquishing him?

13. The final moments, the eyes of the dead man? The eyes of Jessica? The traumatic experience? Her future?

 

 

 

KING COBRA

US, 2016, 93 minutes, Colour.
Garrett Clayton, Christian Slater, James Franco, Kegan Allen, Molly Ringwald, Alicia Silverstone, Rosemary Howard.
Directed by Justin Kelly.

King Cobra is based on actual events and characters, 2005-2007, with a setting in the gay porn industry in the United States.

The title refers to Bryan Kocis, here called Stephen, played by Christian Slater, a closeted man who came out when exposed by friends, decided to make pornographic films for video release and online. He was commercially successful.

The film opens with an audition for a young man from San Diego, Sean Patrick Lockhart, with an ambition to be a porn star, creating his credits alias, Brent Corrigan (Garrett Clayton). Kocis takes him under his wing, thinking is 18 because of his false documentation. The young man is extremely self-confident, makes the film is (which are fairly explicit but also somewhat reticent because the film is American). He has a brief relationship with the director, also some liaisons with fellow actors. He is ambitious about money and threatens the director that he will walk out unless he gets a much bigger salary. However, he and his name are under contract.

He returns home to his mother, Alicia Silverstone. She is shocked but wants to support her son.

In the meantime, the director is somewhat disillusioned, gets advice from his sister (Molly Ringwald), auditions another young man but is exposed, accused by neighbour of being a paedophile, when Brent Corrigan’s true age is released. There are court cases, equipment confiscated, and the young man back home in San Diego wondering what to do.

In the meantime, there is something of a parallel plot. James Franco, one of the film’s producers, plays a gay pimp, Joe, in a demanding relationship with one of his young men, Harlow (Kegan Allen), and they decide to make a video company to get money, to buy cars. James Franco’s Joe is an excessively moody man, dominating Harlow who has bad memories of an obsessive and abusive stepfather.

They get the idea to employ Brent Corrigan who explains the contract situation.

What follows, and this is a true story, they invite Corrigan for a meal but he declines the contract. Joe and Harlow then decide to murder the director to get rid of him, a particularly brutal home invasion sequence, the director thinking he is auditioning Harlow and Harlow then viciously stabbing him and cutting his throat, Joe then suggesting that they set the house on fire.

Sean comes under suspicion because of the breaking of his contract but he goes to the police, goes to a meal with the two who boast about what they have done. He reports this to the police and the two are arrested. They are still in jail, life sentences. There are no exculpatory circumstances in Joe’s character – but Harlow, the vicious attack surfaced his anger at his stepfather’s behaviour.

Sleazy behaviour in a sleazy world. The director is, Justin Kelly, who based his screenplay on the book about the events, Cobra Killer, Gay Porn, Murder and the Manhunt to bring the Killers to Justice. Justin Kelly, has made several short films and features with gay themes, especially another film based on actual characters and events, I am Michael, with James Franco, focusing on gay conversion therapies with Christian motivations.

KILLER ELITE

US/Australia, 2011, 116 minutes, Colour.
Jason Statham, Clive Owen, Robert de Niro, Aden Young, Dominic Purcell,
Directed by Gary Mc Kendry

Famed explorer and adventurer, Ranulph Fiennes, wrote a book about British war and espionage activity in Oman, and the role of the SAS. This actioner states that it is based on a true story and is based on Fiennes’ book. But, it plays like a variation on The Expendables, a lot of action and explosions, a group of macho men and the taking out of opponents by these elite killers - seems more the stuff of video game activity rather than a thoughtful drama.

Well, it is a Jason Statham show with him giving his usual performance (as distinct from doing a variation on his usual performance). After a career as a killer elite for the SAS, he has got out of the business in some disgust at a violent set-up and has retired to, of all places, the Yarra Valley, where he has taken up with a local girl, Yvonne Strahovski.

Wouldn’t you know it, he receives a call, an offer he can’t refuse because his long-time partner and mentor, Hunter, has been abducted by the sheikh of Oman who is bent on revenge on the SAS assassins who killed his sons (except for the rather selfish, effete young son who can’t stand the desert – or his father). Hunter is played with more energy than his age might suggest by Robert de Niro.

Their tough associates in the killing missions and contrived ‘accidents’ are played by Dominic Purcell and Aden Young, with Ben Mendelssohn along as well as veterans Nick Tate and Bille Brown. Yes, much of it was filmed in Australia (with locations also in Jordan and Morocco) with supporting Australian cast.

Clive Owen plays a retired veteran who is suspicious about the nature and execution of the killings and goes in pursuit, only to face up to violence in Oman and a confrontation with Statham and De Niro.

As was mentioned, it seems more like an Expendables variation, big on effects and action, less so on character and performances and the moral issues of this kind of clandestine violent activity.

1. An action thriller, espionage, mercenaries, vengeance? A Jason Statham thriller? The strong supporting cast?

2. Locations, Mexico, Oman, England, France, Australia? Musical score?

3. Danny, the mission in Mexico, wanting to retire? The summons? The information about Hunter, his failing in his mission, captured, to be executed? The role of the Agent? The Sheik? The mission to kill the three SAS men, the reasons? Vengeance for his son?

4. The mission, to kill the SAS men, to video their confessions, to stage the deaths like accidents?

5. Davies, Meier, action characters, bonds with Danny and Hunter, the appeal for help, for the money?

6. The SAS men, Harris, the setting up of the meeting, filming his confession, his girlfriend interrupting, his escape, his death?

7. The UK, the secret group, The Feathered Men, Logan and his mission? His strong personality?

8. Gregg, in Wales, his coffee and the drugs, the night march, his confession, dying in the cold?

9. Mc Cann, the setting up of the truck, Jake, not efficient? Meier’s death? Logan, intervention, trust?

10. Danny going to Oman, the fake confessions, his retiring to Australia, his relationship with Anne, growing the grapes?

11. France, Anne in safety, Logan and his of intervention, the fake shooting, the pictures as witness?

12. The British, the support of this Sheik, building up to a confrontation? Anne as hostage? Hunter to rescue her? The shootings?

13. Oman, Logan, the stabbing of the Sheik, the son not interested, not caring about his father? The injuries to The Agent?

14. Danny, Hunter, Logan, going out of the desert, sharing the money? Logan going off, as a target? Danny returning to Australia? A happy ending for this kind of action show?

MONSOON

UK, 2019, 85 minutes, Colour
Henry Golding, Parker Sawyers, David Tran, Molly Harris.
Directed by Hong Khaou.


The title of the film comes up on screen 13 minutes into the narrative. And the rains and the suggestions of monsoon come only at the end. However, monsoon describes weather in south-east Asia, in Vietnam, the possibilities for destruction, but the rain and cleansing, and then recovery and efforts in building up again.

The audience is invited to gaze initially at the traffic in Vietnam, from above, the cars, the myriad bikes, the intersections and vehicles crossing. Then the streets, travel in taxis, travel on the backs of motorbikes – which audiences who have visited Vietnam will easily identify with.

But, the screenplay invites the audience to identify with Kit (Henry Golding from The Gentleman, Crazy Rich Asians). He has sold up his business in the UK where he has grown up. He is bringing his mother’s ashes to Vietnam, and his brother will bring the father’s ashes and they will scatter them. But, for Kit, it is a journey into the past (though he was six when his parents left Vietnam). It is a search for his heritage, wandering around Ho Chi Minh City, absorbing the atmosphere, visiting the young man who is like his cousin from the past, who now has his own business, built on the money that Kit’s mother had lent him. The two do some searching together.

It should be emphasised that this is a very introspective film. While we travel and share with Kit, we are continually invited to identify with his questing, his reflections, the range of moods, although he is a very genial and gentle character (and Henry Golding is blessed with a very genial smile and personal composure).

It is probably best to suggest that the film is “unhurried� – which means that it will not appeal to audiences who are in a hurry, were anxious for plenty of narrative development, for action, like quick editorial cuts and pace. Some audiences, inpatient, will not take the time (or realise, perhaps), that they need to sit back, share in the introspection, discover some subtleties of character, some nuances in Kit’s story.

While Kit is a loner, we see that he does crave companionship, going to bars, encountering men who are congenial, some one night stands – although, in Ho Chi Minh City, he encounters an African-
American businessman (Parker Sawyers who played Barack Obama in Southside with You). There are enjoying each others company, talking, sharing their life stories – and with Lewis conscious of his father fighting in Vietnam and the tragic consequences. This may be the companionship and relationship that each of them is seeking.

In the meantime, the audience shares a train journey from Ho Chi Minh City to Hanoi with Kit, looking at the countryside, passing through towns and cities.

The director, Hong Khaou, was born in Cambodia, has worked in the UK (in a sense, his previous film, quilting, serves as something of a prelude to Monsoon). He has directed many short films exploring and dramatising homosexual relationships.

For audiences who are prepared to sit back, observe, reflect, empathise, appreciate different cultures, this is quite a personal journey.


1. The title? Coming on screen after 13 minutes? Weather in Vietnam? The rain arriving at the end of the film?

2. The work of the director, born in Cambodia, his themes of Asians, migrants to the UK? Issues of homosexuality?

3. Vietnam in the 21st-century? The long history? The impact of the war? Those who fought and died part of previous generations? Vietnam for the younger generations? Memories of the war, forgetting the war? The search for prosperity?

4. Kit, his background, his parents coming from Hanoi, his father and his work for the officer from the south, the mother and her concern, the two boys, their neighbours, like aunt and cousin? The parents’ decision to leave? The choices, going to the UK? Life there, never returning to Vietnam? Kit and his bringing his mother’s ashes, his brother bringing his father’s ashes?

5. The audience visiting Vietnam with Kit? Seen through his eyes? (Or the experiences of audiences who have visited and travelled in Vietnam?) The immersion in Ho Chi Minh City, memories of Saigon? Travelling by train through the countryside, the country and fields, the towns and cities? The discussion with the Frenchman on the train? The visit to Hanoi and impressions of the city?

6. Kit, his work in animation, IT, selling of his business, travelling, the decision to revisit Vietnam, his mother’s ashes and the search for a location? His age, genial personality, courtesy, gifts for his cousin and mother, the tours of the city, the meeting with Linh, the arts discussions?

7. His visiting his cousin, the welcome, the gifts, the shop, Kit not speaking Vietnamese well, the welcome from the mother, his meeting up with his cousin, at the shop, the meal, exploring the city and searching out past sites together?

8. His going to the bar, the encounter with Lewis, the return to the apartment, the liaison? Meeting Lewis at the exhibition? The further encounters, the relationship? The discussions, getting Lewis to talk about the US, his leaving, his company, business, his mother in New Jersey helping him? His father, serving Vietnam, his suicide? Lewis and his image of the US and his being an American? Taking Kit to the airport?

9. Kit, walking around Ho Chi Minh city, the old locations, the house and apartment, the pool, the company his cousin, their talking, the cousin owing money, Kit not wanting it?

10. The train travel, the encounter with the Frenchman? In Hanoi, the discussions with Linh? Searching out his parents’ home?

11. The return, the meetings with Lewis, a future together?

12. Going to the airport, his previous Skype communications with his brother and nephews, their arrival, Kit embracing them?

13. Kit’s future, in Vietnam?

THE TRIAL OF THE CHICAGO 7

US, 2020, 130 minutes, Colour.
Eddie Redmayne, Alex Sharp, Sasha Baron Cohen, Jeremy Strong, John Carroll Lynch, Yahya Abdul Mateen II, Mark Rylance, Joseph Gordon-Levitt?, Ben Shankman, J.C.Mc Kenzie, Frank Langella, Danny Flaherty, Noah Robbins, Kelvin Harrison Jr, John Doman, Michael Keaton, Caitlin Fitzgerald.
Directed by Aaron Sorkin.

July, August, September, 1968 were, in retrospect, tumultuous times. There had been student rights and protest at the Sorbonne, Paris. There were significant battles in the Vietnam war. There was the ill-feted Prague Spring. There was controversy in the Catholic Church with the issuing of the papal encyclical, Humanae Vitae. And there were protests in the United States, protests against the draft, the 1968 elections.

Some of the characters involved in the protests at the Democratic convention were significant figures of the time but have lived on in memory, Tom Hayden, Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, and the inclusion of Bobby Seale of the Black Panthers who spent only four hours in Chicago, sustained a false murder accusation against him in Connecticut, and was, for political reasons, included in the group who were indicted, The Chicago 7. Their long trial at the end of 1968, caused controversy – and became something of a pattern for protests in the ensuing years as well as political trials (think In the King of Prussia, the trial of Daniel Berrigan SJ and other protectors against nuclear armament – and who all appeared in the film version.)

This film has been written and directed by Aaron Sorkin. He is possibly best known for his creation of the television series, The West Wing. However, he was also responsible for such films as A Few Good Men, The Social Network, Moneyball, Molly’s Game, the series, The Newsroom and, on a lighter note, The American President. Clearly, these historical events are important for his historical American memory and evaluation.

The audience is invited to have sympathies for the protest leaders rather than for Mayor Daley of Chicago and his orders to forbid any protest, for the exercise of police brutality, for the status of the judge who is prone to bullying the defendants and their lawyers, prone to citing for contempt.

The major part of the screenplay is set in the court. However, the film introduces its theme with three symbolic talking heads, Lyndon Johnson on Vietnam and the draft, Martin Luther King and his vision (and his assassination), the hopes of Robert Kennedy (and his assassination) and close-ups of the exercise of the draft and its effect on the young men who are to go to Vietnam.

The screenplay also introduces the characters of the seven, brief sketches so that we know who each of the men is and something of their style (and appearances). Eddie Redmayne reminds us of his versatility and performance, playing the young Tom Hayden, with his friend Rennie Davis, played by Alex Sharp. Then there is the middle-aged conscientious objector, seen with his wife and his admiring young son, David Dellinger, played by John Carroll Lynch. There are two younger objectors who do not feature so strongly, played by John Froines and Lee Weiner. The two characters who stand out immediately are Abbie Hoffman and Jerry Rubin, long hair, hippie-style, Hoffman with a talent for wit and repartee, Rubin committed but a touch of the comic. It comes as quite a surprise to realise that Abbie Hoffman is being played by Sasha Baron Cohen, Rubin by the star of Succession, Jeremy Strong. Yahya Abdul Marteen II stands out as an impassioned Bobby Seale.

They are the seven. However, particularly striking are the performances of the judge and the lawyers. Frank Langella is absolutely convincing (and frequently obnoxious) as the presiding judge (whose dealing with the case is heavily criticised afterwards). Joseph Gordon Levitt is the suit and tie, always standing and buttoning his coat, counsel for the prosecution. Mark Rylance, less dapper, is the effective counsel for the defence. So much of the courtroom drama is in their hands.

There are scenes of the protests, a variety of flashbacks inserted throughout the film, groups demanding the right to protest, being denied, being attacked by the police, shields and batons and gas, to combat them.

In handling the case, the idea comes that the previous attorney general, Ramsey Clark, disliked by the Nixon attorney general, John Mitchell (who has to face his own legal challenges with Watergate) who had initiated the indictments, should testify in the case. His played by Michael Keaton, willing to testify, stating that investigation into the riots and protests indicated police brutality. (The judge will not allow the jury to hear this testimony.)

And so, a film of 2020, looking at divisive American past experience, released during the campaign for the 2020 presidential election. A great deal to interest, performances and dialogue to enjoy, and plenty to challenge.


1. Audience knowledge of the 1968 events, memories? 1968, the 1960s, change, rights and demonstrations around the world, the Vietnam war…? The influence of these events?

2. August 1968, significant moments in the Vietnam war, events in Prague, riots at the Sorbonne, the Catholic Church and Humanae Vitae? The American events?

3. The work of Aaron Sorkin, his insights, his writing, direction? The strong cast?

4. The introduction to the film and its tone, the quotes from Lyndon Baines Johnson about Vietnam war, the quotes from Martin Luther King, Robert Kennedy, the atmosphere, the assassinations? The increase of troops in Vietnam? Visualising the impact of the draft?

5. Protests, groups, anti-war, the Black Panthers? Protests and action? The university campuses?

6. The election of Richard Nixon, John Mitchell as attorney general, his attitudes, his interview with the lawyers, his wanting an indictment? His hostility towards the previous attorney general, Ramsey Clark?

7. The Democratic Convention, held in Chicago, August in the summer, the planned protests, the stances of Mayor Daley, the instructions to the police, the refusal of permissions for protests? The events of the protest coming in flashbacks, the different individuals, the groups, the role of the police, the attacks, the gas, the batons? The injuries? The police and agents and their infiltration, informing on the protesters, their evidence during the trial?

8. Abbie Hoffman, his appearance, education, his perspectives, working with Jerry Rubin? And the insertion of his stand-up routine throughout the film and his comment on what happened?

9. The introduction to the Seven, Tom Hayden and Rennie Davis? Students, the academic background? Abbie Hoffman, Jerry Rubin, the hippy protest? David Dellinger, respectable, conscientious objector, seen at home, his wife, the ideals for his son? Lee Weiner, John Froines and their protest and inclusion in the seven?

10. Bobby Seale, the Black Panthers, their status in American society, political views, racial views? Bobby Seale and the accusation of murder? As spending only a few hours in Chicago, the decision to include him in the group, his lawyer being ill, his not having a lawyer, his getting advice from Fred, Fred and his being murdered? The issue of the lawyer, the judge’s insistence, William Kunstler and his stepping back, Seale and his interventions, his being told to be quiet?

11. The drama with the highlights of the trial, the indication of the days? The group seen outside, at their headquarters, the discussions, the phone calls? The secretary?

12. Richard Shultz, the initial interview with Mitchell, with his associate? Their appearance in the court? Suits, buttoning up? Proper? His personal views, his applications of the law? The cross-examination is? Meeting Abbie Hoffman in the park, with his daughters? His tactics, his response to the judge? The final stance with the list of the Vietnam dead, his standing, his associate walking out?

13. The judge, audience hostility towards him and his behaviour? His manner, his interventions, citing for contempt, overruling objections, getting names wrong? His attitude towards Bobby Seale, removing him from the court – and the torture sequences and his being gagged? Ramsey Clark, his testimony, the judge forbidding the jury to hear it? Issues of justice and injustice? Tom Hayden standing for him then sitting, his being allowed to make the final speech, his reading of Rennie Davis’s list?

14. William Kunstler, the law, defence, his personality, his associate and interventions? Cross examinations, protesting against the judge, cited for contempt? His skills? Outside the court, challenges and tactics for the defendants? The idea to bring Ramsey Clark into the court?

15. The group, personalities, different perspectives, outside the court? Rennie and his list, Tom Hayden and his education, the protest in the park, the attack on Rennie, his bleeding? Tom Hayden and his blood speech in the park, its being taped, played in court, the blame? The contrast with Abbie Hoffman and the background, his look, the costumes in the court? The argument with Hayden? Jerry Rubin, personality, the approach of the agent, his infatuation with her, her participation and advice? In the court?

16. David Dellinger, conscientious objector, being careful, his stances, with the others, at the demonstrations, his not wanting security to touch him, his outburst and punching the officer?

17. The jury, the threats to the juror and her family, being dismissed?

18. The office, the secretary, the phone calls, the threats?

19. The buildup to the clash between Hayden and Hoffman, the different ideologies?

20. Ramsey Clark, the visit to his house, Mitchell representatives present, issues of law, the attorney general and his role with the president, his giving testimony, about the police
and bashings, the judge forbidding his testimony?

21. The aftermath, the information about the various individuals, careers, Hayden in politics, Jerry Rubin as a stockbroker, Abbie Hoffman and suicide?

22. The harsh judgements about the behaviour of the judge?

23. The influences of the events, the characters, the judgements on future protests and demonstrations in the US?