TOKYO FILE 212


US, 1951, 83 minutes, Black-and-white.
Florence Marley, Lee Frederick (as Robert Peyton), Katsuhiko Haida, Satoshi Nakamura.
Directed by Dorrell Mc Gowan, Stuart Mc Gowan.


This is an American patriotic film of 1951, the period of the Korean War, the period of the House of un-American activities, suspicions of communists.

One of the strengths of the film is that it was shot completely in Japan, bringing Tokyo vividly to life after the war. While Japan is at peace, there are various groups in Tokyo helping the communists in Korea, a network of spies.

An American agent is set in, under the cover of being a journalist, makes contact with the police, a mysterious international femme fatale, Steffi (Florence Marley), tries to make contact with a roommate from college days who is now involved with the Communist gang. Steffi is not all she seems to be – working for the businessman, Mr Oama (Canadian born Satoshi Nakamura). She believes that she is getting letters from her sister in North Korea but the agent reveals that the sister is dead.

The agent makes contact with his friend who resists him. But, he sets up an encounter with his friend and his former girlfriend who works in the theatre but she is abducted by the gang, tortured, in hospital, ultimately dying. The agent is also invited to a dinner at Mr Oyama’s house – with the prospect of his being poisoned.

In fact, the film opens with the agent, Steffi and the college friend’s father all meeting in the public square, a sinister character putting a case under a park bench with a consequent explosion. However, the end reveals how they were saved.

Of particular interest in retrospect are sequences where the young Japanese man is trained as a kamikaze pilot, the ethos of being killed, demonstrations of where to crash into a ship, extreme loyalty to the Emperor – only to find that Japan has surrendered. Which means, that at the end, with the businessman confronting the young man, time running out before the case explodes, the young man becomes a kamikaze for the good, clutching the businessman’s suit and tearing it to have evidence about his fall, giving his life so that the others would live.

The leading man, the Frederick, as Robert Peyton, is a rather stolid strong American-type hero. Florence Marley has more than a touch of the exotic!

A VERY BRADY SEQUEL


US, 1996, 90 minutes, Colour.
Shelley Long, Gary Cole, Tim Matheson, Christopher Daniel Barnes, Christine Taylor, Paul Sutera, Jennifer Elise Cox, Jesse Lee Soffer, Olivia Hack, Henriette Mantell, Whip Hubley, Ru Paul.
Directed by Arlene Sandford.


For those who fondly remember The Brady Bunch as well as for those who enjoyed the spoof and only-kidding version of the 70s sweetness and light family trying to survive in the rough 90s in last year's The Brady Bunch Movie, there is more of the same, only better and funnier, in, need we say more, A Very Brady Sequel! As villain Tim Mattheson says of them, they are a decade-impaired family. He plays a character claiming to be Carol’s husband – to steal an antique.

‘Highlights include Jan's made-up boyfriend, George Glass, Marcia and Greg's awkward sexual attraction, a cameo by Zsa Zsa Gabor and Rosie O'Donnell, not one but TWO musical dance numbers, Marcia's obvious wig in her scene at the pool, Jan losing her contact lens while driving, Mr. and Mrs. Brady's hilariously obvious sexual innuendo, Alice's spaghetti with "special mushrooms," the family trip to Hawaii, and the (brief) return of Tiger, the dog.[ jwfisher on IMDb, 2005

THE WINSLOW BOY


UK, 1999, 104 minutes, Colour.
Jeremy Northam, Nigel Hawthorne, Rebecca Pidgeon, Gemma Jones, Matthew Pidgeon, Sarah Flind, Aidan Gillett, Guy Edwards, Colin Stanton.
Directed by David Mamet.

It is surprising to find that American playwright, David Mamet, best known for his hard-hitting and hard-language plays like American Buffalo, Speed the Plow, Glengarry Glen Ross and movies like The Verdict, The Untouchables, has a great admiration for the dramatic skills and the use of language by British playwright Terence Rattigan (Separate Tables, Sleeping Prince, Browning Version). Mamet has adapted the play with great respect and directed the movie.

He recreates Edwardian England in great detail, suggesting the prim social order of pre- World War I days and the desire to preserve order and decorum. The case is a small one, of a boy accused of stealing a money order, but it is symbolic of the need for truth and the rights of the individual.

The screenplay stays closer to Rattigan's text (which is solely in the Winslow house) than Anthony Asquith's 1947 version which had a masterly performance by Robert Donat as Sir Robert with Cedric Hardwicke as Winslow and Margaret Leighton as Catherine. That film highlighted Morton's parliamentary speech, 'that right be done' as does this version.

This is an intelligent movie that has regard for the skills of drama, language and production values.

1. The status of the play by Terence Rattigan? The film version of 1948? The 1999 version, the impact of this story of 1911?

2. Directed by David Mamet, his reputation as a playwright, American, strong issues, his interest in Rattigan?

3. A film of British traditions, the Navy, parliament, the law, working class people? In the period, pre-World War I?

4. The title, the focus on Ronnie? His age, experience, the family sending him to the school, the Navy? His arriving home, the mystery, the postal note, the accusation? Authorities expelling him? The consequences? The issue of the truth or not? The reaction of each member of the family?

5. The school scenes, the atmosphere, the boys, the situation with the note, the authorities?

6. Mr Winslow, in the bank, his believing his son, supporting his son? Mrs Winslow, her devotion, finding the situation difficult? Catherine, her believing her brother? Dickie and his university studies? Desmond Curry, the law, his help?

7. Catherine, strong character, age and experience, suffragette? The engagement with John, the party, the interruption, Ronnie returning home? John, the influence of his father, strong-minded, the breaking of the engagement?

8. Sir Robert Morton, his role in the government,, the role of the Attorney General and decisions about cases, the Naval College, permissions for a trial, the debate in the House?

9. Sir Robert’s character, his interview with Ronnie, believing him, taking the case? Catherine and her suspicions? His Conservative stances, women’s issues and his opposition? His visits, his attraction to Catherine?

10. The media response, the continued strain on the family, Mr Winslow’s health, stubborn stances? The consequences? Having to let Violet go? Dickie returning from University
and working in the bank? The breaking of the engagement? Des and his stepping in loyally for Catherine?

11. Sir Robert, his defence, to defend the right, not accepting the position of Lord Chief Justice, Violet in the court, coming home, the news, the impact?

12. Sir Robert and his return – and a future with Catherine?

Episodes

1. "The Man Who Would Be Vogue" Ryan Murphy Tom Rob Smith January 17, 2018a 3WAX01 2.227

On the morning of July 15, 1997, fashion designer Gianni Versace is shot and killed outside his Miami Beach mansion by Andrew Cunanan. Seven years earlier, Cunanan meets Versace at a gay nightclub in San Francisco and tells his roommates about the encounter the following day, albeit with most of the details either embellished or fabricated. Cunanan later attends a performance of Capriccio as Versace's guest and exchanges origin stories with him after the performance. In the present, Cunanan flees the scene, evading one of Versace's associates. Versace, meanwhile, is rushed to the hospital and pronounced dead. As police collaborate with federal authorities, Versace's sister, Donatella, and brother, Santo, plan the future of their brother's business empire while Cunanan purchases newspapers covering Versace's murder with a remorseless expression.


2 "Manhunt"

In March 1994, Versace is diagnosed with ear cancer. Three years later, Cunanan arrives in Miami after fleeing from South Carolina and moves into a motel under an assumed identity. He juggles working as a prostitute, giving his earnings to his gay neighbor Ronnie, and feeding his obsession with Versace. Versace, meanwhile, juggles dealing with creative block and reeling from Antonio's proposal of a wedding. While at a nightclub one evening, Cunanan surprises Versace and Antonio and attempts to follow them only to lose them in the crowd.

3 "A Random Killing"

In May 1997, Chicago real estate developer Lee Miglin is found dead in his garage. One week earlier, Miglin invites Cunanan, whom he knows as a gay escort, over to his house after Marilyn leaves Chicago to promote her perfume brand. Cunanan proceeds to brutally torture and kill Miglin before stealing his Lexus. In the present, detectives assigned to the case discover gay pornographic magazines surrounding Miglin's dead body. Marilyn insists that the killer owns the magazines and that her husband's murder was nothing more than a random killing. The authorities later use the car's phone in an attempt to track Cunanan, who learns about their plan after it is leaked to the media. He then abandons Miglin's Lexus in Pennsville, New Jersey before gunning down caretaker William Reese and stealing his red pick-up truck. Marilyn, meanwhile, deals with her grief as she continues to promote her perfume.

4 "House by the Lake"

Cunanan lures former acquaintance Jeff Trail to the Minneapolis loft-apartment of his former lover, David Madson, and bludgeons him to death with a claw hammer. After forcing Madson to remain complicit, Cunanan decides to flee to Mexico when one of Madson's co-workers visits him. The Minneapolis Police Department, meanwhile, discovers Trail's corpse and suspect Madson to be the killer. They question Madson's parents, who firmly believe that their son is innocent. When Madson confronts Cunanan about his lies, Cunanan realizes that he has lost his hold on his lover and shoots Madson near a lake outside Rush City.

5 "Don't Ask Don't Tell"

In June 1995, Versace ignores Donatella's disapproval and makes his sexuality public in an interview. In November 1995, U.S. Navy lieutenant Jeff Trail is suspected to be gay after saving a fellow veteran from being assaulted in San Diego. Following a suicide attempt, Trail goes to a gay bar and meets Cunanan. Trail later agrees to do an interview about homophobia in the military, during which he "makes the decision" to leave the Navy. Two years later, Cunanan runs into Trail and David Madson in Minneapolis. Both men, however, try to avoid him, with Trail staying at his sister's house and Madson stating he has moved on. Abandoned and angry, Cunanan resolves to murder Trail.

6 "Descent"

In 1996, Cunanan lives in La Jolla, California with middle-aged businessman Norman Blachford, who handles his finances as part of their arranged relationship. During his twenty-seventh birthday party, Cunanan tries to impress David Madson by fabricating details about his life and boasting that everyone loves him. After making more extravagant demands results in Blachford asking him to leave, Cunanan spends thousands of dollars in an attempt to win Madson over, only for Madson to cut all ties with him. Cunanan then outs Jeff Trail to his father in a postcard, causing Trail to threaten him before moving to Minneapolis. Following a severe, drug-fueled bout of depression, Cunanan reunites with his mother Mary Ann and tells her he is going to Minneapolis.

7 "Ascent"

In 1992, Versace pressures Donatella into taking over the company after his death. Following a failed attempt to collaborate on a dress for the Vogue anniversary gala, Versace is diagnosed with ear cancer and travels to Miami to recover, forcing Donatella to take the reins. That same year, Cunanan, who is living with Mary Ann, starts working as a gay escort for older men. He develops a relationship with architect Lincoln Aston, a close friend of Norman Blachford, only for Aston to break up with him after discovering he and David Madson spent the night together. Cunanan's attempt to reconcile with Aston ends with him witnessing Aston's brutal murder. Cunanan then moves out of his mother's apartment following an argument and uses Aston's death to develop a relationship with Blachford, who lets him move into his house.

8 "Creator / Destroyer"
In 1957 Italy, a young Versace starts designing clothes under tutelage from his dressmaker mother. In 1980, a young Cunanan receives preferential treatment from his stockbroker father Modesto as a result of having to care more for him following his wife's postpartum depression, resulting in him abusing Cunanan's mother and neglecting his siblings. Seven years later, Cunanan juggles attending private school and secretly dating older men. Modesto, meanwhile, flees to Manila after being fired for embezzling from elderly clients and learning that he is wanted by the FBI, leaving his family penniless. Cunanan tracks him down and confronts him over the charges only to be rejected. Upon returning to the United States, Cunanan applies for a job at a pharmacy, where he tells the manager that Modesto owns pineapple plantations.

9 "Alone"

On the evening of July 15, 1997, Cunanan hides in a Miami Beach houseboat in an attempt to evade both local and federal authorities. Over the course of the next two days, Cunanan attempts to leave the island city only to continue hiding due to the strong police presence. As the authorities interrogate Mary Ann and Ronnie, Marilyn grapples with the fact that he has gone unpunished. At the same time, Cunanan's friend Elizabeth Cote appeals to him in a television interview, David Madson's father insists his son is a victim, and Modesto uses Cunanan's story in an attempt to get attention after Cunanan calls him in a plea for help. On July 22, 1997, as Versace is buried in his family vault near Lake Como, Italy, Donatella tells Antonio he cannot stay in the house. The next morning, the authorities corner Cunanan, and he shoots himself in the mouth. Cunanan is later buried in a public mausoleum while Donatella prepares to meet with Versace's lawyers and Antonio attempts suicide.

IDENTITY UNKNOWN

US, 1945, 71 minutes, Black-and-white.
Richard Arlen, Cheryl Walker, Roger Pryor, Bobby Driscoll, Lola Lane, Ian Keith, John Forrest, Sarah Padden, Forrest Taylor, Frank Marlowe.
Directed by Water Colmes.

This is quite an earnest drama, a World War II film, acknowledging action in France and American involvement, the repatriation of those wounded in war, issues of amnesia, searching for identity, variation on post-traumatic stress disorder.

The film stars Richard Arlen, veteran of so many action films, a solid and reliable screen presence. He is seen first on a ship from Europe to the United States, recovering from injuries, not knowing who he is, the authorities trying to investigate. There are four dogtags with names which seem to be possibilities for his identity.

The drama of the film is his search for his identity, assuming the name of Johnny March (when Johnny comes marching home again…). For those who want detailed realism, the film has many holes, Johnny impulsively getting off the train with absolutely no luggage and seemingly able to survive, uniform immaculately clean. Then he is able to move from Kentucky to Connecticut, to Chicago, to Iowa without any seeming financial support, documents, and all in a week.

However, putting that aside, the film shows a cross-section of ordinary American society when Johnny goes to try to find which of the four names is his. The first is an encounter with a widow, just six months married, working on the swing shift. When she finds that he does not know the details about her husband, she attempts suicide. However, Johnny rescues her – explanations, forming a bond, falling in love. His second visit brings him to a house where the little boy in the house immediately assumes that Johnny is his father, shows him around the house, his father’s architectural designs, but the woman caring for the little boy does not recognise him and Johnny has to console the boy. There is quite a change in the third attempt at identity, a betting club in Chicago with some rather seedy characters. Again Johnny is not recognised by the proprietor. The dead man’s brother also works there and there is a complication with his stealing $1000 from a gangster to put it on a horse, and then a shooting attempt on the gangster. Johnny looks after the young man, the man saved from being shot by Johnny taking the bullet then offering to cancel the debt, pay for his education.

Film buffs will relish seeing Bobby Driscoll in a very early role, later to appear in The Window and as Jim Hawkins with Robert Newton in Treasure Island.

Johnny assumes, as does the audience, that the last port of call will reveal his true identity. The elderly mother faints when she sees Johnny. However, her husband does not recognise him. They are hospitable, Johnny helps them when they want to auction their house but not want to leave it and he makes a speech so that prospective buyers leave and the house does not go under the hammer.

In the meantime, the widow from Connecticut arrives, Johnny speeds along the roads in a truck, is pursued by the police, has no documents or identity, the MPs then taking him to the authorities where they have identified who he is – asking him some historical questions about dates which he answers and it emerges that he is a professor of history. And single! It emerges that he was not in the house which was bombed where the other four men were found but was a pilot trying to drop food and supplies to the men in the house and who crashed.

A very patriotic film – with some speeches but able to communicate to the audience by showing the range of families, the men going to war, being killed, and the grief of those left behind who have to build on their lives.

 

 

 

 

THE CARIBBEAN MYSTERY

US, 1945, 65 minutes, Black-and-white.
James Dunn, Sheila Ryan, Edward Ryan, Jackie Paley, Reed Hadley, Roy Roberts, Robert Shaw, William Forrest, Roy Gordon.
Directed by Robert D.Webb.

This is a small budget murder mystery from 20th Century Fox at the end of World War II. It is not particularly good or interesting. There are plenty of murders but the film is also corny. This is because of the casting of James Dunn as the central investigator, a wise cracking detective from Brooklyn going into the towns and jungles of the Caribbean. Dunn plays a lot of his performance for laughs which rather detracts from everybody else looking so serious, and everybody suspects for the murders.

There is an oil exploratory company on the island with its headquarters but, seemingly sinister. Two archaeologists are initially murdered and the local police blame the quicksand and the alligators. There are various characters who could be suspects for the murders, controlling the oil company and the search for pirate treasure. They include the governor, his son, his secretary, the local doctor, the police chief, assistant police…

Unfortunately, this leads to only moderate interest in the characters, the murders, and the motivations. And, with the governor's son, there is a touch of romance.

There are shootings, knife throwing, attacks in the jungle, and the final gathering of all the suspects and a revelation.

James Dunn made this film just after he made A Tree Grows in Brooklyn for which he won the Academy Award for Best Supporting Actor.

 

SAVAGE

New Zealand, 2019, 98 minutes, Colour.
Jake Ryan, John Tui, Chelsie Preston Crayford, Seth Flynn, Haan'z Fa'avae- Jackson, James Matamua, Jack William Parker, Alex Raivaru, Olly Presling, Lotima Pome's.
Directed by Sam Kelly.

It is. It is grim. It is often brutal.

Initially, this is a portrait of New Zealand gangs, in the setting of 1989. For the first 15 minutes the audience is immersed in the group, the details of its behaviour, attitudes, spirit. The intention of the director would seem to be to show the gangs, no holds barred, four-letter-word-spattered, but asking us, the audience, to stay with this impact because there is much more, more background, more explanations, more challenge…

The 1989 events introduce us to gang called Savages. The enforcer in the group is Damage, a tattooed mask on his face, big, burly, enforcing. There is a particularly harsh sequence where he punishes one of the members with an axe. Along with Damage is his close friend and gang leader, Moses, one of the many Maori men in the gang. These are characters that most audiences have never experienced except through the media, frightening characters. Damage is played by Melbourne actor, Jake Ryan. Moses is played by John Tui.

It is something of a relief when, after the 15 minutes of brutality, the audience is taken back to 1965. Damage is actually Danny, a young boy in a large family, living on the edge of town. The children, boys and girls, play, come in to meals – while their mother spends a lot of the time hanging clothes on the line, cooking the meals, with not enough food to go round, Danny offering her some of his. Their father comes home, a silent and sullen man, prone to violent outbursts.

It quickly becomes clear that the screenplay is going to develop the theme of how Danny became Damage, the ugliness and severity of domestic violence. When Danny steals some food for the family and he is caught, the family letting him go, the police take him to a juvenile hall. And, this hall has quite a number of young ‘offenders’, many Maori. Danny shares a room with one of them, Moses, a young lad with energy and initiative. The experience in the juvenile hall is as might be expected, severe disciplinarians, humiliation and beatings, a seemingly benign counsellor who initiates sexual advances (though these scenes quickly fade and there is no reference to them later). The two boys decide to escape.

With the 1965 sequences, it is clear that this film is not just a savage presentation of the gangs, but a social commentary.

And this is the case when the screenplay moves to 1972, the two teenagers, Danny and Moses, bonding, drifting, links with the gangs, and the dramatisation of the motivations – that these young men need to bond, that they need to have a substitute family, that they need to feel that someone is backing them up. The emphasis is not so much on gang aggression towards outsiders but strong fighting for turf, for the formation of gangs, forming the Savages, trying to find one’s place in this marginalised world. Complications arise for the two young men, especially with another gang, Danny confronting his brother Liam, appreciating his brother, then choosing gang over brother.

Which brings the audience back to 1989. Is Damage the same Danny as of the past? Is he in any position to understand himself and what has happened to him? And what of the memories of his father’s brutality, the suffering of his mother? Damage is also challenged by a young man, eager to become part of the gang, aping the older men, but attracted to a young woman and wanting to leave with her.

It is fair to say that there is some humanity at the end of the film. And quite some pathos. The screenplay achieves this, especially in the final four minutes, where there is no verbal dialogue, emotion communicated by body language, by eye contact, by long silent takes. This is such a contrast with what has gone before that it makes the ending quietly moving and hopeful.

1. The title and tone? The name of the gang and the individuals? Their way of life? Attitudes? Violence?

2. The New Zealand setting, the city, poor areas? The contrast with the countryside, towns and farms? The musical score?

3. The time shifts, beginning in 1989, reverting to 1965, to 1972, returning to 1989? Following Danny’s journey? Moses’ journey?

4. The impact of the opening, the gangs, their look, hair and beards, unkempt, big build, tough, drinking, drugs, the clubs and gatherings? The contrast with the group singing, the Maori songs? The ages of the group? The young man, wanting to be part of the group, coming on to the young woman, sexually explicit, aggressive, her resisting him? Damage, his friendship with Moses, leadership of the gang, with the visiting girl, aggressive, her warding him off? Damage summoning the man, his resistance, the axe in his hand? Audience response to the group, to the individuals, to the way of life?

5. Going back to 1965, the house at the edge of the town, the mother and the washing, haggard and sad, the number of children, playing? The meal, insufficient food, Danny offering his mother more? The father, the grace before meals, the children’s reaction, Danny defending his sister, his father’s anger, brutality?

6. Danny going into the shop, stealing the goods, being caught? The policeman, the family letting him go, his going to the juvenile hall? Entry, the authorities, the strict discipline, brutality and beatings, his sharing the room with Moses, befriending him, the older boys, his necklace? The kindly member of the staff, in his suit, coming into the room, the sexual approach? The fadeout, audiences making assumption about what happened? No later reference? The two boys, the deciding to run away?

7. The transition to 1972, the two teenagers, their way of life, drifting, hanging around, making friends, surviving, tough brutality? Danny encountering his brother, the gangs and the fights, Danny and the Savages, the confrontation and his giving up, the bonding with his brother, the clash, rejoining the Savages? The establishing of the gangs, the motivations, substitute families, some kind of bonding, everybody looking out for the other? The influence on role of Moses?

8. The transition back to 1989, Danny becoming Damage, his experiences, his going back to see his mother but just carving the mark on the fence? The clash with Liam? The life of the groups, tough, drinking, drugs, the brutal sensitivity? The women?

9. The young man, his status with the group, his love for the girlfriend, seeking her out, his running to the bus, hiding, the warrior coming to get him, with the group, Damage and the confrontation? His escaping?

10. The tension between Damage and Moses, the past friendship, the way of life, the clash?

11. Damage, reverting to his image of Danny, memories of the past? The emotional effect? Perpetrating the violence and its effect?

12. His return, the children, Liam meeting him, seeing his mother, looking happier with the children? The pathos of this ending and his change of heart? His future? (And the last five minutes of the film relying solely on acting, body language, facial expressions – and no verbal dialogue?)

THE BOYS IN THE BAND

US, 2020, 121 minutes, Colour.
Jim Parsons, Zachary Quinto, Matt Bomer, Andrew Rannells, Charlie Carver, Robin de Jesus, Brian Hutchison, Michael Benjamin Washington, Tuc Watkins.
Directed by Joe Mantello.

The Boys and the Band was a celebrated drama of 1968, written by Mart Crowley, a venture into gay themes, not to the fore in mainstream American theatre the time. It proceeded the Stonewall demonstrations of the next year. AIDS was more than a decade away. Then a film version was made in 1970, directed by William Friedkin. It was a signal that gay themes would emerge in American cinema during the ensuing decades – and, of course, beyond.

Here is a remake which keeps close to the play and to the first film version – and, interesting to realise, that this first film version was released before all but two of the present cast was born. They have worked together, an overtly gay cast and Dir, with theatre presentations of the play in 2018, winning the Tony for Best Revival of a Play, and now the performances and the drama are on the screen.

Audience perspectives have changed powerfully over the half century between the two versions.

In many ways, The Boys in the Band could be described as a drama of the gay male psyche – especially in Western cultures. The film and its treatment would still be under suspicion (or even ban) in a number of other cultures and religious traditions.

The two-hour running time is divided almost equally in two parts. The first part, as might be expected, introduces all the characters, the screenplay opened out for street scenes, subway scenes, their characteristics and eccentricities, each of them as individuals, but their all gathering for a party, a birthday party, for their friend Harold, at the apartment of their host, Michael. The initial focus is on Michael, played by Jim Parsons, sympathetic but fussy, harried and caught with a problem when his roommate (Brian Hutchison) from college days phones and wants to call in. As the guests arrive, some of them quite flamboyant in manner and camp style, the audience has time to get to know them, begin to like them or dislike them, and get caught up in quite some embarrassment as the friend actually turns up and is repelled by some of the camp behaviour, leading to a fight, but the friend deciding to stay.

Just when the audience might be wondering where this could all be going and, perhaps, already finding it a bit repetitious in the behaviour of the characters, the guest of honour, Harold arrives. He is played with intensity by Zachary Quinto (looking and acting in a very similar way to Leonard Frey in the original film). He dominates. He is idiosyncratically supercilious. He is mysterious.

Then the change in tone and the film becomes much stronger. It moves in the vein of Who’s Afraid of Virginia Woolf and other dramas where assembled party guests are invited to play the psychological game of Get the Guest. Michael is drinking, becomes exceedingly mean-spirited, dares the others to phone someone and declare their love for that person. It is here that the performances, especially of the ethnic characters, Emory (Robin de Jesus) and Bernard (Michael Benjamin Washington), come into their own, very moving attempts to find someone they love. The drama is intensified by the relationship between the seeming straight man (Tuc Watkins) and his very free-spirited lover (Andrew Rannells).

It all comes to a head with Michael’s denunciation of his college friend, demanding that he ring a mutual friend from those days, forcing him to declare his love. Which is not quite what happens.

This makes the last half of the film much more interesting and powerful as drama, intensity of friendships and hatreds. And, Michael left at the end with his Catholic background, humiliated by the failure of his game as he intended, going out to Mass, some exploration of his Catholic guilt, compounded by his orientation, initially closeted, coming out, the consequences in the 1950s and 1960s.

This version is being released on Netflix, available for audiences at home – not only in Western countries and cultures but throughout the world.

1. The significance of the play in the late 1960s, in the United States? The significance of the film, 1970, worldwide release? The significance of the revival in theatres in 2018, the winning of the Tony Award for Best Revival of a Play? Capturing that performance as a film? The availability on Netflix, and throughout the world?

2. The text of the play, the language of the 1960s, tone and relevance later? The importance of the dialogue and the character interactions?

3. The opening out of the play, the opening sequences, situating the characters outside Michael’s apartment, on the streets, shops and restaurants, the library, on the subway? And the flashback sequences for the various characters in the latter part of the film? Giving background to the characters and their situations?

4. The action of the film taking place in Michael’s apartment, the different rooms, upstairs, the main room, kitchen, bedrooms upstairs? The musical score?

5. The focus of the film on Michael (and Mart Crowley basing the character somewhat himself)? Jim Parsons as Michael, his age, Catholic background, college studies, childhood, closet, dating, Alan as his friend, the bond with Stuart? His hosting the party for Harold? The guests? His fussiness, worried about his hairline? Looking in the mirror, vanity?

6. Donald arriving, his manner, friendship with Michael, with the group, his work, the shower, the fact that he enjoyed reading, flirtatious talk, waiting for the guests, his being in the background during the first half of the film? His relationship with each of the men?

7. Bernard, his work in the library, in the subway, eyeing the men, the critical look from the woman? African- American? His manner? Part of the group? Friendship with Emory?

8. Emory, Hispanic, his manner, very camp, the steps of the dance, chatter, his arranging for the Cowboy to arrive as the birthday present for Harold? His friendship with Bernard, their banter, race issues?

9. The cowboy, the hustler, hired, not educated, looked down on by Michael, kissing the wrong man? The birthday cake?

10. Hank and Larry, Larry and his roving eye, the pickup in the street, yet his being with Hank, permissive? Flashbacks? Hank, the married man, children, with Larry, his coming out? The divorce? A seemingly unlikely couple?

11. Michael, the phone call from Alan, weeping, wanting to call in, changing his mind, eventually arriving? His reaction to Bernard and Emory dancing? Emory and his camp style, Alan insulting him, the fist fight? Alan having the drink, the story about college days with Michael, girlfriends, Stuart? Alan not leaving, staying, the effect on him, on each of the men?

12. The buildup to Harold’s arrival, his look, glasses, disdain, dominance, ironic comments? The interactions with each of the men? His reaction to the Cowboy? The meal, his eating, and his range of comments? His own background, his mother, Jewish?

13. The shift in the second part of the film, playing the game? Michael in charge, his drinking, his being mean-spirited? Getting at people? The ugly aspects of his own character? Setting up each for the game, the phone call, to identify the person on the phone, declaration of love? His own bitterness, his comments? Harold and his observations, comments?

14. The challenge to Emory, at school, the older boy, his sister, the gift for the dentist? Everybody finding out? His being ridiculed? His phoning the dentist, his being put off? His humiliation?

15. Bernard, as a boy, his infatuation with the young man of the house, the memory of the swimming together, the effect on him, on the boy, on the family? Bernard phoning, getting the man’s mother, the failure of his three marriages, out on a date, not admitting the love, comforting the mother?

16. Michael, and his goading Bernard, that Emory referred to him as “boy�, the racial issues? Emory embarrassed and apologising? Bernard and his standing his dignity against Michael?

17. Hank and Larry, the awkwardness between them, Alan and his observations, identifying with Hank as a married man with children, Hank and his explanations of his life, the flashback to the toilet sequence, his admitting his homosexuality? Larry, the contrast, justifying his roving eye, the bond with Hank, but his being free and other relationships? The dramatic effect of the phone but not phoning, Hank and his being able to say that he loved Larry? Larry being affected, his response?

18. Donald and his observing, not being asked to make a phone call?

19. The final taunt, Michael and his hostility, taunting Alan, pressurising him to ring Stuart, his talking about Alan and his relationship with Stuart? Alan making the phone call, quietly, the declaration of love – and the irony that he was ringing his wife? Michael seizing the phone? Embarrassed?

20. The cowboy and his observing? His ill-timed comments? His emerging as ignorant? The snobbery of the others taunting him?

21. Harold, observing, Michael taunting him about his background, his leaving, taking the Cowboy and the cake (and the scene in the car as they left)? Harold promising to phone Michael the next day?

22. Michael left with Donald, his being upset, the discussions about his Catholicism, God language, faith, homosexuality, sin and guilt? His deciding to go to mass? The scene in the church? His returning home? The final image of his running towards…?

AMRA AND THE SECOND MARRIAGE

Saudi Arabia, 2018, 94 minutes, Colour.
Alshaia'a Tayeb.
Directed by Mahmoud Sannagh.

Cinema became more respectable in the latter part of the 2010s in Saudi Arabia. There had been a few films from that country, Wajda, Barakha meets Barakha (from the same director), which had played in international festivals as did this current film.

The film opens more than a window for non-Saudi audiences to see something of the details of the country, from suburban homes and streets and garages to the huge oil industrial plants.

This is the story of Amra, 25 years married, her husband generally absent but, on returning home, treating her peremptorily, as his chattel more than his wife. They have three daughters – who are generally cantankerous towards their mother, one with a child, the other dating a somewhat hippie boyfriend with his drugs, and a younger girl who has piano ambitions.

Amra has been inculcated with the traditions, embarrassed when caught without the nequib in public, especially with a man. Yet, working diligently at home, a master cook, supplying for functions, cleaning, going to market, the ordinary jobs of the household.

She is also religious, beginning to be worried when she hears rumours that her husband is to take a second wife because he wants a son. And, she is continually criticised by her mother-in-law. However, she does have some friends in the community that many of the women turn against her when she has her troubles and is upset about the second marriage.

She prays, listen to cassettes of the Koran, consults religious leaders who have bogus remedies (and with statements like “women are the fuel in hell�.) She consults a lawyer who has three wives. She also watches videos of feminine speakers from the United States new ways of thinking and behaving.

As the marriage approaches, she becomes more and more resentful, challenging the bride, criticising her husband, setting fire to some of the celebrations – as well as to her mother-in-law.

While there are touches of comedy, more than touches of irony, the screenplay offers critical points about traditions of culture and religion in the Saudi context.

1. A film from Saudi Arabia? Audience awareness of life in Saudi Arabia, the Islamic tradition, customs, the Kingdom, the role of men, the place of women? 21st-century and world culture?

2. The city, the settings, the suburban streets and houses, the cars? The house and the kitchen? The community, close-knit? The vistas of the oil fields and the technology?

3. Amra’s story, her age, married for 25 years, the three daughters? Her status as a woman? Traditions of place, dress, modesty, serving? The effect on her personality? The response of the daughters, the daughter arriving home with the baby, relationships, the daughter out with her boyfriend, more permissive, drugs, wanting to drive the car…? The youngest daughter, at home, school, the piano?

4. Amra, her work and cooking, the dishes for the feast, her being ordered about? Her liking the cooking, cleaning? Her absent husband, the relationship?

5. The news of his taking a second wife, the age of the wife, that he wanted a son? Amra putting on a brave face, but her being upset, resentment? The advice of her friends and confiding in them? The arrival of her mother-in-law, dominant, criticisms, liking the food? Justifying her son?

6. Amra and her life, listening to cassettes of the Koran, taking her daughter to school, asking the neighbour if he would take the daughter, her being caught without the nequib and her modesty? Yet the attraction? Her consulting the religious leaders, the lawyer with his three wives, the bogus leader and his tonics and cures? Looking at the phone with the talks from the woman in New York? Urging change?

7. The ultimate effect on Amra? Her husband’s return, ordering her about like a slave?

8. The building up a presentment, the confrontation with the new wife, the issue of the crews, getting the gas and the fire, the flame and searing her mother-in-law’s face? The fire at the reception?

9. Amra, her place in the community, her future with her husband and daughters, the film as critique of the traditions and the place of women? Wives?

ON THE ROCKS

US, 2020, 96 minutes, Colour.
Rashida Jones, Bill Murray,) Marlon Wayans, Jenny Slate, Jessica Henwood, Barbara Bain.
Directed by Sofia Coppola.

On the Rocks could indicate a glass of scotch. On the Rocks, on the other hand, could be a marriage in danger. While Bill Murray’s character in this film enjoys more than a drink or two, the subject of On the Rocks is a marriage in trouble.

The film has been written and directed by Sofia Coppola, from the film-making Coppola family (with a final credit including mum and dad), and it is very much a woman’s perspective. Sofia Coppola has experienced a divorce. She has been married again since 2011 and has two children. It is clear that she knows what she is talking about – but, there is an extraordinary warmth in her creation of her central character, Laura, and a wonderful relationship between mother and daughters.

The early sequences, marriage and honeymoon, are full of zest and enthusiasm. There is a collage, of the early years, the birth of the first child, then the birth of the second, and then plunging into the realities and routines of everyday life, at home, the older child going to school, ordinary life, comfortable life, in New York City.

Laura is played with great warmth by Rashida Jones.

Yes, we have seen Dean (Marlon Wayans), loving husband, but very busy about creating a company, away from home, travelling a great deal, but isn’t this a phenomenon of many marriages?

The trouble comes when Laura’s father, Felix, Bill Murray, comes back into his daughter’s life. He is 70ish, more than a touch of the past playboy, having walked out on his wife, travelling extensively, and now being chauffeur driven around the city. He still has an eye for women and articulates his evolutionary theories about a man’s attraction to a woman. At first, the audience accept him, and Laura is lovingly genial taunts him though not without reminding him of his irresponsible past. He starts to sow the seeds of suspicion about Dean.

At this stage of her life and marriage, preoccupied with her children, writer’s block about her work at home, feeling the absence of her husband, she is susceptible towards her father’s suggestions (as the audience is as well). What follows is a series of mean suggestions from Felix, his having Dean followed, seemingly providing the evidence that Dean might be having an affair with his associate, innuendo about Dean’s neglect, and even persuading Laura to go on and excursion which ultimately falls flat on its face. Laura realises, as does the audience, that Felix is drawing on his own bad behaviour from the past and nastily extrapolating it on to Dean.

But the question does remain for a long time for Laura and the audience about Dean, innocent or not.

The film has quite a lot of dialogue, especially conversations between father and daughter, a lot of incidental episodes which build up quite a picture of each of them, symbolic in Laura’s name after the song in the 1944 thriller, Laura, and Laura’s inability to whistle.

In many ways, On the Rocks explores the triumph of niceness over nastiness.

1. Different meanings of the title? A drink? A difficult marriage?

2. A New York story, the atmosphere of the city, overviews, buildings, streets, apartments, offices, restaurants? In contrast with a visit to Mexico, the beach and the sea, the restaurant? The musical score?
The work of Sofia Coppola, writing, directing? The personal background? The female perspective? Wife, mother?

3. The opening, the happiness of the wedding, honeymoon, Chris Rock and his observations about intercourse, the collage, the passing of the years, the children? Laura and her life? Her relationship with Dean? His life, work?

4. Ordinary life, at home, Dean and his work, preoccupied, away from home, yet the bond with the family? Laura, work at home? Her writer’s block? Taking the daughter to school, the ballet? The little daughter? Satisfaction in life? Dean and his distance?

5. The routine of lining up before school, the chattering mother and all her issues, Laura’s reaction?

6. Laura, visiting the mother, her sister, the family friends? The background of her father?

7. Felix turning up, the playboy of the past, Bill Murray and his style? The past history, his story of meeting Laura’s mother and the attraction, their life together, the daughters, his wandering eye, affairs, his travel? Leaving her mother? Felix and his continued eye on all the women he encountered, offices, waitresses…? His philosophy of evolution and male attraction to female?

8. Laura’s relationship with Felix, love for her father, but her disappointments of his treatment of her mother? His turning up in her life? Going out, his company, the issue of whether she could whistle Laura or not? The details of their travel together, in the car, Felix’s chauffeur and observations?

9. The introduction of doubts about the marriage? Insinuations about Dean? Laura and her going to the party, feeling an outsider, the young women finding it difficult to talk with her? Fiona friendly?

10. Laura susceptible to her father suggestions, her going with him and observing Dean and the party, Fiona, his phone call about being late? Felix and his interpretation and comments?

11. Dean and the late telling of the trip to Mexico? Felix persuading Laura to go, the result of the an, Felix having Dean followed?

12. Fiona, the house in Mexico, Laura and the meeting with Fiona, the irony that Dean had gone home to be with her, Fiona and her partner?

13. Laura returning home, Dean and his playing with the children, Laura and the truth? The hurt on each side? The reconciliation?

14. A film for the female audience, empathy with Laura, her situation, the influence her father? A film for the male audience to understand women and wives, and the pressure on wives with men’s business and their being absent?