ELEPHANTS CAN REMEMBER

UK, 2013, 95 minutes, Colour.
David Suchet, Zoe Wanamaker, Greta Scacchi, Iain Glenn, Vincent Regan, Alexandra Dowling, Vanessa Kirby, Ferdinand Kingsley, Danny Webb, Ruth Sheen.
Directed by John Strickland.

This is one of the last of the full-length feature films and the television series of Poirot and Agatha Christie mysteries, featuring David Suchet as Poirot. It is also a good opportunity for a stronger appearance of Mrs Ariadne Oliver, Zoe Wanamaker, not just writing her own stories but actually investigating a mystery and collaborating with Poirot.

A mystery is created instantly with a sedate couple on the cliffs of Dover, shots ringing out, their both being dead. This is 1925 and the action goes to 1938. Mrs Oliver is approached at a function by a bumptious Mrs Burton- Cox (Greta Scacchi) who does not want her musician son (Ferdinand Kingsley, Ben Kingsley’s son) marrying Mrs Oliver’s goddaughter (Vanessa Kirby), daughter of the dead couple on the Dover cliff.

While Mrs Oliver gives all the information to Poirot, she begins an investigation, questioning those who remember the couple who had served in India, were happy, their deaths inexplicable. In the meantime, Poirot is invited to investigate the murder of an elderly doctor who specialised in hydrotherapy. The two seem unconnected but gradually a clue is given and, with Agatha Christie’s skill in complexity, all the deaths are quite connected.

There is a strong cast including Iain Glenn as the son of the murdered doctor, Vincent Regan as the police inspector, Alexandra Dowling as the doctor’s secretary (Poirot feeling that she is not from Boston because she pronounces Z in the Canadian pronunciation – and even says a boat instead of about).

An enjoyably complicated plot, the murderer of the doctor the least person who might have been suspected!

1. The popularity of Agatha Christie mysteries? The television series? With David Suchet as Poirot? One of the final films in the 24 year series? Poirot older?

2. The Dover settings? The cliffs, the clifftop, the sea, homes? The London settings, offices, the Willoughby Institute, the interiors, the hydrotherapy? The musical score?

3. The impact of the opening, the middle-aged couple, walking on the cliffs peacefully, the shots, their deaths? The return to the image of their deaths? Suicide pact? Murder? On whose initiative? The 1925 setting? Action going to 1938?

4. Mrs Oliver, her award, her presence in so many stories with Poirot? Her writing novels? Investigations and theories? Mrs Burton- Cox approaching her, dominating, wanting her to intervene with her goddaughter, the goddaughter intending to marry Mrs Burton- Cox’s son? Mrs Oliver’s reaction? Taking it to Poirot? His declining to follow through? Advising her to do nothing? On the contrary, her going to Dover, revisiting various connections? The old nanny, her old friend, the cook, the various reminiscences, the clues, Mrs Oliver’s notebook?

5. Memory, the reference to elephants, Mrs Oliver checking with all the elephants to see what they remembered? Poirot’s final comment that human beings can forget?

6. Dr Willoughby, his contacting Poirot, the death of his father, in the hydrotherapy bath? Poirot taking on the case? Meeting Inspector Beale, their past collaborations? The nature of the investigations, the interviews? Dr Willoughby and his alibi, going home, the strained relationship with his wife? His secretary? Her coming from Boston, her going home on the night? The questions about Dr Willoughby and the Institute, the use of hydrotherapy, his not having used it in the recent past?

7. Mrs Oliver, the various pieces of information, the dead woman her schoolfriend, being the godmother to her daughter, the gradual revelations of their story, their life in India, idyllic, the revelation of the twin sister, Dorothea, her attack on her children, her going to the institution, her release, staying with the couple, disappearing before their deaths? The general, dictating his memoirs, Zellie, her devotion to the family, Celia and her love for her, the background of Desmond and his infatuation with her? The revelation of her caring for Marie? Sending her to Canada and protection?

8. Celia and Desmond, hoping to marry? Celia and the story of her parents, Mrs Oliver as her godmother, their discussions, her meeting Poirot, the initial suspicions? Wanting to know the truth about her parents? Desmond, the music, his being attacked? His visit to Poirot? His being adopted, the story of his actress mother, the large bequest on her death? The role of Mrs Burton- Cox, are using the money, wanting the marriage stopped? The revelation that Desmond had been to Dr Willoughby?

9. Marie, wanting to tell the truth, the affair with Dr Willoughby? Giving him an alibi? Desmond telling Poirot he had been sent to Dr Willoughby? The revelations about Dorothea? The bringing of the two cases together?

10. Poirot and his visit to Paris, the discussions with Zellie, the revelation of the truth, her coming to England?

11. The revelation of the truth? Dorothea and her sister, Dorothea pushing her over the cliff, her husband promising revenge, the story that Dorothea had disappeared, her taking her sister’s place? The background of Dorothea, the attempts on her children’s life, jealousies, at the Willoughby Institute? The staging of the suicide pact? The clue of the dog not recognising Margaret? The general confronting Dorothea, shooting her, shooting himself? Zellie knowing the truth?

12. The murder of the older Dr Willoughby? The revenge motive for his treatment? Poirot confronting Marie, her giving Dr Willoughby the alibi, an alibi for herself, driving him? Her murdering his father? Her saying she came from Boston, Poirot tricking her about March 17 (feast of Saint Patrick), her not knowing, her pronouncing the Z, Canadian, the fact that
she was Dorothea’s daughter?

13. Celia, Desmond, glad to see Zellie, the truth, the marriage? And a final outburst from Mrs Burton-Cox?

14. Mystery solved? The prominence of Mrs Oliver in the story? Elephants can remember – humans can forget?

SERGIO

US, 2020, 118 minutes, Colour.
Wagner Moura, Ana de Armas, Brian F O’ Byrne, Garrett Delahunt, Clemens Schick, Bradley Whitford, Will Dalton, Pedro Hossi.
Directed by Greg Barker.

This is a portrait of United Nations diplomat, Sergio de Mello. In 2009, director Greg Barker made a documentary about him. A decade later he has returned with a film dramatising his life and some of his political action.

Sergio de Mello achieved a great deal in his life. It would probably be helpful for potential audiences to look him up, some Google searching, a look at Wikipedia, to see who he was, his Brazilian background, his academic life, his work with the United Nations – in an amazing range of different countries. In this film, however, the action is limited to a brief sequence in Cambodia, a significant amount of the film in East Timor, the last part of the film in Iraq.

The impact of the film will depend on what an audience is looking for. If it is a portrait of the diplomat, there is a great deal about his life and, especially, his relationship with Carolina, his second wife. Throughout the film there are love scenes, a sex scene, her supporting him in his work, her grief at his death. From this point of view, the scenes of diplomacy and international work could be seen just as background, or even interruptions, to the personal story. On the other hand, if audiences expect a drama of a diplomat, his talent and skills, seeing them exercised, then the love scenes may be seen as background or even interruptions.

The film was produced by Brazilian actor, Wagner Moura, noted for his social activities in his own country. He recently appeared, along with his present co-star, Ana de Armas, in the drama about Cuba and Cuban refugees in Miami, Wasp Network. He is a tall, strong, man, genial appearance, friendly manner. He is seen in a number of difficult situations, especially in roadblocks in Cambodia, East Timor, Iraq, cautioned by his fellow travellers but approaching the various authorities, exercising some charm, able to make progress.

This is seen particularly in the attention given to the fight for independence by the East Timorese from Indonesia, at the end of almost a quarter of a century of hostilities, domination by Indonesian forces. He represents the United Nations, is warned that independence is too difficult an achievement, especially when he is received in a hostile manner by the military leader, Xenana Gusmao, who rebukes him for wearing a scarf that is reserved for the nation’s Elders. The East Timorese also want an apology from the president of Indonesia. There is a brief telling scene where Sergio has an audience with the president who refuses to back down because of complexities, Sergio challenging him that an apology could be simple. While the campaign for the vote East Timor (and the Australian presence) is not mentioned, East Timor did achieve independence and Gusmao now gave Sergio his own scarf.

This means that the screenplay is something of a jigsaw puzzle, moving from the diplomacy to the love scenes, back again, sudden memories, even of his family in Rio de Janeiro. Because the framework of the film is his being sent to Iraq in 2003, not really wanting to go, clashing with the American administrator, Paul Bremer (Bradley Whitford), upset by the action of some of the American soldiers, setting up the UN office, with Carolina on the staff. The Al Qaeda leader targeted the hotel, a bombing – and the reminder that the followers became ISIS – and Sergio trapped in the rubble alongside his chief advisor, Gil Loechser (Brian F O’ Byrne, this character incorporating several of Sergio’s advisors) trapped with him. It is the scenario of facing death and your life passing before your eyes.

The actual Sergio appears in the final credits – scenes of his funeral, praise of him by the UN Secretary General, Kofi Annan and the suggestion that Sergio would have been a significant nominee for that post.

Something of a mixture and success depending upon what the audience was hoping for – and found.

1. Audience knowledge of Sergio De Mello? Worth checking out his history before viewing the film? His work for the United Nations? The huge range of countries in which he served? His death? Reputation in the UN, throughout the world? Possible candidate for General Secretary?

2. This film as a drama? The previous documentary by the director? The differences in perspective?

3. Audience expectations? Of a biography, of a portrait of Sergio, his Brazilian origins and background, family, relationships, his sons, Carolina? The emphasis on the love story?
The political aspect as background to this?

4. Audience expectations of a political drama? Sergio, his status, his skills, his experience? His role in the United Nations? The flashbacks to Cambodia? The central flashbacks to East Timor? His decision to go to Baghdad? The encounters with Paul Bremer? Disagreements in policy, 2003? His death?

5. The effect of the structure of the film, the linear framework of his going to Iraq and his death? The emphases on the personal scenes, the love story? The emphases on the politics? The intercutting with his dying in the explosion?

6. Sergio as a character, lively, Brazilian, amiable, love for his sons, but not knowing them well (and his son’s allergy to shrimp)? His mother? His ability with people? Courage of his convictions? His diplomatic skills? The meeting in Cambodia with the leader? Accepted even though differing? His going to East Timor, the condemnation by Xanana Gusmao, the rebuke about the wearing of the elder’s scarf, his visit with the president of Indonesia, the success of his East Timor collaboration? The acknowledgement by Xanana Gusmao and presentation of the scarf? Going to Iraq, disagreeing with the American invasion, his stopping the vehicle and criticising the brutality of the American soldier, setting up the headquarters in a hotel, his staff, visiting the prison? The interactions with Paul Bremer? The explosion?

7. Carolina, in East Timor, the love story, sex scenes, the effect on each of them? Her presence in Iraq, the relationship? Injured in the explosion, keeping vigil, her emotional anxiety, the final words with Sergio?

8. Gil Loescher, his presence with Sergio in the difficult situations (and his being a composite character of many who worked with Sergio)? Hesitations, advice, wary in East Timor? Going to Iraq? Supportive? His own injuries? The brutality of the amputations? His survival?

9. The soldiers and the rescue of Gil and Sergio? Their concern, abilities? The amputation? Unable to save Sergio?

10. The final tribute by Kofi Annan? Sergio’s funeral? Seeing the actual Sergio in the credits?

11. The film offering some background to United Nations diplomats, the difficulties of their negotiations, the responses in different countries and hotspots, their achievements?

23 WALKS

UK, 2020, 95 minutes, Colour.
Dave Johns, Alison Steadman.
Directed by Paul Morrison.

Mostly on Hampstead Heath. And with dogs.

This is a very entertaining outing for those of us who are not as young as we used to be. And, it is entertaining for those who don’t want a lot of violent action up there on the screen, or on the small screen either, but are happy to keep company with with two likeable characters, share their lives, enjoy their happiness, be upset at their griefs, live in hope, at least, for a happy ever after.

And our two characters and Dave and Fern. Each of them lives alone although they have adult children, Dave with grandchildren. And each of them has a dog, Dave has Tilly. Fern has Harry. They all live in London, Dave in a housing estate but he is threatened with having to move away to Luton. Fern lives in the house co-owned with her former husband, who wants the house to go on sale, she expecting to have to find a small flat.

Any walk on Hampstead Heath, in fine London weather, the grass, the trees, the paths, the view towards the city is always attractive. (There are several further walks out in countryside settings.)

Not that the first meeting is auspicious – at all. While Tilly and Harry make instant connection, Fern is rather grumpy about the dogs tangling, ticking Dave off. But, as frequently happens (we hope) in real life, the continued encounters move from gruff, to polite acknowledgement, to the exchange of a few words, to longer conversations, to a developing friendship. And the screenplay, by Paul Morrison (who is who comparatively few films: 1999, Solomon and Gaynor with dialogue in English, Welsh and Yiddish; a delightful film about cricket, Wondrous Oblivion, 2003; a story about Federico Garcia Lorca, Luis Bunuel, and Salvador Dali with Robert Pattinson of the artist, Little Ashes, 2008) sounds just right.

But, of course, how we respond relies very strongly on the performers. Dave Johns is a comic performer in England, sometimes in films, but who made an extraordinary impact as Ken Loach’s I, Daniel Blake – and in this one too he has some difficult interactions with bureaucracies. Alison Steadman has had a long career as a character actress in film and television. Dave Johns is the gentle a character. Alison Steadman is the stronger character, more hurt by life. Although, we discover that Dave has a secret that he should have revealed earlier, a secret that shows his tenderness, but also his deep need for some friendship and love.

Which means that what might seem on paper to be rather sentimental, has a great deal of warm sentiment but some tough realities, Dave and the memories of his wife, the demands from his daughter, delighting in his grandchildren. Fern has a sadness with her son, reformed addict, but enjoys learning some Spanish before she goes to her daughter’s wedding in the Canary Islands.

The couple work with each other so well, show how friendship actually works and, step-by-step, leads to the possibilities of love and intimacy.

As mentioned, this is a story for the older audience – but it won’t hurt a younger audience to see it and appreciate what life has meant, now means for the older generations.

1. An entertaining friendship film, for older audiences? (For younger audiences to learn?)

2. The title? The listing of the walks? Hampstead Heath? The park, the grass, shrubs and trees, the views of London? Other walks in the countryside? The musical score?

3. Dave out on his walk, with Tilly? The tangle with Harry? Fern and her reaction? Her telling Dave off? The second walk, the gruff response from Fern? The continued walks, exchange of words, politeness, talking, sharing, liking, friendship? The credible development of a friendship?

4. Dave, the genial presence of Dave Johns, his age, living alone, his having to move to Luton, the discussions with the bureaucrats? His not telling Fern the truth about his wife? His daughter, the grandchildren, his looking after them? The photo of his wife? Mixed race? His going to see Marcy, her nonresponse? The daughter popping in and out, matter-of-fact? His telling Fern that his wife was dead? The consequences of his lying? For himself? For Fern?

5. Fern, her background, show business, singing and dancing, her first marriage, the death of the daughter, the picture on the wall? Her son, his addiction? Her daughter, in the Canary Islands, the invitation to the wedding? Her learning Spanish? Dave teaching her, the conversations? Her former husband, his infidelity with his secretary, arriving to pick up his tools, his gruff manner? His wanting to sell the house? Fern having to buy a flat?

6. The bond with two dogs, the focus on the dogs, their friendship, Tilly becoming ill, Fern coming, talking, Tilly reviving? Tilly eventually dying? Fern sharing the grief with Dave?

7. The growth of the friendship, the sharing of meals, the visits, the dancing, reticence in expressing friendship, timing, the possibility of a relationship? The grandchildren seeing Fern and liking her? The outing? Dave’s daughter and her hostile response? Defence of her mother?

8. Dave telling the truth, after the intimacy, the effect on Fern? Breaking off? The difficulties with phone calls? Fern and her loneliness, the house sold, buying the flat? Dave, his having to move?

9. The sensitivity of the screenplay, Dave and his regrets, wanting love, reaching out to Fern, apologising? Her reaction to him? Her regrets? Upset? Dave seeing her with the man on Hampstead Heath? Her brother and the cancer diagnosis?

10. Gradual reconciliation, the willingness on either part, sharing the bed, reticence and reserve? The final episode, the sexual encounter, the willingness of each?

11. Each growing in some kind of independence, but inter-dependence with each other? The future?

 

 

 

 

THE MYSTERIOUS MR WONG

US, 1934, 63 minutes, Black and white.
Bela Lugosi, Wallace Ford, Arline Judge, Robert Emmett O' Connor.
Directed by William Nigh.

Wrong Wong. This Mr Wong is not that Detective played in a series by Boris Karloff (also directed by the director of this film, William Nigh). This is a Bela Lugosi vehicle several years after his performance as Dracula.

An initial introduction is given about 12 coins given by Confucius to his friends. In this story, the coins are in San Francisco, in Chinatown, and there is a series of killings to recover the coins. The power behind the murders is Mr Wong, Bela Lugosi like a Fu Manchu, make up, but with his distinctive Hungarian/Dracula accent.

In retrospect, these dramas of the 30s and 40s, in the Chinatowns of the cities of California, seem more than politically incorrect, and exaggerated presentation of the Chinese, their characteristics, their dangerous presence. Mr Wong is particularly dangerous, is threatening to a young girl in his captivity, operates a shop with a secret entrance and exit, has a series of tough Chinese thugs to do his violent errands. There is also an agent sent to investigate Mr Wong. And there is a translator of documents, especially one found indicating where the last remaining coin is.

Along with this kind of thriller atmosphere, the rest of the film is that of screwball comedy, Wallace Ford as a wisecracking, self-confident newspaper reporter investigating the case. Arline Judge is the phone receptionist at the newspaper, with her eye on Wallace Ford but also on a rival from another paper. She becomes involved in all the journalist’s investigation, dead bodies, torture chamber, Fu Manchu kinds of threats – but the reporter having a lucky break, finding a telephone off the hook even though he is bound, alerting the police, a 1930s quick shootout, and everything resolved.

William Nigh, originally a Keystone cop, directed a great number of these thrillers from the silent era to the 1940s.

 

THE CLOCKS

UK, 2009, 93 minutes, Colour.
David Suchet, Tom Burke, Jaime Winston, Anna Massey, Phil Daniels, Leslie Sharp, Beatie Edney, Abigail Thaw, Guy Henry, Geoffrey Palmer, Tessa Peake Jones, Jason Watkins, Stephen Boxer, Frances Barber.
Directed by Charles Palmer.

The Clocks is one of the last in the television series of adaptations of Agatha Christie mysteries. By this time, David Suchet had been acting as Poirot for 20 years. He became the embodiment of Poirot in many television audience’s imaginations.

The setting here is Dover in 1938, Dover Castle with its tunnels and used by the Admiralty in order to be prepared for a German invasion over the channel. The film begins with some espionage, and a car accident. Tom Burke is Colin Race, the son of Colonel Race who worked with Poirot on previous investigations (this is a development by the screenwriter). He feels guilty because he ignored the phone call from the young woman following the spy. He approaches Poirot at the theatre (at a play by Mrs Ariadne Oliver, who does not appear in the film). Poirot goes to Dover, encountering the local inspector, Hardcastle (Phil Daniels).

The young woman who was killed has written an address on a piece of paper, Colin Race investigating in the street and encountering a young secetary rushing hysterically from a house. There is a dead body inside. The house is owned by a blind woman, Anna Massey.

Poirot, with Hardcastle, interrogates the people in the street – but Hardcastle’s main suspect is the young woman, Sheila Webb (Jaime Winston, surprisingly demure with so many rough-and-tumble performances to come). Colin Race is attracted by her and protective of her.

There is quite a range of neighbours in the street providing some dramatic interest.

What emerges is two separate murder cases, connected only by the blind woman and her house. She and one of the neighbours are involved in the espionage, she from humane reasons to prevent young men, like her own sons, being killed in war. The body in her house is a quite independent murder, orchestrated by one of the couples who have inherited money from Canada, and the revelation of their sister in Dover, who manipulates the whole scenario.

A quite entertaining variation on Agatha Christie’s plots and styles, two murders coming together in the one investigation.

1. The popularity of Agatha Christie mysteries? The television series? With David Suchet as Poirot?

2. This film towards the end of the series? The 1938 setting? Dover Castle, the underground tunnels, the Secret Service, the Admiralty? The tunnels and corridors? Documents? Mines in the channel? Preparation for a German attack? The espionage atmosphere?

3. The city of Dover, the white cliffs, the Castle, the streets, homes, secretarial service, promenades? The musical score?

4. The opening, the agent, photographing the material, the fellow worker noting, following, confronted, the man with the gun, the car accident? Colin Race, his presence in the Castle, playing cards, putting off Fiona, his subsequent sense of guilt?

5. The theatre, Mrs Oliver’s play and Poirot solving everything? Colin Race approaching him, memories of his father, Colonel Race and solving crimes with Poirot? His explaining the situation to Poirot?

6. Inspector Hardcastle, his investigations, his schema on the wall, meeting Poirot, the questioning, his building his case, suspect, inflexible, not understanding Poirot? The work together? Hardcastle’s final congratulations?

7. Fiona, the pursuit of the spy, noting down the address, the irony of later turning it upside down? The address and the investigations by Colin Race? His encounter with Sheila, her fears? Comforting her, taking on the case?

8. Sheila, her work at the secretarial office, the phone call, the appointment for Miss Pebmarsh, the door open, sitting and waiting, the four clocks, the incorrect time (and the indication of the room at the hotel for her assignations with the professor), her Rosemary clock? Her discovering the body, her reaction? Hardcastle seeing her as the main suspect? The investigation revealing further suspicious aspects? Colin attracted by her, spending time with her? The discovery of the clock and the knife? His momentary disillusionment? The going to prison?

9. The Secretariat, Miss Martindale, efficiency, Nora Brent, her chatter in the office? The girls, the roundup, going to the inquest, Nora trying to talk to the police, about the inconsistencies in testimony, being put off, her phoning the police, her being murdered in the phone booth?

10. The attempts to identify the body of the dead man, the insurance scam, the photo description, Merlina Rival coming forward, identifying, former husband, the nick behind his ear?

11. The residents of the street and the questioning? The father with his deals in France, impatient, the two girls and their playing in the treehouse, observing, rummaging, finally finding the evidence? Mr and Mrs Bland, her Canadian background, acting, coming into money, her husband’s answering the questions – the momentary scene with his impatience with her? The brother and sister academics? The revelation of the German background and coming to England – and their being Jewish? The cat woman, the comedy with the cats and Poirot’s allergy, her overhearing the conversation? Cooperation with Poirot?

12. Miss Pebmarsh, blind, World War I, the photo and her sons, their death? Her working for the photographer? Coming home, the open door, the finding of the body? The mystery to her? Her conversations with Poirot, especially about the photos? His returning to verify theories with the photos?

13. The admiral, his impatience with Colin Race, bringing in Poirot, wanting action? The meetings and discussions?

14. Poirot, getting the information, urging Hardcastle to let Sheila go?

15. Poirot assembling the group, the revelation of the two murders and their not being connected except by Miss Pebmarsh’s address?

16. The espionage, the arms dealer and his going to France, going through his suitcases, finding the evidence, his attempt to run? His contact with Miss Pebmarsh? Her motivation, not wanting young men to be lost in war again? The dealer and his strong fascist stances, anti-Churchill, anti-appeasement?

17. The other line of investigation, Merlina Rival and her murder? Wanting more money for her silence? The revelation of the identity of Mrs Bland, the death of the first Mrs Bland, the Canadian inheritance, living in Dover, the revelation that Miss Martindale was her sister, Miss Martindale and her schemes, no phone call, buying the clocks, the murder of Nora Brent, Mr Bland and his violence, the dead man being the first Mrs Bland’s brother?

18. The effect on Sheila, under suspicion, Colin Race and his embarrassment? Poirot urging him to follow her?

THE VIGIL

US, 2019, 89 minutes, Colour.
Dave Davis, Menashe Lustig, Malky Goldman, Lynn Cohen, Fred Melamed, Ronald Cohen.
Directed by Keith Thomas.

Vigil, in the past, has possessed religious connotations. And so it has here.

This is a horror film with a difference. Dialogue is in English but much of it in Yiddish. While it is set in New York City, it is set within the Jewish community, giving an initial explanation of the ritual of keeping vigil by a dead body, keeping guard over the body, a comforting presence for members of the family. The name of the person keeping vigil, the technical name is Shomer. So, the audience is prepared for this kind of vigil and whatever may happen. Pre-credits, there is an additional teaser with some dark and images from the concentration camps, a victim, an official, a man with a gun ready to shoot (with the scene returning towards the end of the film).

There is a transition to a group of young Jewish men and women in a room, discussing, quite earnestly, some situations in which they have found themselves. Audience attention is drawn to one young man, Yacov (Dave Davis, not the most Jewish name), seen looking at himself in a mirror, studiously, then taking some medication. As the group disperses, they notice a rabbi standing by lamppost in the street. As they exit, and Yacov exchanges phone numbers with one of the young women, Sarah, the rabbi approaches him with a proposition. He needs a Shomer, and offers the job to Yacov – and we learn soon enough that Yacov was a very devout, Orthodox, a Shomer, but seems to have lost his faith, has become quite secular, especially in his money deal for payment to be a Shomer.

The dead man is Mr Litvack, a reclusive man, mourned by his wife who has Alzheimer’s. While it is uncomfortable, Yacov has been a Shomer before, and is persuaded to settle in for a vigil of five hours before the mortician’s arrive.

It is dark inside the house and, of course, some of the lights will flicker and fail. The camera goes often to the clock, time passing quickly, then not… The setting has its effect on Yacov as he gazes at the body covered by a sheet, looks around the room, checks with his mobile phone, making some contact with Sarah.

But, as the night progresses (or regresses for Yacov), he is sometimes asleep, sometimes awake, sometimes awake in his sleep, nightmare experiences, tormenting memories, upsetting imagination. He especially recalls an incident where he accompanies, wearing his Orthodox locks and hat, a young boy down the street when they are attacked by a group of men, Yacov pushed to the ground, recovering his hat, but immobile to help the young boy, guilt continuing to weigh on him. Mrs Litvack appears during the night in disturbing ways. The body seems to disappear under the sheet but returns. And there is blood on it covering its head. The concentration camp scene recurs.

Yacov has had his mental and emotional problems, phones his therapist and leaves a message – and the mystery of a therapist bring back with detailed instructions, then the real therapist returning the call.

Which means then that the audience shares Yacov’s vigil, shares his mental and emotional situation, sees a film in the basement where the dead man talks about the effect of demons and their reaching out.

Day dawns. New York seems normal. But, of course, it is not.

1. An American- Yiddish horror story?

2. The New York setting? The group meeting? The streets? The houses, exteriors? Interiors? The musical score and atmosphere?

3. The insertion of flashbacks, concentration camps? To fantasies within the house? To memories in the street and the attack? To the fantasies within Yacov’s mind?

4. The initial explanation? The Shomer and the Jewish ritual? Significance? The dead person and family?

5. The initial indication of the concentration camps, as a teaser as to what was to follow?

6. The group, friends, the discussions, their experiences, Yacov in this context? Looking in the mirror, taking his tablets?

7. The rabbi at the lamppost, his accosting Yacov, his mission? Persuasive? Yacov and his reaction, and willing? Yacov and his loss of faith? His mental state? Bargaining for the money? Going to the house, meeting Mrs Litvack? Her unwillingness to have him? His settling in?

8. The five hours, sitting in the room, the clocks, Mrs Litvack’s return, her accosting him, discussions with him, her effect on him? The memories of the concentration camp? Memories of her husband? The shootings? His lying dead, the vigil? The basement, the film, his explanations of the Demons?

9. The effect on Yacov, his sleeping, dreams and nightmares, waiting? The mixture of both?

10. The memories with the boy in the street, walking home, the men attacking, hitting him, his hat, his being helpless, unable to save the boy? Weighing on his conscience?

11. The mobile phones, the continued contact, the discussion with Sarah as he left the meeting, promise for contact? The phoning, face time? His phoning his psychiatrist? The advice? The real psychiatrist ringing? Questions?

12. His injuries, the drinking and his imagination, the broken glass? Mr Litvack’s body disappearing under the sheet, returning, the blood on the head?

13. The cumulative effect of all these experiences? Daylight? The rabbi coming?

14. The effect of the vigil on Yacov? On the audience?

THE LODGERS

Ireland, 2017, 95 minutes, Colour.
Charlotte Vega, Bill Milner, Eugene Simon, David Bradley, Deirdre O' Kane.
Directed by Brian O' Malley.

The Lodgers is an Irish ghost story, centring on twins, Rachel and Edward, Charlotte Vega and Bill Milner, who live in a decaying mansion. There are ghostly apparitions, especially at midnight.

On the other hand, this is an Irish setting after world War one, the Irish criticising the British soldiers, a young man, Sean, Eugene Simon, returning injured from the war, seeing Rachel and attracted to her.

The twins are in debt, the manager of the estate, David Bradley, comes to visit, explaining the dire situation.

However, the narrative builds up to an attack on Sean, his being injured, yet his going back to the house to find Rachel, a confrontation with Edward, knives. The ghosts arise – and the film has quite a pessimistic ending.

1. An Irish horror story? Ghost story?

2. The setting, the Irish town, the countryside, the lake, the mansion, interiors? The streets, the shop? The early 20th century? Tombstones, 1916? The First World War, the aftermath, the British soldiers, the Irish soldiers? The musical score?

3. Rachel and Edward, twins, Rachel older and taking responsibility? By the lake, her waking, running home, the significance of midnight? The rising of the water drops? The water invading the mansion? The ghosts? Rachel and her reaction? Edward and his fears? His dependence on Rachel? Intimacy? Home scenes, breakfast, searching the house?

4. The background story, the twins, each generation, each producing twins? The image in the painting? The doom of forever having twins?

5. Rachel, going to the town, observing Kay, the young man? Going to the shop, the proprietor, antagonistic, Rachel not paying the bill?

6. Sean, the young men around town, the British soldiers, his service in the war, returning home, his mother, his sister? His wound, his leg? His seeing Rachel, following her, her reaction? Rachel pursued by the young men of the town and locking them out?

7. The letter, Mr Bermingham, administering the property, money running out, Rachel giving him the jewels, but not the locket with the parents’ pictures? Sean observing, Rachel confronting him?

8. Edward, his life, behaviour, fears, believing the worst of Rachel and Sean? Discovering the truth? His advances?

9. Rachel, the young men, Sean, the ghosts, the attack?

10. Midnight, the apparitions, Rachel seeing the ghosts rising from the lake? The water in the house? Sean coming? Going upstairs, the fight with Edward, the knife? Edward wounded? The knife through Sean’s hand? Rachel and the rescue?

11. The water, Rachel and the water, Sean diving in, trying to rescue her, his being overcome, her rising to the surface?

12. Packing her bag, leaving? What future?

THIRD GIRL

UK, 2008, 93 minutes, Colour.
David Suchet, Zoe Wanamaker, David Yelland, Jemima Rupert, Matilda Sturridge, Tom Mison, Caroline O 'Neill, James Wilby, Peter Bowles.
Directed by Dan Reed.

Third Girl is one of the lesser novels of Agatha Christie, not even reviewed by some outlets on its release in the 1960s. However, it is a reminder that Agatha Christie’s mysteries have been very popular over many decades and the television series with David Suchet as Poirot also very popular.

The original setting with the 1960s but has been transferred back to the 1930s, the period for all the television series. The action is confined to London, a young woman, nervy, consulting Poirot and confessing to murder. In this story, Poirot has the help of his friend, the novelist, Ariadne Oliver, played by Zoe Wanamaker.

In many ways, this is not a solution of a murder but Poirot working to prevent a murder, the young woman, who lives in a flat with her two friends. But, she has an extensive back story, her mother’s suicide, her father’s abandonment of the family, his return from South Africa, another wealthy relative who is about to marry his younger assistant, a young man, a photographer, who seems to be something of a cad.

Poirot does his investigation, leading him to the headmistress of an exclusive school, her lying to him and a revelation her relationship with the husband who abandoned his family leading to a plot of greed and violence.

1. The popularity of Agatha Christie’s novels, mysteries, clues, solution? Series with David Suchet?

2. One of the least known of Agatha Christie’s novels, from the 1960s, the decision to go back to the 1930s, the setting of the others in the series?

3. The London settings, the apartment blocks, the streets, the atmosphere of the city? The musical score?

4. The focus on Norma, the background of her mother’s suicide, the disappearance of her father to South Africa, her affection, his abrupt departure, no contact? Her mother’s mental condition? Norma’s mental condition? Her boarding with the other two women, the third girl? The visit to Poirot, the confession of murder, disturbed, Poirot’s response?

5. The character of Ariadne Oliver, writing novels, her manner, discussions with Poirot, with the girl, going to the party, meeting David Baker, the other girls, the death of the nanny, her deciding to investigate further, confrontation, her being hit, hospital?

6. Norma and her situation, the return of her father, the family business, his assistant, being one of the girls and the flat? Her return to the family estate? Sir Roderick Horsefield, his relationship with Norma, the house, Sonja as his assistant?

7. The nanny, her murder?

8. David Baker, his charm, photographer, Frances posing for him, Norma’s attraction, his response to her? Ariadne Oliver’s visit? The truth?

9. Norma, the friendship of the two other girls, Claudia and her support, Frances and her continued care, going out of her way?

10. Poirot, the interviews, with Norma’s father, the empty office? With Sir Roderick? Getting the background? The portraits on the wall, the slashed portrait? The headmistress, the interview, her inconsistency with dates?

11. The threats to Norma? Her flashbacks to her mother?

12. Poirot devising the role play, Norma and the invitation of her mother’s death?

13. Poirot, assembling everyone, the revelations about the father, his death in South Africa, his friend taking his place, his callous attitude towards his daughter? Sir Roderick and marrying Sonia? The headmistress, her life, her relationship with Sir Andrew, Frances as her daughter, Frances and her scheming, hostility? Wanting Norma out of the way, the inheritance?

14. The complexities of the relationships, Poirot and the clues, the solution?

 

 

 

 

BIK ENEICH/ A SON/ UN FILS

Tunisia, 2019, 95 minutes, Colour.
Sami Bouajila, Najla Ben Abdallah, Youssef Khemiri.
Directed by Mehdi Barsaoui.

A simple title, direct, for a drama that might happen anywhere in the world, but a simple title for a treatment of its themes which is cultural and geographical specific.

In fact, the setting is Tunisia (with some sweeping location photography, especially in the mountains). The date is 2011. Audiences will appreciate that this is the period of the Arab Spring in North Africa. In the background of this story are references to strict Islamists wanting power, armed groups in road ambushes, and, especially, what was happening in neighbouring Libya, uprisings, the privy to the downfall of Colonel Gadaffi.

This is the background, but, centre-screen, is the story of a family. It starts with exuberance and joy, father, mother and son, friends and relatives, out at a picnic, hopeful, modern and contemporary, happy prospects. (As in other Tunisian films, the picture of Islamic Tunisian society is a mixture of tradition, especially in women's dress, and a more secular lifestyle.) Within the first 15 minutes, A Son moves from this exhilaration, mother father and boy jubilantly singing in the car on the way home, to unexpected violence, to a crisis, hospital and surgery, the probing of family secrets.

A word to describe the experience of this film is harrowing. While we might say that, at times, life itself is harrowing enough, it seems very important to experience this kind of harrowing story, experience its beginning, complex developments, and ending within two hours of screen time. (This film has been compared to some Iranian films of recent years, in subject and in quietly dramatic style, like A Separation, a just comparison, a quietly intense sharing with characters, troubles, sadness, that touches both heart and mind in ways unanticipated.)

Sami Bouajila is a celebrated French actor with African background and has appeared in a number of films for two decades. Here he plays Fares, a successful businessman, devoted to his wife, Meriem, who is also a professional. They have an 11-year-old son, Aziz, who seems to have a zest for life. And it is he who is taken to hospital, requiring demanding surgery, hanging on for his life, much of his liver destroyed, in need of a liver transplant (but finding himself way down on the list for transplants, strict legal and religious traditions in Tunisia, permissions and documentation required).

While the focus is on Aziz and audience hopes for successful surgery, the drama takes us into unanticipated complications, emotional complications to be handled by Fares and Meriem. They are complications that audiences will recognise and appreciate how difficult it is to communicate them and deal with their consequences.

There is also a significant sub-plot, a sleazy entrepreneur who haunts hospital waiting areas and checks out anxious parents, offering them alternate (and expensive) ways for transplants and a revelation about a black market in organ donors and a cruel exploitation of young children.

This is the first full-length feature of the Tunisian director, Mehdi Barsaoui. It is accomplished filmmaking, accomplish storytelling, an accomplished invitation for the audience to be willing to share harrowing experiences.

1. A moving and humane film? Harrowing?

2. Universal story? Audiences able to identify with characters and situations? Crises? Yet culturally and geographically specific? Tunisia? 2011, the Arab Spring? The background to this story, Islamist attempts at power, neighbouring Libya and uprisings?

3. Tunisia, the vistas of the countryside, the mountains? The city, hotels, hospitals? The organ exploitation, buildings, operation theatres? The musical score?

4. The exuberance of the opening, Fares a devoted father, Meriem a loving mother? Aziz, at 11? The picnic, celebration of work and promotions? The scoffing at the Islamists? The drive home, the music, everybody singing? The more secular Tunisian Muslims and their lifestyle?

5. The roadblock, the ambush, the bullets, Aziz being wounded? The blood, the rushed to the hospital, the nursing staff? The doctor? Fares and his bloodstained clothes, the waiting room, the anxiety, the sympathetic doctor? The medical and surgical explanations? The wounds, intensive care, possibilities for recovery, the deterioration of the liver and its excision, the need for a liver transplant?

6. The parents, the transplant, the tests, the fact that Fares was not the father, the doctor urging Meriem to tell her husband? Her hesitation? The issue of the past adultery and the law, denunciations, prison? Eventually telling him, the door shutting in the audience not hearing her? The dramatising of the impact, Fares and his shock, grief? Meriem and her dismay?

7. Fares not able to donate the liver? Meriem and the blood type? The danger for her donation? Aziz and the rejection? The search for the father, the phone calls, his disappearance? Eventually tracking him down, friends helping Meriem? His being unwilling?

8. The time passing, the desperation, the team from Tunis standing by?

9. Mr Chokri, friendly, going to the cafe, his knowing all about Fares, his suggestion for alternate treatment? Fares and his interest, checking out, Chokri and his staff, bringing the doctor with her reputation? The cost?

10. The organ transplant criminal activity, Chokri and his aide, getting through the border with Libya, paying off the police? The centre, the children, numbers not names, their playing, the uprising in Libya, their having to be transported? Fares, the phone call, the meeting with Chokri's assistant, handing over the money, the handing over of the little boy, Fares and his dismay? In the car, the boy playing with all the knobs, seeing his scar? Taking him to an orphanage, leaving him to be cared for? The impact of this experience?

11. Deadlines, the return to the hospital, Meriem and her news of the father refusing? Her reaction to the organ transplant scheme?

12. The visit to the father, his secrecy, wife and family, the stipulation that Aziz should never know? His going to the hospital, preparing for the transplant?

13. The atmosphere and mood of the finale, Fares and Meriem sitting separately, their gaze at each other? The future for them? Possibilities for forgiveness? Aziz and recovery? His being a bond for them?

 

DANCING AT THE VATICAN

UK, Argentina, Italy, Venezuela. 2019, 40 minutes, Colour.
Charles Sabine.
Directed by Brian Moore.

Not an expected activity! However, at the end of this moving documentary, a number of pilgrims move up to the stage of the papal audience hall, a popular Argentinian singer, Axel, playing his guitar, a spirit of joy. By this time, we have come to know who these dancers are.

The group at the papal audience had a slogan, “Hidden No More�.

Which makes us realise that, if we Had not had direct contact with someone suffering from a particular illness, a named disease, like Parkinson’s or Alzheimer’s, we do not know much about the illness at all. Since the disease featured in this documentary is Huntington’s Disease, we realise that it does not have quite the public profile as, say, Parkinson’s, where, again, people in the public profile, like Pope John Paul II or actor, Michael Fox, are well-known.

So, this brief film serves as a deserved public recognition of those, around the world, who suffer from Huntington’s Disease. And the realisation that it is not contagious, but rather is inherited. The producer of the film is a British journalist, himself and inheritor, Charles Sabine, who had the idea of enlisting Pope Francis in the campaign for better recognition and understanding.

The focus is on a community in Venezuela, on Lake Maracaibo. We are introduced to the population of the small fishing village, quite a number of whom have the disease. For those who have not experienced it, watching the behaviour, the symptoms, a kind of physical jerkiness at times, some seeming lack of awareness of what is happening can be disturbing. In this village, the disease is not understood, people being very wary, misjudging the behaviour of those who have inherited HD.

Sabine notes that the ways of Vatican bureaucracy are slow-moving but he perseveres in writing to the officials for an audience with the Pope. And, after some months, there is an agreement, not just for a private audience but for a large gathering, Pope Francis to speak, to welcome the visitors, to meet and embrace many of them. And, so, we accompany a young boy who has been shunned by the village, bullied at school because of his family, and a 15-year-old girl from Argentina. (And there is some delight when the boy is presented with a football and a jersey by a celebrated player and Axel arrives to play a song for the girl delighted and awestruck.)

The group is sponsored by an Italian doctor, member of the Italian Senate, who brings a delegation to a session in the Senate. She also introduces the group to the Pope and there are quite a number of doctors and specialists in the papal audience.

And, to the delight of the organisers, Pope Francis actually says out loud the HD slogan, Hidden No More, in English, Italian, Spanish. No wonder, the group danced in the Vatican.

Social groups, parish groups, school classes, all could, within a short space of time, be emotionally involved leading to greater understanding and appreciation of Huntington’s Disease, the burden of those who have inherited it, the day by day challenges their carers.