THE WOMAN WHO RAN

2020, 77 minutes, Colour.
Kim Minhee.
Directed by Hong Sangsoo.

Director Hong Sangsoo has won many awards. His films are described as minimalist. He made such films as Woman is the Future of Man (2004).

There is minimalist plot here but some complexities in the characters and their encounters.

A middle-aged divorcee is seen tending her garden, a friend who is doing a job interview visiting, then the central character who has a long conversation (comparatively speaking for a short film) with the gardening woman. They have known each other in the past and the conversation leads to reminiscences, especially about the visiting woman’s husband, they never having been apart for five years but his having gone on a business trip.

The second part is another conversation with the visiting woman, further discussions about the past, and the visit of a man who is rejected and labelled as a stalker.

Then there is a third conversation, the visiting woman clashing with the woman she is visiting in her office, and again, suggestions made about relationships in the past. The visiting woman goes to watch a film in the complex, comes out for a cup of something, encounters the husband of the woman she has visited, who specialises in symbolic performances, and then goes back in to watch the film again – scenes of the ocean.

In one sense straightforward with the conversations. In other senses, rather complex with the underlying issues of the women and their conversations.


1. A Korean story? Korean sensibilities? The work of the director, his interest in characters, interactions, women and communication?

2. Locations, the garden, the house and interiors, apartments, the streets, the office, cafe, the cinema? The atmosphere? The musical score?

3. The garden, the elderly lady, neat, her visitor going for the interview, the woman of the title arriving, their talk, friendship, discussion about marriage, five years, never away from her husband until now, the nature of the visit, her cutting her hair, the chatting?

4. The man in the film, their intrusion, the stalker, the director and the past with the woman of the title?

5. The second woman, the conversation, indications of the past, men? The tensions? The arrival of the man and the accusation of his being a stalker?

6. The third woman in the office, her job, being friendly, the rising tensions, husbands, intimations of the past? The woman at the title going into the movie, the images of the sea, her return, meeting the director, the past with him? His attitude? Her returning to see the film, and the image of the sea?

MINYAN

US, 2020, 118 minutes, Colour.
Samuel H. Levine, Ron Rifkin, Christopher Mc Cann, Mark Margolis, Zane Pais, Brooke Bloom, Alex Hurt, Richard Topol.
Directed by Eric Steel.

Minyan is a Hebrew word in the setting for this story is a New York Jewish community. There is a striking opening image as the members of the family are framed standing, praying together. The meaning of Minyan is that prayer in community binds people together, that community office the context of faith.

Israeli Director, Eric’s Steel, spent a great deal of time in the United States and so is able to bring the community to life. He also creates the atmosphere of the synagogue, of the religious schools with their students examining sacred texts and asking questions. By contrast, he also shows the central character, David (Samuel H.Levine) studying literature at a secular college, examining texts by James Baldwin.

David’s parents are originally from Russia. They live separately, his mother rather dominating, trained as a dentist but acting as a receptionist in doing dental work after hours. David is very close to his recently widowed grandfather (Ron Rifkin) and would like to move into his apartment. There is a background of difficulties in getting apartments in New York, a Rabbi having a mediating role in finding apartments for applicants, although the list is long.

In a subplot, David meets an elderly couple, the ill Itsak (Mark Margolis) and Herschel (Christopher Mc Cann), impoverished, in need of accommodation. He is kind and sympathetic to them both.

David is 17 (though looking older) mixes with a group of student-friends but has no girlfriend. The narrative then moves to some exploration of David’s homosexual orientation. He visits a gay bar, encounters an older man and goes to his apartment. He has begun sexual exploration before he truly understands himself.

The film serves rather as a glimpse of life rather than a detailed drama.

1. The title? The Hebrew meaning? Community, solidarity, Minyan as prayer and faith within the community? The opening image of the family together illustrating Minyan?

2. The New York story, Jewish story, homes and apartments, applications for apartments through the synagogue, the scenes in the synagogue, in the Hebrew school, and the secular high school, the clubs, gay clubs? The musical score, Jewish themes?

3. David’s story, teenager, the background in Russia, his parents, coming to New York? Going to the rabbinic school, questions, reading the text? Going to the secular school, the discussions about James Baldwin? His bond with his grandfather, the issue of the apartment, his wanting to move with his grandfather? His parents and their concern? The meeting with Itzak and Herschel? Friendship with them, Itzak’s health, Herschel’s poverty, the discussion with the rabbi about accommodation?

4. The discussions with his parents, his father’s career, his mother as a receptionist, her dental work, her domination of her son?

5. Issues of sexuality, no girls in David’s life, the friendship with the girl at school, liking her?

6. Going to the gay bars, the bartender reading James Baldwin? The meeting with the older man, the dance, drinking, going to the apartment, the sexual experiences, the
aftermath?


7. His grandfather and companion, the prospects for the future?

8. The atmosphere in New York City?

MY SALINGER YEAR

Canada, 2020, 101 minutes, Colour.
Margaret Qualley, Sigourney Weaver, Douglas Booth, Seana Kerslake, Jonathan Dubskyy, Colm Feore, Theodore Pelleriin.
Directed by Philippe Falardeau.

Most Americans may know the name, Salinger, the tradition of reading and studying J.G.Salinger’s famous novel Catcher in the Rye (and also Franny and Zoe). In the past he would have had a great following outside the United States but it is many decades since he published his novels and he has lived as something of a recluse. Which means that someone considering watching the film may well be puzzled by what a Salinger Year could possibly mean.

The setting is in fact the mid-90s, New York City. It is based on a book of reminiscences by Joanna Smith Rakoff, her Salinger year.

This is one of those films that may delight quite a wide audience, light in touch, serious implications. But it is also thinkable that audiences may dismiss it as too light, even trite. It is that kind of film for which there are two camps – which was rather evident in responses when it was the opening film for the Berlinale 2020.

Joanna is played by the up-and-coming actress, Margaret Qualley (who appeared in Once Upon a Time in Hollywood, Seberg, Native Son, Adam, and as Ann Reinking in Fosse/Verdon during 1919). At times, she speaks directly to the audience, a likeable presence.

She applies for a job at an agency, leaving her boyfriend in Berkeley, staying with friends in New York City, encountering a would-be rather socialist writer (Douglas Booth) and they move in together. She is not exactly equipped to do the job at the agency, even typing (the boss having a huge suspicion of computers and their temporary popularity).

Margaret Qualley doesn’t have the opportunity to dominate the film. That is left to Sigourney Weaver as Margaret, the longtime head of the agency with a strong reputation amongst authors, although it is clear that she operates from the head and is not empathetic to authors who operate from the heart. It is an impressive performance by Sigourney Weaver.

And Salinger? It emerges that he is one of the clients of the agency, phoning now and again, responding rather well to Joanna. But one of the main jobs in the office is to send out formula replies to Salinger fans that he does not respond to their letters. In the office, there is a whole lot of shredding going on, a vast amount of letters coming in addressed to the author. Part of Joanna’s Salinger year is her decision to answer some of the letters – half a dozen of the characters visualised, their stories, the motives for writing to Salinger. Joanna goes against policy and sometimes makes big mistakes.

However, this is the year that Salinger has decided to republish a piece from The New Yorker, engaging the agency, with Joanna able to persuade Margaret that she should go to Washington DC to oversee a meeting between Salinger and the intended publisher. Only glimpses of Salinger.

Towards the end of the film there are some emotional challenges, especially for Margaret and the suicide of a genial presence around the office, bi-polar, (Colm Feore). Margaret is touched by Joanna’s concern – and happy if Joanna were to continue working in the agency. But, Joanna has further ambitions, especially writing – including the story that is the basis of this film.

1. The title? The focus? J.D.Salinger and his career, his being a recluse? An event from the 1990s?

2. The story, based on personal experience?

3. New York City, the 1990s, streets and buildings, apartments, shops, the agency, restaurants? A visit to Washington DC, the concert hall, the restaurant? Workplaces? The musical score?

4. Joanna, Margaret Qualley’s presence and performance? Her talking to camera, telling her life story, the explanations? Have of the publisher Salinger, the surprise news, her friend giving her Karl’s letter? Salinger on the phone, calling her Susanna, liking her, talking with her?

5. Coming to New York, her ambitions, staying with friends, the interview for the job, the encounter with Margaret, her being hired?

6. The hopes, to be a writer? Yet her job description? The photos on the wall of the clients? Salinger, Margaret calling him Jerry? A job of writing the letters, so many coming in, the personal testimonies to his writing? His not wanting correspondence? The anonymous letters? The range of writers, their stories, the visuals, the young man and his identifying, the Vietnam veteran, principal, the mother with her daughter…? Joanna’s replies and personalised? Her imagining the characters? The importance of the encounter with the girl who was failing, the letter, good intentions, the girl coming to the office and confronting Joanna?

7. The meeting with Don, his shop, his friends, Joanna moving in with him, his character, writing, love for Joanna, calling her? His writing, listening to Joanna’s letters? The advice? The wedding his friends, not inviting Joanna? Her being hurt? Life in the apartment – no sink, washing up in the bath?

8. Margaret, Sigourney Weaver’s presence, her haughty manner, the interview, 1995 and no computers, her rules and regulations? The treatment of the other members of the staff? The staff, Pam, carrying out orders, Hugh and his being friendly, keeping the accounts, Max? The range of girls, the shredding of the Salinger letters? Expectations of Joanna, her not writing the letters?

9. Margaret, manuscript, heading the agency, her life story, selling articles to magazines, the agency, the discussion with the children’s author and her being hurt? Wanting advice from Joanna?

10. Daniel, kind, present in the office, Joanna passing the restaurant, his beckoning her in? His relationship with his wife? The discussion in the restaurant, Joanna’s opinion of the author, the author present? His suicide, bipolar? His wife? The effect on Margaret?

11. Margaret, reclusive, Joanna arriving, the gifts, the discussions, the embrace?

12. Don, the separation, Joanna telling him that she didn’t think of him while he was at the wedding? Karl, the visit to Washington, the music, continued friendship?

13. The visit to Washington, the publisher, his books and layouts, to boo graphical errors and correcting them, the meeting with Salinger?

14. The imaginative train sequence, the carriage with all the writers sitting in the seats? The dance sequence with Karl, with a variety of characters?

15. Joanna, her deciding to resign, her hopes, the final days in the office? The significance of the year in her life and career?

MINAMATA

US/Serbia, 2020, 115 minutes, Colour.
Johnny Depp, Bill Nighy, Hiroyuki Sanada, Minami.
Directed by Andrew Levitas.

A contribution to the increasing number of feature films (and, as always, impassioned documentaries) which highlight abuses by corporations and their contamination of environments. Even going back to the 1980s, there was Silkwood, later there was Erin Brockovich, John Travolta in A Civil Action, numerous television movies, especially as regards disasters in the United States, and, at the same time as this film, a very powerful and persuasive drama on a similar theme, Dark Waters.

This time the setting is Japan and a story from the 1970s. A true story.

We are introduced to celebrated World War II photographer, Eugene Smith, who Can Find his telling photographs to black and white. He is played with some passion by Johnny Depp. By the end of the 1960s, he was on hard times, divorced, alienated from his children, alcoholic. He was dependent on the editor of Life Magazine for financial support and commissions for photo stories. However, by this stage, Life Magazine was in decline with its subscriptions and loss of advertising revenue, to finish publication within a year, managed by its editor, played unexpectedly by Bill Nighy with an American accent.

Gene Smith is approached by Japanese campaigners to come to Japan and do a story on the contamination on a coastal town, the disaster for fishing, the quite serious ailments of many of the inhabitants. Rather desperate, and promising his best to the editor of Life Magazine, he goes to Japan.

As might be expected, the company leaders are initially welcoming him for interviews but then turning against him, even to his being physically assaulted, his hand stomped on, during the local protests. He has been offered a bribe – and wonders whether he should have accepted it to be able to support his children. Smith then is a mixture of depressed realist and heartfelt enthusiast.

However, he turns back to drink, disappoints his Japanese supporters, accessible rates his editor.

It may have been a moment of grace, but encountering some of the sick people, and despite his hand injury, he goes to the village and takes a number of photos which had a profound effect on the readers of Life Magazine – and on the corporate managers and their decisions. Challenged in public, they decide to offer compensation – but, not much not as much was done as promised (in this way, the film has great similarities with Dark Waters, even to the and needing of their commitment by DuPont? chemicals).

There is some aftermath information that Smith did not further his photography career but that he married Aileen, the campaigner who first asked him to take up the Japanese cause.

In comparison with some of the other films on similar themes, this one moves into high emotions as well as preaching and propaganda stances which audiences may interpret as trying to manipulate them rather than challenging them by the drama. To that extent, while the subject is worthy, some moments have less impact because of some rather heavy moralising.

A lot of emotion has been put into the film with Johnny Depp and Bill Nighy acting as producers.

1. The title? The area in Japan? The industrialisation? The mercury in the water? The effect on the population? The disease?

2. The film as a piece of history? Japan in the 1960s 1970s? The industrialisation, the poisoning of the community? Life Magazine, its last years, editorial policy? The story and expose?

3. The American settings, Gene Smith and his life and work, his alcoholism? Visits to Life Magazine, editorial, meetings, decisions? The Japanese settings, the village, the coast, the beauty, the highlighting of the industry, the huge buildings? Home life for the people? Illness? Disability? Protests? The company headquarters and board meetings? The musical score?

4. The film’s use of Eugene Smith’s film archive? His achievement? His memories of World War II? His black-and-white photography, no colour? His photos of Japan, the range of photos, their being destroyed, the protest, his injuries? The appeal to the people? His final photos? Sending them to Bob? The keynote photo of the young woman in the bath with her mother? The details of the photos? Their effect?

5. Johnny Depp as the producer of the film, Bill Nighy, the situation in Japan, the appeal for him to come to photograph? The appeal to Bob, Bob commissioning him – but with grave doubts?

6. Gene in Japan, the relationship with Aileen (and the final information of their marriage)? His moving among the people, the enthusiastic leader of the people, explaining situations, Gene and the range of photographs? His visit to the head of the company, the offer of the bribe? (And his later explaining this to the Bob, that he should have taken the money, for his children?). The demonstrations, and the board meeting, his trying to take the photos, the crowds, the placards, the heart, the feelings, the shouting, the smoke, the attack on him, his being trampled, his face, his eye, the stomping on his hand? In hospital? Aileen’s visit?

7. His drinking, retiring, phoning Bob in the night, Bob’s disappointment, Life Magazine and its viability, his wanting the photos and the story?

8. Gene and his making the speech, translation, the people allow him to photograph? His going to the homes, the intimacy of the photos, the key photo and the emaciated body, the bath, the mother? The other photos? In black-and-white? Stark and challenging?

9. His sending them to Bob? In Life Magazine? Bob satisfied? Moved and tears?

10. The president of the company, his ignoring the risks, the discussion with Gene and the point of microscopic contamination not affecting the people, his associates, offering the bribe, the meeting of the shareholders, the demonstrations? His listening to the stories, the emotional plea? The discussion with the members of the board, the agreement for the payment? Then saying it was not possible? The impact of Life Magazine and the photos? His change of heart? Agreeing to pay?

11. The appeal of this kind of film in the 21st-century? Conservation? Industry? Unscrupulous behaviour of companies? The effect on people, their lives and health? Compensation? A call for justice?

HAP/ HOPE

Norway/Sweden, 2019, 126 minutes, Colour.
Andrea Braein Hovig, Stellan Skarsgaard.
Directed by Maria Sodahl.

The action of this film, hopefully titled Hope, takes place from Christmas Eve to New Year’s Day.

We are introduced to Anja, a talented theatre director, who returns home to her family, to her partner and their children. While there is obviously some tension between the couple, there is great joy in her return to her children.

However, despite the title, it is very quickly revealed that Anja has been diagnosed with cancer. So, this theme pervades the time of celebration, gives much edge to it, and challenges the couple to re-examine the relationship.

With the festive celebrations, many guests are invited for Christmas dinner which puts a strain on Anja. Then there is the announcement about the diagnosis, the reactions of the children, the mixed reaction of Tomas (who tries to be cheerful in offering Anja an overseas trip, something of a pipedream).

Anja celebrates her birthday on New Year’s Eve so there is a mixture of joy and pathos as she faces the coming year. However, she is able to confide in a good friend, Vera.

There is a further complication which rouses audience interest and feelings, the fact that the couple have never been married. Tomas suggests that they do have a wedding ceremony, Anja initially hesitant and wondering, and the decision made so that the partnership might be strengthened, especially in this dire cancer time.

Since the action takes place over the one-week, the audience is invited, especially in the close ups at the end, to reflect on what the coming weeks and months will mean to Anja and Tomas, and how Anja physically and emotionally. That seems to be something of the meaning of the title.

The publicity notes indicate that the story is based on the experience of the director, Maria Sodahl. It is an expertly dramatised in the writing and also in the performances by Andrea Braein Hovig and Stellan Skarsgaard as Tomas and Anja.


1. A true story, the experience of the director? The professional woman, the family and relationships, the issue of cancer?

2. The Norwegian settings, theatre, home, hospitals, doctors’ offices?

3. The action taking place over one week, the significant days, Christmas Eve, Christmas Day, New Year’s Eve, the birthday?

4. The cancer theme, illness, diagnosis, the range of options, surgery, terminal illness?

5. The significance of the doctors, the details of their explanations? The effect on Anja, for better audience understanding?

6. The effect of the patient, her uncertainty, fear, pain?

7. The effect on the family, her confiding in the family, their having to cope, telling her husband, his being able to accept the situation and not, his awkwardness, the Christmas dinner, the offer of the gift of the trip, lacking sensitivity? The range of guests and the strain on the patient? Her daughter, close, sharing with her? The younger children?

8. The relationship, the couple not married, their experience of the week, the theatre and the applause, coming home, reuniting with the children, the young and their playfulness, her husband and his getting the older children to supervise the younger, his preoccupation with his work?

9. Discovering the illness, recognise it, the doctor’s the prospects?

10. Christmas dinner, the scenes of play, the father and the children climbing on him, everybody else, the collapse and jollity? The unreality of the illness pervading the week? The buildup to the patient’s birthday, her becoming weaker, discussions about possible surgery and consequences?

11. Tomas, his coping or not, the tensions, the many years together, not married, the suggestion about the marriage, the proposal, her finally agreeing, the hesitancy, Vera and the
selection of the dress, the preparations? Fixing the past?

12. Vera, friend, sympathetic character?

13. The New Year, Anja and her focus, life and death, the final close-ups?

IRRADIES

France, 2020, 88 minutes, Colour.
Directed by Rithy Panh.

The director of this film comes from Cambodia and has made films there. He also has the collaboration of French actors who serve as narrators. The focus is especially on Asia and on Japan which gave support to this project.

The intention of the film is to reflect on war and its consequences, the effect on human beings, suffering, illness, death. The intention is to have audiences alert, even shocked, invited to meditate, encouraging their sense of hope – or reinforce a sense of despair.

The film is really a cinema essay, lasting almost 90 minutes which require some attention from the audience, something of an endurance. It chooses and highlight the themes of violence, war, the effect on people, man’s inhumanity to man. The audience is invited to observe, share the perspective of the filmmakers, empathise with the victims, share the pain of torture and death. And there is constant emphasis on weapons and their power for destruction, especially nuclear weapons, the focus on Hiroshima principally as well as on Nagasaki. Visuals of the atomic bomb and its aftermath?

Because it is a cinema poem, with commentary, it is a series of selected images, edited for pace and effect, thematic links, interrupted, recurring? And, at times, the film goes cosmic in its images.

So, memories of war, Europe in World War II, the concentration camps, memories of Vietnam, the Khmer Rouge in Cambodia, the focus of the atomic bomb and Japan’s surrender. This is a film and a cinema poem and essay of revelation and contemplation.

HIGH GROUND

Australia, 2020, 110 minutes, Colour.
Jacob Junior Nayinggui, Sean Mununggur, Guruwuk Munungurr, Simon Baker, Jack Thompson, Callum Mulvey, Karen Pistorius, Ryan Corr, Aaron Pedersen, David Field, John Brumpton.
Directed by Stephen Maxwell Johnson.


A number of years ago, 2001, director Stephen Maxwell Johnson made a film with an aboriginal theme, Yolngu Boy. High Ground or ambitious film. It continues the challenge, dramatised in a number of films, especially Sweet Country, for honestly examining the life of the indigenous people of Australia after 1788, acknowledging the oppression, the massacres, the exploitation.

The first part of this film is set in 1919, the aftermath of World War I, where aboriginal soldiers served. The action, however, is in Arnhem Land, and the scenery of Arnhem Land is sweepingly beautiful, along with the flora and fauna, many birds, reminding audiences of the links between the aborigines and the land, the various totems.

We are introduced to a group of aboriginal people, rituals, paint and dancing, preparations and execution of the hunt. However, we are also introduced to white trackers who are pursuing the group. With the attack, a number of the pursuers are speared, many of the aborigines are shot – and a young boy, nephew of the leader, is cared for by the women and hidden under water with a reed for him to breathe.

One of the pursuers is Travis, played by Simon Baker, a crack sniper from the war who has an overview of the attack but is not immediate party to the killings. In fact, he rescues the boy from the water and takes him back to the local mission where he is cared for by the pastor and his sister (Ryan Corr and Karen Pistorius), the pastor invited to come with the attacking party and dismayed by the events. The massacre is covered up by the authorities.

The transition in the narrative moves to 1931. The mission continues. The young boy has grown up and is now called Tommy (Jacob Junior Nayinggui). It seems inevitable that he will be caught up in further tracking and police action.

The white group, presided over by the chief, Moran, played by Jack Thompson, is led by a man, consumed with anger, some guilt, racist, who participated in the 1919 attack, Eddy (Callan Mulvey). Also present is Moran’s brash and inexperienced nephew. News has come that there has been at attack by an aboriginal gang and a white woman has been killed. Travis is also present.

There are quite some emotional complexities amongst the white people. Tommy is to go with Travis and to find the group and help call some kind of meeting for justice if not for reconciliation. Tommy is using Travis. Travis is using Tommy for bait. There is some bonding between the two but Travis is taken prisoner, the grandfather and some of the warriors come to the mission and a meeting is held – ultimately to little avail.

Once again, there is confrontation, spears and bullets, many deaths.

The effect of this dramatising of the conflicts between white and black, the experiences of injustice, harshness of racism and vengeance, continue to be a challenge for a contemporary audience – and an invitation to honesty, retrospective acceptance of the facts of racism and violence.

1. Australian history? Aborigines? The long time in the land, belonging to the land? The later settlers, racial tensions? The role of the authorities and law?

2. A fictional story – based on many realities? The impact for aborigines, for the wider Australian audience, overseas audiences?

3. 1919 and 1931, racial attitudes, the immediate post-war time, the beginning of the 1930s? Life in Arnhem Land? Tribal? The role of the police, the settlers? The role of the Church? Aboriginal chants? The musical score?

4. The visual impact, the beauty and range of Arnhem Land scenery, the animals and birds, reminders of aboriginal symbols and totems?

5. The opening, the aborigines, painting, sense of community, celebration, dance, young and old, the hunt, the boy mistaking hitting the wallaby, but his being consoled? The uncle, his leadership, skills? The nephew, young, his being encouraged by his uncle?

6. The police, their motivations, pursuits, prejudice, racial attitudes, hostility? The confrontation with the aborigines, the battle?

7. Travis, his experience of the war, sniper? Eddy, severe, prejudices? The other members of the trip? The shooting of the aborigines, impersonal and callous, the shootings, deaths by spear? Travis and his reaction?

8. The boy, the women helping him, underwater with the reed? Travis rescuing him, taking him to the mission? Travis and his sympathy for the aborigines? The effect of the massacre, aboriginal memories, the pastor of the church present and dismayed, the police chief and his attitude, the cover-up?

9. Church, Braddock and his sermon, his service of the people? Claire, his sister, helping him? The aboriginal women in the dresses? The young boy becoming Tommy and his work at the mission, the details of life at the mission? Claire becoming a substitute mother for Tommy?

10. News of the aboriginal raids, the killing a white woman, the aboriginal gang, Baywara and his leadership, the woman warrior, the old grandfather and his attitude? Moran, coming to the mission, the plan for an expedition against the aborigines, meeting Tommy, bringing his nephew with him?

11. The attitudes of the men, Moran, the king, the laws, his loyalty, Justice? Eddy, his racism and vengeance from the past? Moran’s
nephew and his attitudes, brash young man? Wanting to recruit Tommy?

12. The old man, the leadership of the group, the gathering, Tommy going out, Travis with him, leading the group in, Moran presiding, the case of the hearing? The disagreement about law and interpretation?

13. The group, gathering, their life, the swimming?

14. Tommy and his using Travis as bait? Travis wanting to use Tommy? The journey together, their being observed? The bond between the two?

15. The being caught, the aboriginal leaders, Tommy and his role, identifying with the group, painting himself, clothes? Sharing in the plans and the attack? Travis as prisoner? The return?

16. The incident of the settlers, raping the woman, her bashing them to death?

17. The case collapsing, the battle once again between black and white, Travis and his being wounded? Tommy joining in the action?

18. The buildup to the confrontation, Eddy and his role, Moran being shot, Eddy trying to kill Tommy and Travis taking the shot and
dying?

19. While the scenery is beautiful and the symbolism important, this is a sad, even tragic, reminder of the plight of the aborigines, the incursions of the whites, deaths and resentments. The need for reconciliation and healing?

HIDDEN AWAY/ VOLEVO NASCONDERMI

Already in 1978, Italian television RAI had produced a docudrama on the life and work of the Italian artist of the early 20th century, Antonio Ligabue.

RAI has now collaborated with this feature biography of the artist, a strange man with an unusual talent, recognised in his own time and a celebrity in later times.

At first glance, and afterwards, Ligabue seems an unlikely artist and celebrity. In early years he lived in Switzerland, in difficult conditions, harshly dealt with by authorities and family. He grows up somewhat disfigured, especially in his face, and with mental limitations. He spends some time being interrogated and in institutions.

On his return to Italy, he lives on the fringes but eventually does some sketches, moulds some clay into toys, is befriended by some children, rescued by a sculptor who makes gravestones and cared for by his mother.

Surprisingly, from an outside point of view, Ligabue becomes more and more accepted, with his sketches, with the clay toys, with his beginning to paint, simple pictures, more elaborate pictures, murals…

And there is wide interest, buyers and investors – with the result that he becomes much more accepted in his town, has money and is able to indulge a desire for motor bikes, eventually cars with chauffeurs. He becomes a celebrity, very conscious that he is an artist.

Which means that this film is an exploration, portrait and tribute.

1. The life of the artist? Reputation in Italy? Outside Italy?

2. The recreation of the period, 1920s and 1930s? Migrant life in Switzerland? The contrast with Italy, the North, the village, living in poverty, the establishment? The musical score?

3. Anton, Italian child in Switzerland, his appearance, being bullied, in the bag, the role of his parents? Going into the water? The effect on him psychologically? His physical growth? His face, teeth? His behaviour? His time in institutions, being interviewed, the treatment?

4. Going to Italy, his being looked down on, the lonely life? The sculptor and his friendship? Working with gravestones? His mother, care and concern? Seeing something in his potential?

5. The young man and his art, the sketches, his moulds, the toys, the response of the children and their parents, the little girl who was considerate, the impact of her death? His pain?

6. Finding an audience, their puzzling, his range of work, the range of moulds, animals and creativity, his being upset, throwing them into the river? His beginning to paint, the initial paintings, carrying them around the town, selling them in the street?

7. The recognition, the increased range of paintings, the establishment, the increasing number of buyers? Painting frescoes on the wall, painting over them?

8. His liking his reputation as an artist, changing him, his personality and style? Winning the medal?

9. The range of friends, the locals, in the bars, at the funeral company, his driver?

10. His interest in motorbikes, righting? Buying them?

11. The transition to cars, his style, pride in the cars? The friendship with the drivers?

12. His reputation in his lifetime, afterwards?

13. The film as a portrait and as a tribute?

FIRST COW

US, 2000, 121 minutes, Colour.
John Magaro, Orion Lee, Toby Jones, Ewan Bremner, Scott Shepherd, Gary Farmer, Lily Gladstone, Alia Shawkat, René Auberjonois.
Directed by Kelly Reichardt.

Certainly a striking title – and, perhaps, one that would not entice audiences into the cinema.

Kelly Reichardt has been making arresting independent films, small budget, since the early 2000s, Wendy and Lucy, Night Moves with its environmental campaign theme. She has also been into the American West, with the pioneers to Oregon, in her award-winning Meek’s Cut-off. Most of her films have featured women in central roles. This time, not.

But, again, it is a view of the American West, of pioneers and settlers. The setting is Oregon.

However, the film opens in the 21st-century, a young woman beside a river, huge ships passing by, her fossicking in the land with her dog and the discovery of two skeletons.

The film does not have 21st-century investigation but, rather, goes back to the 19th century in flashback. There are two men involved in this tale. The first introduced is Cookie, John Magaro, coming from Boston but moving west, on the hunt for meagre local food for an expedition. But what he does find hiding in the forest is a naked Chinese man, King Liu (Orion Lee). Cookie feeds him and King goes his own way.

Cookie returns to the camp and the arguments among the members of the expedition are reminders of the rugged life in the American West in those times.

However, the main action concerns life in the outpost town, Cookie and his survival and work, encountering King who has his own hut. The two become friends.

And, by this time, audiences may be wondering about not only the first cow any other cow. There has been a glimpse but then the cow disappeared. However, she is the property of an official, an Englishman, whose house and lifestyle is very much in the English manner. He is waiting for an opportunity for a bull to arrive.

Not so much drama for a catchy synopsis, but Cookie decides that he could make some scones if he had some milk. The result, he takes his stool to the owner’s property, milks the cow while King climbs up a tree as lookout. The scones are an immediate success, the men lining up to buy them, tasting them on the spot and eager for more. So, more are provided, more milk being taken from the cow – and we realise afterwards that the owner just assumed that she did not have much milk.

So entranced is he with scones and biscuits that he commissions a cake to be made for the arrival of a visiting ship’s captain. Great success with the cake.

However, there is retribution in every story and, of course, the milk stealers are discovered, chased by the owners personal militia as well as the ship’s captain.

And so, it is for the audience to wonder about what will happen to Cookie and King – because most of us know in our heart of hearts that they are the men who will become the two skeletons found at the opening of the film.

The two central characters are well acted and are engaging – and, as with the title, the film and its narrative are more than a little offbeat.

1. The director and her work, independent films, difficult stories, the American West?

2. Oregon, 21st-century opening, the field, the water and the large boats, the dog and finding the skeletons?

3. The transition to the 19th century, the expedition, Cookie and his story, background in Boston, collecting the mushrooms, looking for food, the camp, the men and their quarrels, hunger?

4. Finding King Lu, naked, Chinese, hiding, the background of the killing? His hunger, talking with Cookie, Cookie saving him?

5. The end of the expedition, Cookie and his staying at the outpost?

6. Encountering King again, the friendship, King’s hut, going to live there, companions, plans, business sense?

7. Life in the town, the range of character, the old man at his hut? The authorities, the mansion, the staff, the military? The British style?

8. The cow arriving, the story? By itself? In the field?

9. Cookie’s idea, looking the cow, King being the lookout in the tree, making the scones and cakes? Selling them? The popularity, the queues, the government, his liking the cakes? The captain coming, booking the cake? The blueberries?

10. The visit, the mansion, the Indian and his wife and their role in the house, the head’s wife, the captain and his arrival, the discussions, the cake, talking about the cow?

11. The couple being caught, leaving the stool, the captain and his pursuit, the military assistance, relentless? King going into the river? Cookie hiding, falling and hitting his head,
cared for by the Indian couple?

12. The search continuing, the ransacking of their hut?

13. Each of them returning, their stories, decision to go south?

14. Their being weary, Cookie and his head, their lying down for a rest – in the same positions as the initial skeletons?

15. An offbeat story of pioneers and pioneering in the 19th century American West, Oregon?

DELETE HISTORY

France, 2020, France, 2020, 108 minutes, Colour.
Blanche Gardin, Dennis Podalydes, Corinne Maeiro, Vincent Lacoste.
Directed by Benoit Delepine, Gustave Kervero.

This is a French satire on contemporary technology, how it is consumed, how it consumes everyone. It is a French comedy – and its style is directed towards a French audience and its sense of humour. For many it was a laugh out loud. For those who do not have a French sensitivity, it does not seem so funny in the hilarious sense but rather in the sense of its jokes about technology, its parody of human behaviour, some stand-up comic moments.

The film focuses on three central characters and their misadventures.

First is Marie, with a teenage son, trying to sell goods online but failing. She is also prone to pratfalls and mishaps. She also drinks. She encounters a young man in a bar who seems to know something about her, goes home with him and, when he turns up again, and she not remembering anything, he tells her he has a compromising sexual video and asks for €10,000 in blackmail. She tries various ways to find ways of recovering the video or, at least, of deleting it. She goes to several companies but fails. Eventually, she travels to the United States to central holding companies of videos. She is treated well by an executive – but he also makes sex videos and compromises her. She retreats angrily and finally decides that it is not worth the trouble, especially after she has the opportunity to warn her son against looking at the Internet.

Marie is friendly with Bertrand, recently widowed, concerned about his daughter. He becomes the target of a phone voice, Miranda from Mauritius, who tries to persuade him to purchase goods online. He falls in love with the voice, sexual behaviour, and finally decides to fly to Mauritius to find her. He has pretended to fly to Ireland to solve some of his other problems. When in Mauritius, he shocked to find that Miranda is merely a machine, recorded insinuating voice.

Thirdly, there is Christine, who belongs to a company supplying drivers. She is friendly with both Marie and Bertrand. She is also addicted to television series and there are some funny lines about this, audiences perhaps recognising that they too are somewhat addicted. She is also disappointed with some of her clients who do not give her star ratings at the company. She is determined to find an agency which will add stars – and, there is a funny joke, where she contacted a company in India and the camera draws back to show hundreds of people at computers adding stars to driver reports.

The three get some advice and go to a hacker who has his office in a wind machine and who calls himself God. He does his best – but finds that God is not in control of quite a number of aspects of the cyber world.

The actors are persuasive in their roles. While there is a narrative, it is rather the individual gags, something like stand-up comedy, which work the best.